Nature had chosen the messiness of life over the austerity of logic, a choice Pitts likely could not comprehend.
Regarding "Nature had chosen ...", I wonder if this was actually how Pitts saw it (he seemed more clever than that), or whether it is the article's author's misconception that he considered there is in fact something in Nature that "chooses", instead of applying mechanistic rules entirely.
It is as if the part of the story about the frogs is meant to show that Nature has a "spirit" after all, that evaded being captured in logic. I can't really fathom why Pitts, after all his history, would come to that conclusion. Just because the retina turned out to possess a certain amount of analog computing power?
Comments
Regarding "Nature had chosen ...", I wonder if this was actually how Pitts saw it (he seemed more clever than that), or whether it is the article's author's misconception that he considered there is in fact something in Nature that "chooses", instead of applying mechanistic rules entirely.
It is as if the part of the story about the frogs is meant to show that Nature has a "spirit" after all, that evaded being captured in logic. I can't really fathom why Pitts, after all his history, would come to that conclusion. Just because the retina turned out to possess a certain amount of analog computing power?