f



A Purely-Electronic Brain -- Possible?

Hi:

Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?

If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?


Thanks,

Radium

0
4/17/2007 1:17:00 AM
comp.ai.neural-nets 5773 articles. 2 followers. tomhoo (63) is leader. Post Follow

138 Replies
1423 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 18

"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176772620.851373.24250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
> 
> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?

1.  I don't think that anyone has even the vaguest clue.

2.  It's not even known whether the brain's only signaling
     method is via electrochemical ionic means.

> 
> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?

Could a square circle fly?  You're asking about the properties
of something that, as of yet, is purely imaginary.

-- Bob Day

0
Bob
4/17/2007 2:18:11 AM
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:18:11 GMT, "Bob Day" <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.com> wrote:

>
>"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176772620.851373.24250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi:
>> 
>> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
>> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
>> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
>1.  I don't think that anyone has even the vaguest clue.
>
>2.  It's not even known whether the brain's only signaling
>     method is via electrochemical ionic means.
>
>> 
>> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
>> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>
>Could a square circle fly?  You're asking about the properties
>of something that, as of yet, is purely imaginary.
>

Actually it is quite well known that the brain's only signaling method
is most definitely not electrochemical ionic.  The molecular and
cellular biology of events at the synapse are quite critical as is the
whole activity of the cell in gene expression, protein synthesis and
degradation, up and down regulation of all the machinery involved and
on and on and on.   A computer replication of electrical signals is
but a very remote cartoon model of real nerve activity.




0
r
4/17/2007 2:24:13 AM
Radium wrote:

> Hi:
> 
> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
> 
> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Radium
> 
Someone said "If you can imagine it, you can create it" (Don't remember who)

We (current technology) do not have the imagination yet.

And we will not, is our life time.

donald
0
Donald
4/17/2007 2:30:16 AM
On Apr 16, 7:24 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:

> Actually it is quite well known that the brain's only signaling method
> is most definitely not electrochemical ionic.

True. Many proteins are involved.

> The molecular and
> cellular biology of events at the synapse are quite critical as is the
> whole activity of the cell in gene expression, protein synthesis and
> degradation, up and down regulation of all the machinery involved and
> on and on and on.

Much of the transmission, reception, processing, recording, playback
of neural signals take place in the form of different types proteins
and difference concentration and whose concentrations change in rate
and extent. It is common for the neural "signals" to consist of such
protein chemical reactions. This is mostly non-electric.

> A computer replication of electrical signals is
> but a very remote cartoon model of real nerve activity.

But couldn't the electrical equivalents of those neurobiological
events be designed?

0
Radium
4/17/2007 4:25:28 AM
"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1176772620.851373.24250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
| Hi:
|
| Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
| exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
| signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
| [...]

Yes, but radically-non-standard
programming methods are nec-
essary.

Radically-non-standard 'electron-
ics' are necessary if you want to
do it fast.

I'd explain, but it's no-longer 'ap-
propriate' for me to do so here.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/17/2007 4:26:21 AM
"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:8nb8231dljeph4q2bbv07kbe09lr3q2g0n@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:18:11 GMT, "Bob Day" <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>news:1176772620.851373.24250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
>>> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
>>> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>>
>>1.  I don't think that anyone has even the vaguest clue.
>>
>>2.  It's not even known whether the brain's only signaling
>>     method is via electrochemical ionic means.
>>
>>>
>>> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
>>> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>>
>>Could a square circle fly?  You're asking about the properties
>>of something that, as of yet, is purely imaginary.
>>
>
> Actually it is quite well known that the brain's only signaling method
> is most definitely not electrochemical ionic.  The molecular and
> cellular biology of events at the synapse are quite critical as is the
> whole activity of the cell in gene expression, protein synthesis and
> degradation, up and down regulation of all the machinery involved and
> on and on and on.   A computer replication of electrical signals is
> but a very remote cartoon model of real nerve activity.
>

Congratulations for having just written something quite EPT. :-)

P 


0
Entertained
4/17/2007 4:31:07 AM
On 16 Apr 2007 18:17:00 -0700, Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi:
>
>Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
>exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
>signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?


Your daydreams are off-topic in some groups posted, please
limit them to the appropriate groups.  Thanks.

To those who aren't yet aware of Radium's posting style, it
is a bit more like a kid with a simple idea that is just
expanded on in daydream fashion without any attempt to focus
on the minor details which are often show-stoppers.  Such a
basic consideration of requirments would be the norm for
most people but Radium is not developing the ideas to a
reasonable extent before throwing them out there for the
public to debunkify... which wastes everyone's time in the
end.
0
kony
4/17/2007 8:07:33 AM
On 16 Apr 2007 21:25:28 -0700, Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 16, 7:24 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Actually it is quite well known that the brain's only signaling method
>> is most definitely not electrochemical ionic.
>
>True. Many proteins are involved.
>
>> The molecular and
>> cellular biology of events at the synapse are quite critical as is the
>> whole activity of the cell in gene expression, protein synthesis and
>> degradation, up and down regulation of all the machinery involved and
>> on and on and on.
>
>Much of the transmission, reception, processing, recording, playback
>of neural signals take place in the form of different types proteins
>and difference concentration and whose concentrations change in rate
>and extent. It is common for the neural "signals" to consist of such
>protein chemical reactions. This is mostly non-electric.
>
>> A computer replication of electrical signals is
>> but a very remote cartoon model of real nerve activity.
>
>But couldn't the electrical equivalents of those neurobiological
>events be designed?

Schrodinger's equation (or whatever the appropriate physics might be)
can be set up with suitable boundary conditions to compute anything
and everything that happens in the universe.  The status of such a
"simulation" is more properly a subject for late night bull sessions
in a college dorm.  Creating an "a purely electronic brain", as in the
subject line, is at this time just as silly a notion.

The AI people predicted computer speech recognition decades ago.  The
predictions about artificial brains are not nearly as accurate.


0
r
4/17/2007 11:57:54 AM
Go away from Me.

I don't know anything anymore.

Not possible man?

no way - Hippo Breathe.

"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176772620.851373.24250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
>


0
The
4/17/2007 12:33:38 PM
Radium wrote:
> 
> But couldn't the electrical equivalents of those neurobiological
> events be designed?

In principle - maybe.
Reality is different thing: more we know, more obstacles we encounter.
Say, when an electron jumps from a neurotransmitter to a receptor or 
vice versa, it's a quantum effect. And it's influenced by brain's own EM 
field. Once you start thinking EM field, you get to the points where 
zeno effect bites you, or say ionic structures form quantum neural 
networks; so to do that properly, you'd need a quantum computer size of 
a brain, in order to calculate FFT in planck time IOW in no time:)
Don't take this too seriously nor too precise; but the answer is simple 
- only hardware that can emulate a brain is a brain.

BTW Radius I see you got a number of interesting and precise answers on 
various groups. Good thing with your crossposting is that you got rare 
interdisciplinary view on the topic.
Would you care to make a compilation of answers and put it on a web page?

Regards...
0
Josip
4/17/2007 1:11:12 PM
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:11:12 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe@vrspace.org>
wrote:

>Radium wrote:
>> 
>> But couldn't the electrical equivalents of those neurobiological
>> events be designed?
>
>In principle - maybe.
>Reality is different thing: more we know, more obstacles we encounter.
>Say, when an electron jumps from a neurotransmitter to a receptor or 
>vice versa, it's a quantum effect. And it's influenced by brain's own EM 
>field. Once you start thinking EM field, you get to the points where 
>zeno effect bites you, or say ionic structures form quantum neural 
>networks; so to do that properly, you'd need a quantum computer size of 
>a brain, in order to calculate FFT in planck time IOW in no time:)
>Don't take this too seriously nor too precise; but the answer is simple 
>- only hardware that can emulate a brain is a brain.
>
>BTW Radius I see you got a number of interesting and precise answers on 
>various groups. Good thing with your crossposting is that you got rare 
>interdisciplinary view on the topic.
>Would you care to make a compilation of answers and put it on a web page?
>
>Regards...

Unfortunately, this particular view of how biological machinery works
won't get too far on bionet.neuroscience which is supposed to be
restricted to actual science.


0
r
4/17/2007 2:15:00 PM
"Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message 
news:f02gva$qlk$1@news1.xnet.hr...
> Radium wrote:
>>
>> But couldn't the electrical equivalents of those neurobiological
>> events be designed?
>
> In principle - maybe.
> Reality is different thing: more we know, more obstacles we encounter.
> Say, when an electron jumps from a neurotransmitter to a receptor or vice 
> versa, it's a quantum effect. And it's influenced by brain's own EM field. 
> Once you start thinking EM field, you get to the points where zeno effect 
> bites you, or say ionic structures form quantum neural networks; so to do 
> that properly, you'd need a quantum computer size of a brain, in order to 
> calculate FFT in planck time IOW in no time:)
> Don't take this too seriously nor too precise; but the answer is simple - 
> only hardware that can emulate a brain is a brain.

The position of opinion expressed by Josip Almasi is EPT-aligned.

Hence it is also science-aligned, and something that I have no qualms 
accepting as a predigested and pure enough reflection of by the process of 
Science (as most broadly and completely defined) securely established 
principles, theories, insights, correlations (and etcetera suchlike 
'informational matter').

Accordingly I also regard what J. Almasi wrote as a pleasant whiff (or 
sample) from an unofficial "S_EPT_IC think tank".

IOW:
I agree, and feel good to do so. %-} 


0
Entertained
4/17/2007 3:14:19 PM
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:25:28 -0700, Radium wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:24 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Actually it is quite well known that the brain's only signaling method
>> is most definitely not electrochemical ionic.
> 
> True. Many proteins are involved.
> 
>> The molecular and
>> cellular biology of events at the synapse are quite critical as is the
>> whole activity of the cell in gene expression, protein synthesis and
>> degradation, up and down regulation of all the machinery involved and
>> on and on and on.
> 
> Much of the transmission, reception, processing, recording, playback
> of neural signals take place in the form of different types proteins
> and difference concentration and whose concentrations change in rate
> and extent. It is common for the neural "signals" to consist of such
> protein chemical reactions. This is mostly non-electric.
> 
>> A computer replication of electrical signals is
>> but a very remote cartoon model of real nerve activity.
> 
> But couldn't the electrical equivalents of those neurobiological
> events be designed?

It's cheaper to just use a real brain.

Cheers!
Rich

0
Rich
4/17/2007 4:01:53 PM
John H. wrote:
> There are a number of books out there saying this will be possible in our
> lifetime. Typically written by AI people but I think the whole shebang got a
> big kickalong with the author William Gibson many years ago. It became a bit
> of a fashion to dream about uploading and the like. The idea remains current
> and sufficiently popular to make me think about taking the idea of "memes"
> seriously. It's fun to play with though. If you were uploaded while still
> alive which you would be you? The uploaded one would experience life
> differently from you and hence would soon no longer be you so which you
> would be you?

