If you google
this uniquely identifies an article I wrote back in in 2010, the year when I discovered that I have to go in a new direction (for me).
[UPDATE: no longer true, Google adapted and now it points to a number of my pages where there is none of the words searched…]
There are two different ideas in that article:
- the hypothesis that (Nature/ brains) use the same mechanism for (building/understanding) space. In today words: space (is/can be understood as) a semantic (i.e. a decoration by local rules ) of a graph rewrite automaton. Nature runs the automaton probably by sampling from hamiltonian evolution (which does not compute) perturbed by dissipation (and the computer is in the information of the gap from hamiltonian evolution). Brains and more basically living cells run by chemistry, a toy model of the computation model is chemlambda. Those mechanisms are the same, the computer is in the information gap.
- the second idea is that as concerns brains, biological vision definitely is the creation of a geometry engine, as Koenderink write, but more specifically because there should be some universal form of computation which comes from the (formalization of) exploration of space via multiple drafts or maps. There’s where emergent algebras come into play, but this part is not yet completely clear, because until now I am not sure in all details that I succeded to prove that emergent algebras are universal, either in sense of Turing or Lafont.
That and the collapsing of the wave function is an orwellian theory and the minimal action principle is stalinesque, if we apply to physics the classification of Dennett of theories of biological vision.
Somewhere in the text you’ll find as well “her exploratory cries”. And a mutant army of bats 🙂