John,

You wrote this message tomorrow. You might think about resetting your clock.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
0
Jerry
4/18/2007 1:21:52 AM
There are a number of books out there saying this will be possible in our
lifetime. Typically written by AI people but I think the whole shebang got a
big kickalong with the author William Gibson many years ago. It became a bit
of a fashion to dream about uploading and the like. The idea remains current
and sufficiently popular to make me think about taking the idea of "memes"
seriously. It's fun to play with though. If you were uploaded while still
alive which you would be you? The uploaded one would experience life
differently from you and hence would soon no longer be you so which you
would be you?


"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176772620.851373.24250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
>


0
John
4/18/2007 4:15:28 AM
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:icWdncTWgqQs77jbnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@rcn.net...
| [...]
| You wrote this message tomorrow. You
| might think about resetting your clock.
|
| Jerry

John H. is in Austrailia.

"Date-line" thing(?)

ken 


0
Benjamin
4/18/2007 4:53:42 AM
Nonetheless Jerry is right. I replaced my power supply recently, cmos dead,
didn't reset date right. For a short time at least ahead by a day. Will
never happen again ... .

Thanks Jerry.
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:qvhVh.3545$BS2.2456@trndny01...
> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:icWdncTWgqQs77jbnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@rcn.net...
> | [...]
> | You wrote this message tomorrow. You
> | might think about resetting your clock.
> |
> | Jerry
>
> John H. is in Austrailia.
>
> "Date-line" thing(?)
>
> ken
>
>


0
John
4/18/2007 5:44:31 AM
On Apr 17, 8:01 am, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:25:28 -0700, Radium wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 7:24 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Actually it is quite well known that the brain's only signaling method
> >> is most definitely not electrochemical ionic.
>
> > True. Many proteins are involved.
>
> >> The molecular and
> >> cellular biology of events at the synapse are quite critical as is the
> >> whole activity of the cell in gene expression, protein synthesis and
> >> degradation, up and down regulation of all the machinery involved and
> >> on and on and on.
>
<snip>

 > It's cheaper to just use a real brain.
 >
 > Cheers!
 > Rich

Not _everyone_ has access to one.

G


0
stratus46
4/18/2007 7:02:32 AM
r norman wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately, this particular view of how biological machinery works
> won't get too far on bionet.neuroscience which is supposed to be
> restricted to actual science.
> 
> 


Growing a Brain in Switzerland
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,466789,00.html
By Manfred Dworschak
February 16, 2007

A network of artificial nerves is growing in a Swiss supercomputer
-- meant to simulate a natural brain, cell-for-cell. The researchers
at work on "Blue Brain" promise new insights into the sources of
human consciousness.

0
Allen
4/18/2007 10:17:29 AM
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:17:29 GMT, "Allen L. Barker"
<alb@datafilter.com> wrote:

>
>r norman wrote:
>> 
>> Unfortunately, this particular view of how biological machinery works
>> won't get too far on bionet.neuroscience which is supposed to be
>> restricted to actual science.
>> 
>> 
>
>
>Growing a Brain in Switzerland
>http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,466789,00.html
>By Manfred Dworschak
>February 16, 2007
>
>A network of artificial nerves is growing in a Swiss supercomputer
>-- meant to simulate a natural brain, cell-for-cell. The researchers
>at work on "Blue Brain" promise new insights into the sources of
>human consciousness.

That web site deals with a project that has more physiological
validity than most of the AI stuff you see, but still a reference to a
peer reviewed journal article carries just a bit more weight than a
press release and newspaper article.

But that is not the point at all.  You quoted me but snipped away all
context.  The specifics about "this particular view" that I claim is
not scientific refers to a statement about, first a redox reactions
between neurotransmitter and receptor ("electron jumps"), second about
how such a redox reaction is a quantum effect, third about how such a
redox reaction (or any other neural process) is "influenced by [the]
brain's own electromagnetic field", not to mention the need to
"calculate FFT in planck time".


0
r
4/18/2007 11:54:03 AM
On Apr 17, 3:17 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?

Why would you want it to be exactly the same? Why not an 'electronic
brain' that shares some of the most important properties of a real
one? I guess if you really understand a process then you can model it.
The model will share some properties of the thing modeled. Lets hope
it are the most interesting ones...

> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?

Why the hell would you want to do that? Its like putting wheels on a
horse, yes it can work, but its not pretty.

> Thanks,
>
> Radium

oh , and dont listen to what everybody else is saying, keep dreaming.
Some of the biggest scientific discoveries where made by people
ridiculed by the 'scientific community',

0
bob
4/18/2007 1:46:52 PM
On 18 Apr 2007 06:46:52 -0700, bob the builder
<brulsmurf@hotmail.com> wrote:


>
>oh , and dont listen to what everybody else is saying, keep dreaming.
>Some of the biggest scientific discoveries where made by people
>ridiculed by the 'scientific community',


You forget that we have already had the /privilege/ of
seeing Radium work through the ideas held, and benefit of
hindsight.  For all the scientists who actively WORKED on a
concept there were also plenty of kooks who just piddled
around and did nothing useful.  The difference was the goal,
well actually HAVING one would be a start.
0
kony
4/18/2007 2:13:41 PM
On Apr 18, 4:13 pm, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2007 06:46:52 -0700, bob the builder
>
> <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >oh , and dont listen to what everybody else is saying, keep dreaming.
> >Some of the biggest scientific discoveries where made by people
> >ridiculed by the 'scientific community',
>
> You forget that we have already had the /privilege/ of
> seeing Radium work through the ideas held, and benefit of
> hindsight.  For all the scientists who actively WORKED on a
> concept there were also plenty of kooks who just piddled
> around and did nothing useful.  The difference was the goal,
> well actually HAVING one would be a start.

most famous scientist where kooks. I believe Newton tried to transform
all kind of metals to gold. Einstein , besides his theory of
relativity, also did it with a close relative. Tesla anyone?
And how do you know if something is going to be usefull?

But i agree with 'having a goal'. It seems that the most famous
innovators are complete idiots with a plan.

0
bob
4/18/2007 4:08:17 PM
On 18 Apr 2007 09:08:17 -0700, bob the builder
<brulsmurf@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 18, 4:13 pm, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2007 06:46:52 -0700, bob the builder
>>
>> <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >oh , and dont listen to what everybody else is saying, keep dreaming.
>> >Some of the biggest scientific discoveries where made by people
>> >ridiculed by the 'scientific community',
>>
>> You forget that we have already had the /privilege/ of
>> seeing Radium work through the ideas held, and benefit of
>> hindsight.  For all the scientists who actively WORKED on a
>> concept there were also plenty of kooks who just piddled
>> around and did nothing useful.  The difference was the goal,
>> well actually HAVING one would be a start.
>
>most famous scientist where kooks. 

No, not in this sense of frivolous daydream without any
follow-through.  They had purpose, it was a means to an end.


>I believe Newton tried to transform
>all kind of metals to gold. Einstein , besides his theory of
>relativity, also did it with a close relative. Tesla anyone?
>And how do you know if something is going to be usefull?

The difference is the daydreaming was a suppliment, one of
many means towards the end, not the core purpose.


>
>But i agree with 'having a goal'. It seems that the most famous
>innovators are complete idiots with a plan.

Yes it all starts with a plan, for better or worse there has
to be a real constructive intention and some thought put
into how to achieve that.
0
kony
4/18/2007 5:20:00 PM
"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:1176772620.851373.24250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?

Yes, it's called a positronic brain.

>
> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>

Yes, that will be possible. But it won't be like a recording device, since 
the brain doesn't actually store 'images'




-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
Guy
4/18/2007 6:17:50 PM
On Apr 16, 6:17 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium

It comes down to two questions

1) Is there any known process/algorithm that can't be theoretically
replicated/simulated in a computer?

2) Do you think the brain's mechanism of operation is ultimately
unknowable?

In general when we don't understand something we usually overestimate
the problem to be orders of magnitude more complicated then it really
is...




0
steve
4/18/2007 9:16:36 PM
On 2007-04-18, steve <bungalow_steve@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 2) Do you think the brain's mechanism of operation is ultimately
> unknowable?
>
> In general when we don't understand something we usually overestimate
> the problem to be orders of magnitude more complicated then it really
> is...

I wouldn't say that that is a general rule.  AI is the classic
example of an area where despite decades and millions of dollars
worth of research, the results have been somewhat less than
spectacular.  Consider the relative lack of progress on the Turing
test, for example.

As for the question of whether the brain is "unknowable", this is
a legitimate question.  It's impossible to emulate a system in
another system less complex than itself, and so it could well turn
out that we simply don't have the mental capacity to understand
the brain.  We may be able to make progress using a divide and
conquer approach, breaking the brain down into different "subsystems"
which can be analysed, but the brain as a whole must surely be
simply too complex to understand in its entirety.

-- 
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
0
Andrew
4/18/2007 9:55:10 PM
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:55:10 +0000, Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
> On 2007-04-18, steve <bungalow_steve@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2) Do you think the brain's mechanism of operation is ultimately
>> unknowable?
>>
>> In general when we don't understand something we usually overestimate
>> the problem to be orders of magnitude more complicated then it really
>> is...
> 
> I wouldn't say that that is a general rule.  AI is the classic
> example of an area where despite decades and millions of dollars
> worth of research, the results have been somewhat less than
> spectacular.  Consider the relative lack of progress on the Turing
> test, for example.
> 
> As for the question of whether the brain is "unknowable", this is
> a legitimate question.  It's impossible to emulate a system in
> another system less complex than itself, and so it could well turn
> out that we simply don't have the mental capacity to understand
> the brain.  We may be able to make progress using a divide and
> conquer approach, breaking the brain down into different "subsystems"
> which can be analysed, but the brain as a whole must surely be
> simply too complex to understand in its entirety.

Maybe we should look into how, say, an ameba gets around without one?

Might not that be more useful in the long run? :-)

Cheers!
Rich

0
Rich
4/18/2007 10:12:08 PM

Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
...
> As for the question of whether the brain is "unknowable", this is
> a legitimate question.  It's impossible to emulate a system in
> another system less complex than itself, and so it could well turn
> out that we simply don't have the mental capacity to understand
> the brain.  We may be able to make progress using a divide and
> conquer approach, breaking the brain down into different "subsystems"
> which can be analysed, but the brain as a whole must surely be
> simply too complex to understand in its entirety.
> 
[trying to be  abit selective in cross-posting]

 From my recent reading on consciousness studies, it seems the big 
debate is over whether consciousness and the brain is local or non-local 
(i.e. involves processes at the quantum level). Evidence of non-locality 
is likely controversial by nature (telepathy ...); bit if it does prove 
to be so it suggests that general computer models cannot reach that 
final stage, until quantum computing itself become a reality. Which 
thyen begs the question about what we might feel about a quantum 
computer with non-local behaviour...


Richard Dobson




0
Richard
4/18/2007 10:12:11 PM
On Apr 17, 11:17 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium

I saw an interesting documentary the other night on research into the
human heart having active brain cells, and how many heart transplant
recipients develop traits of the donor such as the ability to paint or
write poetry, or a passion for adventure activities etc Interesting
stuff.
A far cry from Fuzzy Logic. Speaking of which I saw Ross Noble's Fizzy
Logic show the other week at the Melbourne comedy festival, damn
funny, almost wet myself. Hope the new electronic brain has a sense of
humour like that.

Dave.

0
David
4/18/2007 11:45:59 PM
On Apr 18, 2:55 pm, Andrew Smallshaw
> > In general when we don't understand something we usually overestimate
> > the problem to be orders of magnitude more complicated then it really
> > is...
>
> I wouldn't say that that is a general rule.  AI is the classic
> example of an area where despite decades and millions of dollars
> worth of research, the results have been somewhat less than
> spectacular.  Consider the relative lack of progress on the Turing
> test, for example.

I only meant to imply when the understanding comes, it will seem, in
retrospect, a simple problem, the getting will still be long and
hard.

>
> As for the question of whether the brain is "unknowable", this is
> a legitimate question.  It's impossible to emulate a system in
> another system less complex than itself, and so it could well turn
> out that we simply don't have the mental capacity to understand
> the brain.  We may be able to make progress using a divide and
> conquer approach, breaking the brain down into different "subsystems"
> which can be analysed, but the brain as a whole must surely be
> simply too complex to understand in its entirety.
>

Maybe, but I don't think so, the average human brain by itself doesn't
do anything spectacular. The apparent complexity we now see is the
result of the accumulation of many thousands of years of the combined
achievements of many millions of brains . (And many of the
achievements  have come by accidents along the way too.)

Take a group of human children and throw them onto a deserted island
for 30 years and you will have a display of brain power that is more
complex then a group of apes, but not by much.

I'm just saying that when we think of a human brain most people
immediately think of Einstein, when that is the exception to the rule,
not the norm. The average brain mostly knows how to interact with
other humans, learn and repeat tasks shown to them, reproduce etc,
with little "originality".

Indeed, the conversation we are having now is mostly of regurgitation
of past articles, books, texts that have been produced over many
years, with little original content. :) I don't think we need exotic
technology (e.g., quantum physics) to explain it.


0
steve
4/19/2007 3:20:34 AM
On Apr 18, 11:55 pm, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org>
wrote:
> On 2007-04-18, steve <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 2) Do you think the brain's mechanism of operation is ultimately
> > unknowable?
>
> > In general when we don't understand something we usually overestimate
> > the problem to be orders of magnitude more complicated then it really
> > is...
>
> I wouldn't say that that is a general rule.  AI is the classic
> example of an area where despite decades and millions of dollars
> worth of research, the results have been somewhat less than
> spectacular.  Consider the relative lack of progress on the Turing
> test, for example.

 Well,  only a few decades, and only a few dollars. It seems like a
difficult problem :P

> As for the question of whether the brain is "unknowable", this is
> a legitimate question.  It's impossible to emulate a system in
> another system less complex than itself, and so it could well turn
> out that we simply don't have the mental capacity to understand
> the brain.

Thats just silly, i dont understand fire but i Can make fire. And
maybe the brain isnt that complex, but just alot of the same. Size is
not complexity.

>We may be able to make progress using a divide and
> conquer approach, breaking the brain down into different "subsystems"
> which can be analysed, but the brain as a whole must surely be
> simply too complex to understand in its entirety.

Well that goes for anything. I cant understand a single grain of sand
in its entirety. All the atoms, electrons and the suff inside atoms..
eh quarks or whats their name?

> Andrew Smallshaw
> andr...@sdf.lonestar.org


0
bob
4/19/2007 10:56:48 AM
On Apr 16, 9:17 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
Conceptually, there is no problem. Practically, it is not possible.

There are 100 billion neurons. If they are implemented in electronic
circuitry, it would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot of time.
Say, like a thousand billion dollars spread over two centuries. Then
why? You can hire grad students at minimum wage.

People are really interested in the soul, the body/soul problem. If we
build an electronic brain, will it have a soul?

ray

This is a conjecture about how a brain might work.
If you are interested in the brain, you might look at:

http://home.nycap.rr.com/rscanlon/brain/brain.htm




0
rscan
4/19/2007 11:37:22 AM
On Apr 19, 1:37 pm, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:17 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi:
>
> > Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> > exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> > signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
> > If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> > transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>
> Conceptually, there is no problem. Practically, it is not possible.
>
> There are 100 billion neurons. If they are implemented in electronic
> circuitry, it would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot of time.
> Say, like a thousand billion dollars spread over two centuries.

Its more practical to use a programming language and some general
purpose hardware. Big companies like Intel, AMD ,IBM etc will invest
the Billions for general purpose hardware. A scientist can get it from
a shop around the corner for cheap.

> Then
> why? You can hire grad students at minimum wage.

Why? thats just what people do. Why go to the moon? Why build a
fushion reactor ?

> People are really interested in the soul, the body/soul problem. If we
> build an electronic brain, will it have a soul?
>
> ray
>
> This is a conjecture about how a brain might work.
> If you are interested in the brain, you might look at:
>
> http://home.nycap.rr.com/rscanlon/brain/brain.htm


0
bob
4/19/2007 2:30:08 PM
On Apr 19, 10:30 am, bob the builder <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 1:37 pm, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 9:17 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi:
>
> > > Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> > > exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> > > signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
> > > If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> > > transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>
> > Conceptually, there is no problem. Practically, it is not possible.
>
> > There are 100 billion neurons. If they are implemented in electronic
> > circuitry, it would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot of time.
> > Say, like a thousand billion dollars spread over two centuries.
>
> Its more practical to use a programming language and some general
> purpose hardware. Big companies like Intel, AMD ,IBM etc will invest
> the Billions for general purpose hardware. A scientist can get it from
> a shop around the corner for cheap.

A little reality check here.

With a desktop and NEURON, one can model a dozen neurons, modeling
only the electrical characteristics. This will exhaust your PC.

A very serious effort is underway in Lausanne, Blue Brain. IBM
furnished a super computer. There are about thirty-five very, very
bright people involved directly. They have successfully modeled a rat
macrocolumn (about 10,000 neurons). They are talking with IBM about
the next evolution of super computers. A rat macrocolumn is probably
(certainly?) equivalent to a human macrocolumn. They need to scale-up
by a factor of ten million to get to the level of a human brain.

These neurons lack their chemical insides. They simulate the
electrical signals, but not the molecular machines that produce them.
The cells do not model the proteins, or the genome. They say they are
going to add the proteins later.

They are very, very confident. They intend to model the entire human
brain.

Others are skeptical.

> > Then
> > why? You can hire grad students at minimum wage.
>
> Why? thats just what people do. Why go to the moon? Why build a
>  fushion reactor ?

> > People are really interested in the soul, the body/soul problem. If we
> > build an electronic brain, will it have a soul?

This question is asked of people working on Blue Brain. They have no
answer.

> > ray
>
> > This is a conjecture about how a brain might work.
> > If you are interested in the brain, you might look at:
>
>>  http://home.nycap.rr.com/rscanlon/brain/brain.htm



0
rscan
4/19/2007 5:24:57 PM
<rscan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:1176982642.618981.324730@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> People are really interested in the soul, the body/soul problem. If we
> build an electronic brain, will it have a soul?

Why should it?  What good evidence is there that WE
have one in the first place?

A more interesting and practical question would be whether
an AI would be considered a "person" from a legal, ethical,
or moral perspective.


Bob M.


0
Bob
4/19/2007 6:08:48 PM
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:08:48 -0600, Bob Myers wrote:
> <rscan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message 
> 
>> People are really interested in the soul, the body/soul problem. If we
>> build an electronic brain, will it have a soul?
> 
> Why should it?  What good evidence is there that WE
> have one in the first place?
> 
> A more interesting and practical question would be whether
> an AI would be considered a "person" from a legal, ethical,
> or moral perspective.

Did you see the "Mr. Data is a toaster" ep of ST:TNG? :-)

 "[there are] two kinds of awareness... conscious awareness and sentient
  awareness. The awareness of mind is called 'consciousness', and the
  awareness of emotions and body sensations is called 'sentience' or
  'feeling.'"
 --- excerpted from http://www.godchannel.com/awareness.html

I'll be impressed when I see a machine that can feel. 

Cheers!
Rich

0
Rich
4/19/2007 6:23:15 PM
On 19 Apr 2007 10:24:57 -0700, "rscan@nycap.rr.com"
<rscan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>
>A little reality check here.

Reality, sadly, has little to do with the discussion.

>With a desktop and NEURON, one can model a dozen neurons, modeling
>only the electrical characteristics. This will exhaust your PC.
>
>A very serious effort is underway in Lausanne, Blue Brain. IBM
>furnished a super computer. There are about thirty-five very, very
>bright people involved directly. They have successfully modeled a rat
>macrocolumn (about 10,000 neurons). They are talking with IBM about
>the next evolution of super computers. A rat macrocolumn is probably
>(certainly?) equivalent to a human macrocolumn. They need to scale-up
>by a factor of ten million to get to the level of a human brain.
>
>These neurons lack their chemical insides. They simulate the
>electrical signals, but not the molecular machines that produce them.
>The cells do not model the proteins, or the genome. They say they are
>going to add the proteins later.
>
>They are very, very confident. They intend to model the entire human
>brain.
>
>Others are skeptical.

I detect a tongue-firmly-in-cheek---rather-an-extreme-understatement
about this last comment.

Physical scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and
practitioners of various arcane trades that bear little resemblance to
science have difficulty understanding that "the brain" is living
matter.  Action potentials are the easiest thing to "see" about brain
activity and so, goes the mistaken general idea, if we recreate the
action potentials then we recreate the brain.  Action potentials are
probably the least important of the brain's machinery and large
numbers of neurons function quite happily without being able to make
action potentials at all.  That the life of the cell has anything to
do with the function of a neuron is seemingly incomprehensible.   

And, it might be mentioned, just what are all those  glia doing, just
holding the neurons  together (and apart)?

0
r
4/19/2007 8:00:02 PM
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
...
>  "[there are] two kinds of awareness... conscious awareness and sentient
>   awareness. The awareness of mind is called 'consciousness', and the
>   awareness of emotions and body sensations is called 'sentience' or
>   'feeling.'"
>  --- excerpted from http://www.godchannel.com/awareness.html
> 
> I'll be impressed when I see a machine that can feel. 
> 
It will depend on what is available to it to feel with. Digital nervous 
system? Digital skin?

Richard Dobson
0
Richard
4/19/2007 8:03:17 PM
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:03:17 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:
> Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
> ..
>>  "[there are] two kinds of awareness... conscious awareness and sentient
>>   awareness. The awareness of mind is called 'consciousness', and the
>>   awareness of emotions and body sensations is called 'sentience' or
>>   'feeling.'"
>>  --- excerpted from http://www.godchannel.com/awareness.html
>> 
>> I'll be impressed when I see a machine that can feel. 
>> 
> It will depend on what is available to it to feel with. Digital nervous 
> system? Digital skin?
> 

Well, when you poke an ameba with a needle and it flinches, what did it
feel the needle with? How does an ameba decide what's food vs what's 
dangerous?

I guess some kinds of sea slugs or some such have pretty sophisticated
behaviors, and their brain is like eight neurons.

Thanks!
Rich

0
Rich
4/19/2007 11:04:21 PM
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
...
> 
> Well, when you poke an ameba with a needle and it flinches, what did it
> feel the needle with? How does an ameba decide what's food vs what's 
> dangerous?
> 
> I guess some kinds of sea slugs or some such have pretty sophisticated
> behaviors, and their brain is like eight neurons.
> 
  More fundamental feeling than danger - hunger. The concept of food. 
And an instinct to look for food (plus the ability to direct movement 
towards it). The sense of well-being when food is consumed. So, before 
building the electronic brian, build a system (machine? organism?) that 
registers lack of food, responds to that by seeking it out (hence, need 
a  mechanism that recognises food), and rewarding itself when it has 
found and consumed it. And remembering, for some amount of time, what it 
did to find it - basic reinforcement learning. Eight neurons might just 
be enough. For where the stomach leads, the brain will surely follow!


Richard Dobson
0
Richard
4/20/2007 12:07:48 AM
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:04:21 GMT, Rich the Philosophizer
<rtp@example.com> wrote:


>Well, when you poke an ameba with a needle and it flinches, what did it
>feel the needle with? How does an ameba decide what's food vs what's 
>dangerous?
>
>I guess some kinds of sea slugs or some such have pretty sophisticated
>behaviors, and their brain is like eight neurons.
>

If you do cross post to bionet.neuroscience, could you at least make
some attempt at fact?  Or at least keep your wild speculations to
within a few orders of magnitude to reality?

0
r
4/20/2007 12:29:35 AM
Richard Dobson wrote:
> 
> Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
> ..
> >
> > Well, when you poke an ameba with a needle and it flinches, what did it
> > feel the needle with? How does an ameba decide what's food vs what's
> > dangerous?
> >
> > I guess some kinds of sea slugs or some such have pretty sophisticated
> > behaviors, and their brain is like eight neurons.
> >
>   More fundamental feeling than danger - hunger. The concept of food.
> And an instinct to look for food (plus the ability to direct movement
> towards it). The sense of well-being when food is consumed. So, before
> building the electronic brian, build a system (machine? organism?) that
> registers lack of food, responds to that by seeking it out (hence, need
> a  mechanism that recognises food), and rewarding itself when it has
> found and consumed it. And remembering, for some amount of time, what it
> did to find it - basic reinforcement learning. Eight neurons might just
> be enough. For where the stomach leads, the brain will surely follow!
> 
> Richard Dobson


   "before building the electronic brian"?


-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
0
Michael
4/20/2007 1:28:08 AM
"Rich the Philosophizer" <rtp@example.com> wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.04.19.19.23.51.587277@example.com...
>
> I'll be impressed when I see a machine that can feel.
>

I'd be equally impressed when I see someone come up
with an objective proof that anyone other than me can
feel. I know I can only because I experience it directly,
but how can you prove to me that the rest of you aren't
merely clever simulations?

Bob M.


0
Bob
4/20/2007 1:30:17 AM
"Richard Dobson" <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:ovTVh.73655$ne6.68784@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
> ..
>>
>> Well, when you poke an ameba with a needle and it flinches, what did it
>> feel the needle with? How does an ameba decide what's food vs what's 
>> dangerous?
>>
>> I guess some kinds of sea slugs or some such have pretty sophisticated
>> behaviors, and their brain is like eight neurons.
>>
>  More fundamental feeling than danger - hunger. The concept of food. And 
> an instinct to look for food (plus the ability to direct movement towards 
> it).

So when you say the something "feels," what you really mean
is simply that you can observe it responding to stimuli?  If
that's all you require, I would submit that we already have
many examples of machines that "feel."

Bob M.


0
Bob
4/20/2007 1:32:57 AM
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message 
news:f09538$gm2$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> "Rich the Philosophizer" <rtp@example.com> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2007.04.19.19.23.51.587277@example.com...
>>
>> I'll be impressed when I see a machine that can feel.
>>
>
> I'd be equally impressed when I see someone come up
> with an objective proof that anyone other than me can
> feel. I know I can only because I experience it directly,
> but how can you prove to me that the rest of you aren't
> merely clever simulations?
>
> Bob M.
>

The nearest we can ever come to an objective proof is to if we

1. note and carefully collate - not stupidly and stubbornly ignore - how 
people with specific known brain deficiencies differ perceputally and 
emotionally from people with the equivalent brain structures intact.

2. probe the psychie of people whilst make use of fMRI (or forthcoming 
increasingly precise and powerful similar technologies) in combination with 
yet to be refined means to with high spatiotemporal precision (and of course 
harmlessly) freeze the function of neurons (and/or or their suppoporting 
glia).


That's why IF you want to do anything other than create an artificially 
intelligent fake of a feeling brain you must at least recreate not just an 
isolated brain ("just" :-^) but a brain with _all_ its coevolved 
complementary exteroceptive and interoceptive machinery (and you still would 
have left out such a "brain's" environmentally embedded developmental and 
evolutionary history!).

As long as people who work on develping AI don't loose sight of what AI 
actually stands for, discussions like this one would be highly unlikely to 
involve such people. ;-)

P 


0
Entertained
4/20/2007 3:49:17 AM
On Apr 19, 4:37 am, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

> Conceptually, there is no problem. Practically, it is not possible.

If such a silicon-based electronic brain could be designed and
functional, certain advantages of this electronic-brain over the human-
biologic-brain are:

1. Lack of physical-fragility
2. No need for glucose/oxygen [the device would use electricity for
energy]
3. Does not need water.
4. Faster signaling [electric signals are faster than chemical
signals]

However, this silicon brain would have certain disadvantages as well.
I see that this electric brain would be unable to form new silicon
cells [whereas the human brain can form new neurons]. Hence the amount
of information stored has more of a physical limit than a human brain.
In addition, this brain would be an excellent conductor of electricity
[unlike the human brain] and could be easily damaged by exposure to
microwaves and other electric and magnetic energy. An ElectroMagnetic
Pulse or even a solar flare could seriously damage such a brain that
relies purely on electric signals.

> There are 100 billion neurons. If they are implemented in electronic
> circuitry, it would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot of time.
> Say, like a thousand billion dollars spread over two centuries. Then
> why? You can hire grad students at minimum wage.

Aren't neural nets used in massively-parallel computing devices.

> This is a conjecture about how a brain might work.
> If you are interested in the brain, you might look at:
>
> http://home.nycap.rr.com/rscanlon/brain/brain.htm

Thanks for the link

0
Radium
4/20/2007 4:21:12 AM
Bob Myers wrote:
...
>>
>> More fundamental feeling than danger - hunger. The concept of food. And 
>>an instinct to look for food (plus the ability to direct movement towards 
>>it).
> 
> 
> So when you say the something "feels," what you really mean
> is simply that you can observe it responding to stimuli?  If
> that's all you require, I would submit that we already have
> many examples of machines that "feel."
> 
  It must surely be the starting point. We are all more instinctual and 
reactive than we might like to think, much of the time.  The difference 
bewteen us and the amoeeba may be a difference in scale (being aware of 
being hungry, anticipating stufffing ourselves, fighting off competitors 
for food)  than in principle. But I am profoundly sceptical of "strong 
AI". We may develop a machine that can mimic some higher brain functions 
(and, now we know the heart literally has brain cells, maybe even higher 
heart functions too), but sentience as we would define it seems 
dependent not on connections as such, but chemistry, constant 
reconfiguring, and probably some non-local quantum dimension as well.

But if we are to make an artificial brain that bears any relation to 
ourse, the starting point should not be the model of an adult, but that 
of a baby; and training might very well take just as long.

Richard Dobson
0
Richard
4/20/2007 7:33:56 AM
On 19 apr, 19:24, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 10:30 am, bob the builder <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 1:37 pm, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 9:17 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi:
>
> > > > Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> > > > exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> > > > signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
> > > > If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> > > > transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>
> > > Conceptually, there is no problem. Practically, it is not possible.
>
> > > There are 100 billion neurons. If they are implemented in electronic
> > > circuitry, it would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot of time.
> > > Say, like a thousand billion dollars spread over two centuries.
>
> > Its more practical to use a programming language and some general
> > purpose hardware. Big companies like Intel, AMD ,IBM etc will invest
> > the Billions for general purpose hardware. A scientist can get it from
> > a shop around the corner for cheap.
>
> A little reality check here.
>
> With a desktop and NEURON, one can model a dozen neurons, modeling
> only the electrical characteristics. This will exhaust your PC.

You dont want to model everything on the smallest level. Those
proteins have a function, what function? what are they doing? Some
things about them will be of no consequence when modelling a brain.
You want to make everthing as simple as possible, but not too simpel
(sorry Einstein).

And maybe it turn out my quad-core pc  can only simulate 10.000
neurons. A decade from now my pc will do a million.

> A very serious effort is underway in Lausanne, Blue Brain. IBM
> furnished a super computer. There are about thirty-five very, very
> bright people involved directly. They have successfully modeled a rat
> macrocolumn (about 10,000 neurons). They are talking with IBM about
> the next evolution of super computers. A rat macrocolumn is probably
> (certainly?) equivalent to a human macrocolumn. They need to scale-up
> by a factor of ten million to get to the level of a human brain.
>
> These neurons lack their chemical insides. They simulate the
> electrical signals, but not the molecular machines that produce them.
> The cells do not model the proteins, or the genome. They say they are
> going to add the proteins later.
>
> They are very, very confident. They intend to model the entire human
> brain.
>
> Others are skeptical.

Including me. It maybe be very usefull for understanding the human
brain at some level, in some way. But its not going to create
artificial intelligence. You cant just increase the number of neurons
and then hope that you model, suddenly, becomes intelligent.

With 10.000 artificial neurons you should be able to create something
as smart as a bug (i know, real ones have about half a million of
them). Which would be a great achievement.

> > > Then
> > > why? You can hire grad students at minimum wage.
>
> > Why? thats just what people do. Why go to the moon? Why build a
> >  fushion reactor ?
> > > People are really interested in the soul, the body/soul problem. If we
> > > build an electronic brain, will it have a soul?
>
> This question is asked of people working on Blue Brain. They have no
> answer.

They should be fired :P


>
>
>
>
> > > ray
>
> > > This is a conjecture about how a brain might work.
> > > If you are interested in the brain, you might look at:
>
> >>  http://home.nycap.rr.com/rscanlon/brain/brain.htm


0
bob
4/20/2007 12:02:12 PM
On 4/19/07 8:49 PM, in article
46283892$0$25496$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Entertained
by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> 
> "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:f09538$gm2$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>> 
>> "Rich the Philosophizer" <rtp@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.04.19.19.23.51.587277@example.com...
>>> 
>>> I'll be impressed when I see a machine that can feel.
>>> 
>> 
>> I'd be equally impressed when I see someone come up
>> with an objective proof that anyone other than me can
>> feel. I know I can only because I experience it directly,
>> but how can you prove to me that the rest of you aren't
>> merely clever simulations?
>> 
>> Bob M.
>> 
> 
> The nearest we can ever come to an objective proof is to if we
> 
> 1. note and carefully collate - not stupidly and stubbornly ignore - how
> people with specific known brain deficiencies differ perceputally and
> emotionally from people with the equivalent brain structures intact.
> 
> 2. probe the psychie of people whilst make use of fMRI (or forthcoming
> increasingly precise and powerful similar technologies) in combination with
> yet to be refined means to with high spatiotemporal precision (and of course
> harmlessly) freeze the function of neurons (and/or or their suppoporting
> glia).
> 
> 
> That's why IF you want to do anything other than create an artificially
> intelligent fake of a feeling brain you must at least recreate not just an
> isolated brain ("just" :-^) but a brain with _all_ its coevolved
> complementary exteroceptive and interoceptive machinery (and you still would
> have left out such a "brain's" environmentally embedded developmental and
> evolutionary history!).
> 
> As long as people who work on develping AI don't loose sight of what AI
> actually stands for, discussions like this one would be highly unlikely to
> involve such people. ;-)

How can you say that?  It seems to have involved you. ;-)

> 
> P 
> 
> 

0
Don
4/20/2007 3:00:44 PM
"Richard Dobson" wrote:
>  It must surely be the starting point. We are all more instinctual and 
> reactive than we might like to think, much of the time.

Wasn't it Nietzsche who first posited the possibility that even our most 
advanced philosophical thinkings were but the manifestation of a 
pre-programmed set of instincts?

Jon 


0
Jon
4/20/2007 5:03:32 PM
It was Darwin who wrote in his notes:

"Origin of man now proved. - Metaphysics must flourish. - He who understands
baboon will do more towards metaphysics than Locke."



His "M book"


"Jon Danniken" <jonREMOVETHISdanniken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58sa20F2ifei3U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Richard Dobson" wrote:
> >  It must surely be the starting point. We are all more instinctual and
> > reactive than we might like to think, much of the time.
>
> Wasn't it Nietzsche who first posited the possibility that even our most
> advanced philosophical thinkings were but the manifestation of a
> pre-programmed set of instincts?
>
> Jon
>
>


0
John
4/20/2007 6:01:31 PM
"Jon Danniken" <jonREMOVETHISdanniken@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:58sa20F2ifei3U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Richard Dobson" wrote:
>>  It must surely be the starting point. We are all more instinctual and 
>> reactive than we might like to think, much of the time.
>
> Wasn't it Nietzsche who first posited the possibility that even our most 
> advanced philosophical thinkings were but the manifestation of a 
> pre-programmed set of instincts?

Does that explain why all too many have asses larger than elephants now that 
the west has abundant, cheap food?





0
Homer
4/20/2007 6:58:17 PM
You can't but I can, I have no evidence that you are anything other than an 
automaton, who thinks he is not one, I on the other hand am real :)

-- 
�T

L'autisme c'est moi

"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"


"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message 
news:f09538$gm2$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> "Rich the Philosophizer" <rtp@example.com> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2007.04.19.19.23.51.587277@example.com...
> I'd be equally impressed when I see someone come up
> with an objective proof that anyone other than me can
> feel. I know I can only because I experience it directly,
> but how can you prove to me that the rest of you aren't
> merely clever simulations?
>
> Bob M.
>
> 


0
The
4/20/2007 7:11:48 PM
The Autist formerly known as wrote:
> You can't but I can, I have no evidence that you are anything other than an 
> automaton, who thinks he is not one, I on the other hand am real :)
> 
Be gone, figment of our imagination!!!!!!!!!!
0
Sjouke
4/20/2007 7:37:26 PM
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:02:12 -0700, bob the builder wrote:
> On 19 apr, 19:24, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 10:30 am, bob the builder <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Apr 19, 1:37 pm, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>> > > On Apr 16, 9:17 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi:
>>
>> > > > Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
>> > > > exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
>> > > > signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>>
>> > > > If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
>> > > > transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>>
>> > > Conceptually, there is no problem. Practically, it is not possible.
>>
>> > > There are 100 billion neurons. If they are implemented in electronic
>> > > circuitry, it would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot of time.
>> > > Say, like a thousand billion dollars spread over two centuries.
>>
>> > Its more practical to use a programming language and some general
>> > purpose hardware. Big companies like Intel, AMD ,IBM etc will invest
>> > the Billions for general purpose hardware. A scientist can get it from
>> > a shop around the corner for cheap.
>>
>> A little reality check here.
>>
>> With a desktop and NEURON, one can model a dozen neurons, modeling
>> only the electrical characteristics. This will exhaust your PC.
> 
> You dont want to model everything on the smallest level. Those
> proteins have a function, what function? what are they doing? Some
> things about them will be of no consequence when modelling a brain.
> You want to make everthing as simple as possible, but not too simpel
> (sorry Einstein).
> 
> And maybe it turn out my quad-core pc  can only simulate 10.000
> neurons. A decade from now my pc will do a million.
> 
I think it'd take more than that - a neuron on its own has considerable
smarts - I even have a hypothesis that, since neurons don't generally
reproduce, that frees up their DNA/RNA/mitochondria to do other stuff,
which could be, that's where they store their memory.

So each neuron would need the processing power of a modern desktop, and
enough gigs of storage to model a whole genome, and as much common sense
as a typical ameba. ;-) (or even a phagocyte! ;-) )

Cheers!
Rich

0
Rich
4/20/2007 8:04:38 PM
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:07:48 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:
> Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
> ...
>> Well, when you poke an ameba with a needle and it flinches, what did it
>> feel the needle with? How does an ameba decide what's food vs what's 
>> dangerous?
>> 
>> I guess some kinds of sea slugs or some such have pretty sophisticated
>> behaviors, and their brain is like eight neurons.
>> 
>   More fundamental feeling than danger - hunger. The concept of food. 
> And an instinct to look for food (plus the ability to direct movement 
> towards it). The sense of well-being when food is consumed. So, before 
> building the electronic brian, build a system (machine? organism?) that 
> registers lack of food, responds to that by seeking it out (hence, need 
> a  mechanism that recognises food), and rewarding itself when it has 
> found and consumed it. And remembering, for some amount of time, what it 
> did to find it - basic reinforcement learning. Eight neurons might just 
> be enough. For where the stomach leads, the brain will surely follow!
> 

Dude! You got it! :-D :-D :-D

The fundamental driving force behind All That Is is Desire. >:->

Cheers!
Rich
-- 
For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com

0
Rich
4/20/2007 8:12:05 PM
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:32:57 -0600, Bob Myers wrote:
> "Richard Dobson" <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:ovTVh.73655$ne6.68784@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>> ..
>>> Well, when you poke an ameba with a needle and it flinches, what did it
>>> feel the needle with? How does an ameba decide what's food vs what's 
>>> dangerous?
>>>
>>> I guess some kinds of sea slugs or some such have pretty sophisticated
>>> behaviors, and their brain is like eight neurons.
>>>
>>  More fundamental feeling than danger - hunger. The concept of food. And 
>> an instinct to look for food (plus the ability to direct movement towards 
>> it).
> 
> So when you say the something "feels," what you really mean
> is simply that you can observe it responding to stimuli?  If
> that's all you require, I would submit that we already have
> many examples of machines that "feel."

Have you ever been in a scary situation and felt "butterflies in your
stomach"?

That's the kind of feeling I'm talking about - everybody's "sixth" 
sense, AKA "sentience", which most people won't even acknowledge exists.

Thanks,
Rich
-- 
For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com

0
Rich
4/20/2007 8:15:35 PM
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:04:38 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

> - I even have a hypothesis that, since neurons don't generally
>reproduce, that frees up their DNA/RNA/mitochondria to do other stuff,
>which could be, that's where they store their memory.
>

A little evidence (not to mention some knowledge of biology) would be
useful, here.


0
r
4/20/2007 9:35:39 PM
Richard Dobson wrote:
> [trying to be  abit selective in cross-posting]

Well sure this topic doesn't fall into basic electronics;)

>  From my recent reading on consciousness studies, it seems the big 
> debate is over whether consciousness and the brain is local or non-local 
> (i.e. involves processes at the quantum level). Evidence of non-locality 
> is likely controversial by nature (telepathy ...); bit if it does prove 
> to be so it suggests that general computer models cannot reach that 
> final stage, until quantum computing itself become a reality. Which 
> thyen begs the question about what we might feel about a quantum 
> computer with non-local behaviour...

AFAIK nonlocality doesn't play here. Brain is surrounded with a very 
good electric isolation IOW high potential barrier IOW Faraday cage.
Magnetic field passes but brain generates none measurable.

'However, all electrical circuits - and that�s basically all neurones 
are � generate an associated energy field, known as an electromagnetic 
field or em field. This field contains precisely the same information as 
the circuitry that generated it. However, unlike neuronal information, 
which is localised in single or groups of neurons, the brain�s em field 
will bind the neuronal information into a single integrated whole.'
Sez McFadden in The conscious electromagnetic field theory.

'However, there is a macroscopic quantum effect that in principle is not 
suppressed by environmental decoherence: the quantum Zeno effect.'
Sez Stapp in Quantum Mechanics in the Brain.

'However, for modeling most of psychological functions (perception, 
memorizing, learning, emotions, language, thinking, and especially 
consciousness, creativity, and transpersonal interactions), the 
brainwaves combined with complex biophysical ionic neural networks are 
necessary.'
Sez Rakovic in Hierarchical neural networks and brainwaves: towards a 
theory of consciousness.

Bottom line - there's a lot of however's.
Google yourself;)

Regards...
0
Josip
4/20/2007 10:15:17 PM
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:15:17 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe@vrspace.org>
wrote:

>Richard Dobson wrote:
>> [trying to be  abit selective in cross-posting]
>
>Well sure this topic doesn't fall into basic electronics;)
>
>>  From my recent reading on consciousness studies, it seems the big 
>> debate is over whether consciousness and the brain is local or non-local 
>> (i.e. involves processes at the quantum level). Evidence of non-locality 
>> is likely controversial by nature (telepathy ...); bit if it does prove 
>> to be so it suggests that general computer models cannot reach that 
>> final stage, until quantum computing itself become a reality. Which 
>> thyen begs the question about what we might feel about a quantum 
>> computer with non-local behaviour...
>
>AFAIK nonlocality doesn't play here. Brain is surrounded with a very 
>good electric isolation IOW high potential barrier IOW Faraday cage.
>Magnetic field passes but brain generates none measurable.
>
>'However, all electrical circuits - and that�s basically all neurones 
>are � generate an associated energy field, known as an electromagnetic 
>field or em field. This field contains precisely the same information as 
>the circuitry that generated it. However, unlike neuronal information, 
>which is localised in single or groups of neurons, the brain�s em field 
>will bind the neuronal information into a single integrated whole.'
>Sez McFadden in The conscious electromagnetic field theory.
>
>'However, there is a macroscopic quantum effect that in principle is not 
>suppressed by environmental decoherence: the quantum Zeno effect.'
>Sez Stapp in Quantum Mechanics in the Brain.
>
>'However, for modeling most of psychological functions (perception, 
>memorizing, learning, emotions, language, thinking, and especially 
>consciousness, creativity, and transpersonal interactions), the 
>brainwaves combined with complex biophysical ionic neural networks are 
>necessary.'
>Sez Rakovic in Hierarchical neural networks and brainwaves: towards a 
>theory of consciousness.
>
>Bottom line - there's a lot of however's.
>Google yourself;)
>
>Regards...

OK, some of this is nonsense, but it at least it is nonsense with
citations.

McFadden's work can be found through
  http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/cemi.htm

Stapp can be found at
  http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html

Rakovic at
  http://www.vxm.com/21R.7.html
  http://www.iasc-bg.org.yu/e-publ.html

I recall Roger Sperry describing in class some 45 years ago his
experiments showing how general electric fields could not be
responsible for "gestalt" phenomena -- he shortcircuited brain regions
with tantalum wires and isolated brain regions with mica insulators
but neither intervention had any effect on cortical function.  

The speculations of many physicists over the past century or more
about brain function have not yet led to breakthroughs in our
understanding.  Will one of these three prove to be the exception?
Perhaps,.
0
r
4/20/2007 11:17:56 PM
r norman wrote:
> 
> I recall Roger Sperry describing in class some 45 years ago his
> experiments showing how general electric fields could not be
> responsible for "gestalt" phenomena -- he shortcircuited brain regions
> with tantalum wires and isolated brain regions with mica insulators
> but neither intervention had any effect on cortical function.  

But it's not about gestalt effect how you or Sperry imagine it.
Quote from thread 'Molecules and Neurons - and photons' on 
comp.ai.philosophy:
(STM=Short Term Memory)

'The STM within our brain as well as within networks of honey bee or 
other animals is a product of a "3D field-like" effect that creates 
memory trace.
In fact the name STM is very unfortunate here and in my opinion the term 
memory trace (MT) much better reflects underlying processes.
The purpose of this "3D field" is to provide a very effective mechanism 
of correlating multidimensional signals within the context of its past. 
The "brain" didn't have a much choice here, careful consideration 
(reverse engineering) of the temporal binding problem indicate that it 
is the only possible solution available - neurons create "temporal-bind" 
with each other within this field. Consequently the correlation outcome 
is the superposition result of past memory traces ( "3D fields" ) where 
new neurons are "hired" and incorporated/build into the network.

You can't partition this process, you can't simplify this process, you 
can't localize this process.
Your model has to capture complete "temporal-bind" of the field with 
many its distribution properties.

- what a "memory trace" is?

It is simply a change in a state of the physical 3D media between 
neurons that represent there mutual activation histories.
3D memory tracings have to occur within very short time slots ~3-10ms 
and be registered as extremely low continuous media changes. At present 
we don't have technology to register this type of process.

- Where did you get that from?
 From my own research.

/quote

> The speculations of many physicists over the past century or more
> about brain function have not yet led to breakthroughs in our
> understanding.  Will one of these three prove to be the exception?

Maybe will, maybe won't.
One thing sure - ignoring them won't lead to any breakthrough.

After all, sensory physiology of Helmholtz was the basis of Wilhelm 
Wundt work, who is considered one of the founders of experimental 
psychology. So maybe shrinks could learn from physicists again?;)

Regards...
0
Josip
4/21/2007 12:06:40 AM
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:06:40 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe@vrspace.org>
wrote:

>r norman wrote:
>> 
>> I recall Roger Sperry describing in class some 45 years ago his
>> experiments showing how general electric fields could not be
>> responsible for "gestalt" phenomena -- he shortcircuited brain regions
>> with tantalum wires and isolated brain regions with mica insulators
>> but neither intervention had any effect on cortical function.  
>
>But it's not about gestalt effect how you or Sperry imagine it.
>Quote from thread 'Molecules and Neurons - and photons' on 
>comp.ai.philosophy:
>(STM=Short Term Memory)
>
>'The STM within our brain as well as within networks of honey bee or 
>other animals is a product of a "3D field-like" effect that creates 
>memory trace.
>In fact the name STM is very unfortunate here and in my opinion the term 
>memory trace (MT) much better reflects underlying processes.
>The purpose of this "3D field" is to provide a very effective mechanism 
>of correlating multidimensional signals within the context of its past. 
>The "brain" didn't have a much choice here, careful consideration 
>(reverse engineering) of the temporal binding problem indicate that it 
>is the only possible solution available - neurons create "temporal-bind" 
>with each other within this field. Consequently the correlation outcome 
>is the superposition result of past memory traces ( "3D fields" ) where 
>new neurons are "hired" and incorporated/build into the network.
>
>You can't partition this process, you can't simplify this process, you 
>can't localize this process.
>Your model has to capture complete "temporal-bind" of the field with 
>many its distribution properties.
>
>- what a "memory trace" is?
>
>It is simply a change in a state of the physical 3D media between 
>neurons that represent there mutual activation histories.
>3D memory tracings have to occur within very short time slots ~3-10ms 
>and be registered as extremely low continuous media changes. At present 
>we don't have technology to register this type of process.
>
>- Where did you get that from?
> From my own research.
>
>/quote
>
>> The speculations of many physicists over the past century or more
>> about brain function have not yet led to breakthroughs in our
>> understanding.  Will one of these three prove to be the exception?
>
>Maybe will, maybe won't.
>One thing sure - ignoring them won't lead to any breakthrough.
>
>After all, sensory physiology of Helmholtz was the basis of Wilhelm 
>Wundt work, who is considered one of the founders of experimental 
>psychology. So maybe shrinks could learn from physicists again?;)
>
>Regards...

I will simply comment that neurophysiology, which looks specifically
at cellular mechanisms, and neurobiology in general, which looks
specifically at experimentally accessible mechanisms with actual
evidence to support them, is a rather different world from that of
artificial intelligence or behavioral psychology (I except
physiological psychologists, many of whom are indistinguishable  from
neurophysiologists) or speculations of  physicists or ... or ... ....
0
r
4/21/2007 12:28:06 AM
r norman wrote:
> 
> I will simply comment that neurophysiology, which looks specifically
> at cellular mechanisms, and neurobiology in general, which looks
> specifically at experimentally accessible mechanisms with actual
> evidence to support them, is a rather different world from that of
> artificial intelligence or behavioral psychology (I except
> physiological psychologists, many of whom are indistinguishable  from
> neurophysiologists) or speculations of  physicists or ... or ... ....

Ah so what you can't measure, doesn't exist?:)

Well pardon me for spoiling your precious newsgroup with speculations;)

Regards.
0
Josip
4/21/2007 12:35:01 AM
"Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:C24E23AC.625F4%dbowey@comcast.net...
> On 4/19/07 8:49 PM, in article
> 46283892$0$25496$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Entertained
> by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:f09538$gm2$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>>>
>>> "Rich the Philosophizer" <rtp@example.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2007.04.19.19.23.51.587277@example.com...
>>>>
>>>> I'll be impressed when I see a machine that can feel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd be equally impressed when I see someone come up
>>> with an objective proof that anyone other than me can
>>> feel. I know I can only because I experience it directly,
>>> but how can you prove to me that the rest of you aren't
>>> merely clever simulations?
>>>
>>> Bob M.
>>>
>>
>> The nearest we can ever come to an objective proof is to if we
>>
>> 1. note and carefully collate - not stupidly and stubbornly ignore - how
>> people with specific known brain deficiencies differ perceputally and
>> emotionally from people with the equivalent brain structures intact.
>>
>> 2. probe the psychie of people whilst make use of fMRI (or forthcoming
>> increasingly precise and powerful similar technologies) in combination 
>> with
>> yet to be refined means to with high spatiotemporal precision (and of 
>> course
>> harmlessly) freeze the function of neurons (and/or or their suppoporting
>> glia).
>>
>>
>> That's why IF you want to do anything other than create an artificially
>> intelligent fake of a feeling brain you must at least recreate not just 
>> an
>> isolated brain ("just" :-^) but a brain with _all_ its coevolved
>> complementary exteroceptive and interoceptive machinery (and you still 
>> would
>> have left out such a "brain's" environmentally embedded developmental and
>> evolutionary history!).
>>
>> As long as people who work on develping AI don't loose sight of what AI
>> actually stands for, discussions like this one would be highly unlikely 
>> to
>> involve such people. ;-)
>
> How can you say that?  It seems to have involved you. ;-)
>

I'm not blushing for any reason - other than being an obviously 
writing-impared muso. :-<

P 


0
Entertained
4/21/2007 2:08:56 AM
"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:klhi23pasls517arrgok1ek2hr1kb7669s@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:15:17 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe@vrspace.org>
| wrote:
| [...]

| I recall Roger Sperry describing in
| class some 45 years ago his
| experiments showing how general
| electric fields could not be responsible
| for "gestalt" phenomena -- he short-
| circuited brain regions with tantalum
| wires and isolated brain regions with
| mica insulators but neither intervention
| had any effect on cortical function.
| [...]

I've only been skimming this thread, so
my comments will be out-of-context [and
I'm not agreeing with anything in what
I've only skimmed.]

The ionic conductances are necessary
for 'normal' neuronal function, which ["of
course"] includes 'normal' cortical function.

And the ionic conductances are literally
a dynamically-formed 'electric field' that's
tunable via globally-integrated TD E/I-
minimization as I've discussed in form-
er posts here in b.n.

Your post is the first I've heard of it, but
to do what Sperry claimed(?) [as above],
one would have to eliminate all ionic cond-
uctances.

The problem with that is that what's
left is not a "brain", but only a bunch
of dead stuff.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/21/2007 4:02:11 AM
"Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message 
news:f0bkgb$9ba$1@news1.xnet.hr...
|r norman wrote:
| >
| > I recall Roger Sperry describing in class some 45 years ago his
| > experiments showing how general electric fields could not be
| > responsible for "gestalt" phenomena -- he shortcircuited brain regions
| > with tantalum wires and isolated brain regions with mica insulators
| > but neither intervention had any effect on cortical function.
|
| But it's not about gestalt effect how you or Sperry imagine it.
| Quote from thread 'Molecules and Neurons - and photons' on
| comp.ai.philosophy:
| (STM=Short Term Memory)
|
| 'The STM within our brain as well as within networks of honey bee or
| other animals is a product of a "3D field-like" effect that creates
| memory trace.
| In fact the name STM is very unfortunate here and in my opinion the term
| memory trace (MT) much better reflects underlying processes.
| The purpose of this "3D field" is to provide a very effective mechanism
| of correlating multidimensional signals within the context of its past.
| The "brain" didn't have a much choice here, careful consideration
| (reverse engineering) of the temporal binding problem indicate that it
| is the only possible solution available - neurons create "temporal-bind"
| with each other within this field. Consequently the correlation outcome
| is the superposition result of past memory traces ( "3D fields" ) where
| new neurons are "hired" and incorporated/build into the network.
|
| You can't partition this process, you can't simplify this process, you
| can't localize this process.
| Your model has to capture complete "temporal-bind" of the field with
| many its distribution properties.
|
| - what a "memory trace" is?
|
| It is simply a change in a state of the physical 3D media between
| neurons that represent there mutual activation histories.
| 3D memory tracings have to occur within very short time slots ~3-10ms
| and be registered as extremely low continuous media changes. At present
| we don't have technology to register this type of process.
|
| - Where did you get that from?
| From my own research.
|
| /quote
|
| > The speculations of many physicists over the past century or more
| > about brain function have not yet led to breakthroughs in our
| > understanding.  Will one of these three prove to be the exception?
|
| Maybe will, maybe won't.
| One thing sure - ignoring them won't lead to any breakthrough.
|
| After all, sensory physiology of Helmholtz was the basis of Wilhelm
| Wundt work, who is considered one of the founders of experimental
| psychology. So maybe shrinks could learn from physicists again?;)
|
| Regards...

Seems there's an attenuated-echo in-here.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/21/2007 4:07:07 AM
"Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message 
news:f0bm5f$9le$1@news1.xnet.hr...
|r norman wrote:
| >
| > I will simply comment that neurophysiology, which looks specifically
| > at cellular mechanisms, and neurobiology in general, which looks
| > specifically at experimentally accessible mechanisms with actual
| > evidence to support them, is a rather different world from that of
| > artificial intelligence or behavioral psychology (I except
| > physiological psychologists, many of whom are indistinguishable  from
| > neurophysiologists) or speculations of  physicists or ... or ... ....
|
| Ah so what you can't measure, doesn't exist?:)
|
| Well pardon me for spoiling your precious newsgroup with speculations;)
|
| Regards.

It's not only all measurable, but
was measured long ago, and is
routinely measured whenever
folks use scanning medhods.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/21/2007 4:10:32 AM
On Apr 20, 9:07 pm, "Benjamin" <Benja...@verizon.net> wrote:

> | But it's not about gestalt effect how you or Sperry imagine it.
> | Quote from thread 'Molecules and Neurons - and photons'

Ooh. A brain whose signals are based on proteins and 400 nm lasers
pumped by more powerful 400 nm lasers pumped by nuclear fusion. How
cool!!

Certain types of proteins at certain concentrations code for 400 nm
laser light of varying intensities; and visa versa.

0
Radium
4/21/2007 5:23:33 AM
I guess there're some fundamental gap between computer and human
brain.

Turing machine was built on finite alphabet with finite state and
recent study on the infinite alphabet is focused on countable sets.

But to human brain, the input singnal obviously can't be finite, or
even countable. So are its states.  I don't see any breakthrough of
Turing's theory on uncountable sets and states.





On Apr 19, 1:20 am, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2007 09:08:17 -0700, bob the builder
>
>
>
>
>
> <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 18, 4:13 pm, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> On 18 Apr 2007 06:46:52 -0700, bob the builder
>
> >> <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >oh , and dont listen to what everybody else is saying, keep dreaming.
> >> >Some of the biggest scientific discoveries where made by people
> >> >ridiculed by the 'scientific community',
>
> >> You forget that we have already had the /privilege/ of
> >> seeing Radium work through the ideas held, and benefit of
> >> hindsight.  For all the scientists who actively WORKED on a
> >> concept there were also plenty of kooks who just piddled
> >> around and did nothing useful.  The difference was the goal,
> >> well actually HAVING one would be a start.
>
> >most famous scientist where kooks.
>
> No, not in this sense of frivolous daydream without any
> follow-through.  They had purpose, it was a means to an end.
>
> >I believe Newton tried to transform
> >all kind of metals to gold. Einstein , besides his theory of
> >relativity, also did it with a close relative. Tesla anyone?
> >And how do you know if something is going to be usefull?
>
> The difference is the daydreaming was a suppliment, one of
> many means towards the end, not the core purpose.
>
>
>
> >But i agree with 'having a goal'. It seems that the most famous
> >innovators are complete idiots with a plan.
>
> Yes it all starts with a plan, for better or worse there has
> to be a real constructive intention and some thought put
> into how to achieve that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


0
smart
4/21/2007 5:35:19 AM
smart wrote:

> I guess there're some fundamental gap between computer and human
> brain.
> 
> Turing machine was built on finite alphabet with finite state and
> recent study on the infinite alphabet is focused on countable sets.
> 
> But to human brain, the input singnal obviously can't be finite, or
> even countable. So are its states.  I don't see any breakthrough of
> Turing's theory on uncountable sets and states.

There's this recondite result known as the Nyquist Sampling Theorem, which
applies to signals of finite power. Then there are other little details,
like photon shot noise, that limit the bits of resolution per sample.

I hope that helps,
-- Michael

0
Michael
4/21/2007 5:52:01 AM
On 20 apr, 22:04, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:02:12 -0700, bob the builder wrote:
> > On 19 apr, 19:24, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 19, 10:30 am, bob the builder <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Apr 19, 1:37 pm, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Apr 16, 9:17 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi:
>
> >> > > > Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> >> > > > exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> >> > > > signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
> >> > > > If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> >> > > > transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>
> >> > > Conceptually, there is no problem. Practically, it is not possible.
>
> >> > > There are 100 billion neurons. If they are implemented in electronic
> >> > > circuitry, it would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot of time.
> >> > > Say, like a thousand billion dollars spread over two centuries.
>
> >> > Its more practical to use a programming language and some general
> >> > purpose hardware. Big companies like Intel, AMD ,IBM etc will invest
> >> > the Billions for general purpose hardware. A scientist can get it from
> >> > a shop around the corner for cheap.
>
> >> A little reality check here.
>
> >> With a desktop and NEURON, one can model a dozen neurons, modeling
> >> only the electrical characteristics. This will exhaust your PC.
>
> > You dont want to model everything on the smallest level. Those
> > proteins have a function, what function? what are they doing? Some
> > things about them will be of no consequence when modelling a brain.
> > You want to make everthing as simple as possible, but not too simpel
> > (sorry Einstein).
>
> > And maybe it turn out my quad-core pc  can only simulate 10.000
> > neurons. A decade from now my pc will do a million.
>
> I think it'd take more than that - a neuron on its own has considerable
> smarts

Yeah they are pretty smart :)

> - I even have a hypothesis that, since neurons don't generally
> reproduce, that frees up their DNA/RNA/mitochondria to do other stuff,
> which could be, that's where they store their memory.
>
> So each neuron would need the processing power of a modern desktop, and
> enough gigs of storage to model a whole genome,

The nervous sytem had/have to overcome difficulties. Evolution only
could use that what was available. Maybe some of those difficulties
are simple to solve by a human with laptop... Other things maybe very
difficult for humans to solve, these things would need a very low
level of modelling.

> and as much common sense
> as a typical ameba. ;-) (or even a phagocyte! ;-) )

But i think you are right about the 'processesing' power of the brain.
A typical housefly probably would bring every modern computer to his
knees. But not me! iam at least twice as smart!

> Cheers!
> Rich


0
bob
4/21/2007 11:42:01 AM
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:02:11 GMT, "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net>
wrote:

>"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message 
>news:klhi23pasls517arrgok1ek2hr1kb7669s@4ax.com...
>| On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:15:17 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe@vrspace.org>
>| wrote:
>| [...]
>
>| I recall Roger Sperry describing in
>| class some 45 years ago his
>| experiments showing how general
>| electric fields could not be responsible
>| for "gestalt" phenomena -- he short-
>| circuited brain regions with tantalum
>| wires and isolated brain regions with
>| mica insulators but neither intervention
>| had any effect on cortical function.
>| [...]
>
>I've only been skimming this thread, so
>my comments will be out-of-context [and
>I'm not agreeing with anything in what
>I've only skimmed.]
>
>The ionic conductances are necessary
>for 'normal' neuronal function, which ["of
>course"] includes 'normal' cortical function.
>
>And the ionic conductances are literally
>a dynamically-formed 'electric field' that's
>tunable via globally-integrated TD E/I-
>minimization as I've discussed in form-
>er posts here in b.n.
>
>Your post is the first I've heard of it, but
>to do what Sperry claimed(?) [as above],
>one would have to eliminate all ionic cond-
>uctances.
>
>The problem with that is that what's
>left is not a "brain", but only a bunch
>of dead stuff.

As I recall, the explanation for the Gestalt theory (or at least one
explanation) was that there were electrical fields at work operating
over regions of the brain.  Sperry took a brain (rat, I believe, but
you could look it up) and threaded a large number of tantalum wires
through it which should readily equalize the electrical field
potential at all points.  He took another and make numerous slits (in
directions to avoid cutting major axonal pathways) and inserted mica
sheets into the slits.  That would insulate one area from another,
preventing the electric field from spreading across the gaps.  He did
not interfere with the intracellular ionic conductances so each cell
could function normally.

I was commenting on theories that propose overall electromagnetic
fields as important in brain operation.  In particular, we know that
one cubic millimeter of mammalian brain may have several thousand
neurons, each doing rather distinct and specialized computations (or
whatever you want to call neuronal activity).  Is there any known
mechanism that would allow for fine variations of the electromagnetic
field so that points just a few dozen micrometers apart have very
distinct field values?   Is there any known mechanism whereby small
changes in the electromagnetic field can cause variation in nerve
activity?People live and work in environments where there are strong
electrical and magnetic fields and electromagnetic fields without
noticeable effect on behavior.   Magnetic stimulation requires pretty
hefty field strength, something far out of the normal range. 


0
r
4/21/2007 12:04:37 PM
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:35:01 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe@vrspace.org>
wrote:

>r norman wrote:
>> 
>> I will simply comment that neurophysiology, which looks specifically
>> at cellular mechanisms, and neurobiology in general, which looks
>> specifically at experimentally accessible mechanisms with actual
>> evidence to support them, is a rather different world from that of
>> artificial intelligence or behavioral psychology (I except
>> physiological psychologists, many of whom are indistinguishable  from
>> neurophysiologists) or speculations of  physicists or ... or ... ....
>
>Ah so what you can't measure, doesn't exist?:)
>
>Well pardon me for spoiling your precious newsgroup with speculations;)
>
>Regards.

Science generally accepts that notion that a theory that does not
produce measurable and testable predictions is not worth pursuing.
Then again, as I have tried to point out, there is a difference
between the strategies adopted by people in different disciplines.
You are the one promoting such speculations in a science newsgroup.
They might be far more acceptable in neural net or artificial
intelligence circles.  I have no objection to arguing and discussing
this type of notion in the proper venue and, in the context of those
groups, such discussions could be very valuable.  Perhaps someday a
result could be developed that could then be imported over to an
experimental science group for testing and possible validation.






0
r
4/21/2007 12:10:24 PM
Benjamin wrote:
> 
> It's not only all measurable, but
> was measured long ago, and is
> routinely measured whenever
> folks use scanning medhods.

'3D memory tracings have to occur within very short time slots ~3-10ms 
and be registered as extremely low continuous media changes.'

Did you comment on *this type* of EM field/ionic changes?
And, can you please point me to some specific scanning methods?

Regards...
0
Josip
4/21/2007 12:27:54 PM
On Apr 19, 4:00 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:

> Physical scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and
> practitioners of various arcane trades that bear little resemblance to
> science have difficulty understanding that "the brain" is living
> matter.  Action potentials are the easiest thing to "see" about brain
> activity and so, goes the mistaken general idea, if we recreate the
> action potentials then we recreate the brain.  Action potentials are
> probably the least important of the brain's machinery and large
> numbers of neurons function quite happily without being able to make
> action potentials at all.  That the life of the cell has anything to
> do with the function of a neuron is seemingly incomprehensible.

Very, very, very smart people have looked at the brain and could not
understand it. Therefore, they concluded the brain must be the most
complicated structure in the universe, well past understanding. They
may be right, but maybe not. Some, who are only very, very bright, say
the answers may be found in quantum mechanics. They, too, may be
right, but maybe not.

On action potentials: The workers in central pattern generators
(CPG's) seem to be very happy in a world of action potentials. Their
diagrams are instantly recognizable to an electrical engineer. The CPG
people claim to understand a tiny piece of brain. I give them the
benefit of the doubt.

I am aware of amacrine neurons and ephaptic effects, even gap
junctions. Still, I think that action potentials are useful aids to
understanding. Don't knock them.

> And, it might be mentioned, just what are all those  glia doing, just
> holding the neurons  together (and apart)?- Hide quoted text -

We may take the position that the nervous system is an entity,
separated from the exterior universe by an interface. The interface
has two parts: One is composed of the sensory neurons. One is composed
of the motor neurons. All the cells of the organism, other than nerve
cells, belong to the exterior universe. The glia are external.

I find great utility in this position. I recommend it. It is a natural
extension of the Bell-Magendie Law. Don't knock it.

Incidentally, the interface runs through the pituitary.

Ray


0
rscan
4/21/2007 1:21:48 PM
On 21 Apr 2007 06:21:48 -0700, "rscan@nycap.rr.com"
<rscan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>On Apr 19, 4:00 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Physical scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and
>> practitioners of various arcane trades that bear little resemblance to
>> science have difficulty understanding that "the brain" is living
>> matter.  Action potentials are the easiest thing to "see" about brain
>> activity and so, goes the mistaken general idea, if we recreate the
>> action potentials then we recreate the brain.  Action potentials are
>> probably the least important of the brain's machinery and large
>> numbers of neurons function quite happily without being able to make
>> action potentials at all.  That the life of the cell has anything to
>> do with the function of a neuron is seemingly incomprehensible.
>
>Very, very, very smart people have looked at the brain and could not
>understand it. Therefore, they concluded the brain must be the most
>complicated structure in the universe, well past understanding. They
>may be right, but maybe not. Some, who are only very, very bright, say
>the answers may be found in quantum mechanics. They, too, may be
>right, but maybe not.
>
>On action potentials: The workers in central pattern generators
>(CPG's) seem to be very happy in a world of action potentials. Their
>diagrams are instantly recognizable to an electrical engineer. The CPG
>people claim to understand a tiny piece of brain. I give them the
>benefit of the doubt.
>
>I am aware of amacrine neurons and ephaptic effects, even gap
>junctions. Still, I think that action potentials are useful aids to
>understanding. Don't knock them.
>
>> And, it might be mentioned, just what are all those  glia doing, just
>> holding the neurons  together (and apart)?- Hide quoted text -
>
>We may take the position that the nervous system is an entity,
>separated from the exterior universe by an interface. The interface
>has two parts: One is composed of the sensory neurons. One is composed
>of the motor neurons. All the cells of the organism, other than nerve
>cells, belong to the exterior universe. The glia are external.
>
>I find great utility in this position. I recommend it. It is a natural
>extension of the Bell-Magendie Law. Don't knock it.
>
>Incidentally, the interface runs through the pituitary.
>

I certainly don't knock the action potential.  Any time a signal must
travel more than a millimeter or so, it must be in the form of an
action potential.  It is just that within one cubic millimeter of
brain tissue, there may be thousands of neurons and tens of thousands
of synapses that can function quite well on local potentials.  There
are innumerable dendro-dendritic synapses in local microcircuits that
work without action potentials.  In the retina, the rods and cones,
horizontal cells, and bipolar cells work without action potentials and
the amacrine cells mostly do, too.

Pretty much all the central pattern generators that I know about rely
very heavily on non-action potential mechanisms to produce patterned
rhythmic activity.  These are usually local semi-active potentials due
to calcium conductance changes that modulate cell activity.  

When glial activity interacts and modulates neuronal activity, then
they certainly are not "external" to the nervous system.

There do exist groups who are very active in modeling true neuronal
activity, including local potentials, synaptic modulation, calcium
effects, the whole works, in a method that tries to be as true as
possible to physiological reality.  On the other hand, there are
people who model artificial "neurons" and build all sorts of complex
networks from them with no or little regard to physiological reality.
Both types of work can accomplish important results, each in their own
arena.  I just don't care for the claim that AI work on "neural"
networks has much connection to actual brain function.

Then there are people (Penrose comes to mind, here) who make (or have
made) arguments like: "We don't understand consciousness.  We don't
understand gravity.  We understand everything else in the world of
physics and physics explains everything.  Therefore consciousness must
rely on theories of gravity."


0
r
4/21/2007 2:56:51 PM
"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1177133013.380107.151350@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| On Apr 20, 9:07 pm, "Benjamin" <Benja...@verizon.net> wrote:
|
| > | But it's not about gestalt effect how
| > | you or Sperry imagine it. Quote from
| > | thread 'Molecules and Neurons - and
| > | photons'

"Hmmm..."

| Ooh. A brain whose signals are based
| on proteins and 400 nm lasers pumped
| by more powerful 400 nm lasers pumped
| by nuclear fusion. How cool!!

I 'presume' you're being 'fanciful' in a delib-
erately-'provacative' way, but the above
stuff is almost-completely-useless.

| Certain types of proteins at certain concen-
| trations code for 400 nm laser light of varying
| intensities; and visa versa.

This's NI ["not it"] be-cause molecular reso-
nances occur as dynamic functions of 'atomic'
resonances -- in 3D -- so, since lasers have
uniquely-tuned frequencies, beyond replicating
the already-existing Verification of what I just
wrote, trying to use lasers to 'replicate' nervous
systems' 3D-Energydynamics ["3D-E"] would
only be an exercise in futility.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/21/2007 7:27:10 PM
"smart" <smartnose@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1177133718.963394.224200@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
| I guess there're some fundamental gap
| between computer and human brain.

Not in principle. 'just' in relative in-forma-
tion-processing power and efficiencies.

| Turing machine was built on finite alph-
| abet with finite state and recent study on
| the infinite alphabet is focused on count-
| able sets.

Sleeping-eight is sleeping-eight [Infinity is
Infinity.]

Be-cause nervous systems do everything
that they do =in= 3-D-Energydynamics
["3D-E"], be-cause the 3D-E are, them-
selves, infinitely-variable, there exists no
Possibility for 'counting' with respect to
what it is Possible 'within' nervous sys-
tems' in-formation-processing dynamics.

| But to human brain, the input singnal
| obviously can't be finite, or even countable.
| So are its states.  I don't see any break-
| through of Turing's theory on uncountable
| sets and states.
| [...]

Everything necessary has been given [albeit,
at an introductory-'level'] in a ms. entitled,
=On The Automation of Knowing within Cen-
tral Nervous Systems: A Brief Introduction to
Neuroscientific Duality Theory= ["AoK"], and
the refs. cited in AoK, with further discussion
in AoK's antecedant papers, 1974-1980.

The actuality of the Infinities inherent in nerv-
ous system function has been Reified in AoK,
Ap1 all along.

The actuality of the 3D-E has been Reified in
AoK all along.

AoK was made-available, Gratis, to anyone
who wanted a copy of it.

So it's 'strange' that folks're still asking 'ques-
tions' that've been Resolved in AoK all along.

Perhaps folks're finally "getting-it"?

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/21/2007 7:27:11 PM
"bob the builder" <brulsmurf@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1177155721.420449.129300@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
| On 20 apr, 22:04, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
| > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:02:12 -0700, bob the builder wrote:
| > > On 19 apr, 19:24, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
| > >> On Apr 19, 10:30 am, bob the builder <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| > >> > On Apr 19, 1:37 pm, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
| > >> > > On Apr 16, 9:17 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi:
| >
| > >> > > > Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that 
is
| > >> > > > exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
| > >> > > > signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
| >
| > >> > > > If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain 
and
| > >> > > > transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
| >
| > >> > > Conceptually, there is no problem. Practically, it is not 
possible.
| >
| > >> > > There are 100 billion neurons. If they are implemented in 
electronic
| > >> > > circuitry, it would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot of 
time.
| > >> > > Say, like a thousand billion dollars spread over two centuries.
| >
| > >> > Its more practical to use a programming language and some general
| > >> > purpose hardware. Big companies like Intel, AMD ,IBM etc will 
invest
| > >> > the Billions for general purpose hardware. A scientist can get it 
from
| > >> > a shop around the corner for cheap.
| >
| > >> A little reality check here.
| >
| > >> With a desktop and NEURON, one can model a dozen neurons, modeling
| > >> only the electrical characteristics. This will exhaust your PC.
| >
| > > You dont want to model everything on the smallest level. Those
| > > proteins have a function, what function? what are they doing? Some
| > > things about them will be of no consequence when modelling a brain.
| > > You want to make everthing as simple as possible, but not too simpel
| > > (sorry Einstein).
| >
| > > And maybe it turn out my quad-core pc  can only simulate 10.000
| > > neurons. A decade from now my pc will do a million.
| >
| > I think it'd take more than that - a neuron on its own has considerable
| > smarts
|
| Yeah they are pretty smart :)
|
| > - I even have a hypothesis that, since neurons don't generally
| > reproduce, that frees up their DNA/RNA/mitochondria to do other stuff,
| > which could be, that's where they store their memory.
| >
| > So each neuron would need the processing power of a modern desktop, and
| > enough gigs of storage to model a whole genome,
|
| The nervous sytem had/have to overcome difficulties. Evolution only
| could use that what was available. Maybe some of those difficulties
| are simple to solve by a human with laptop... Other things maybe very
| difficult for humans to solve, these things would need a very low
| level of modelling.

When I did it, I had access to a Z80 [8-bit]
CPM machine.

k. p. collins

| > and as much common sense
| > as a typical ameba. ;-) (or even a phagocyte! ;-) )
|
| But i think you are right about the 'processesing' power of the brain.
| A typical housefly probably would bring every modern computer to his
| knees. But not me! iam at least twice as smart!
|
| > Cheers!
| > Rich
|
| 


0
Benjamin
4/21/2007 7:27:11 PM
"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:bvuj23l5dq9bhjh5b7c446ngapieo1svhs@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:02:11 GMT, "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net>
| wrote:
|
| >"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message
| >news:klhi23pasls517arrgok1ek2hr1kb7669s@4ax.com...
| >| On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:15:17 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe@vrspace.org>
| >| wrote:
| >| [...]
| >
| >| I recall Roger Sperry describing in
| >| class some 45 years ago his
| >| experiments showing how general
| >| electric fields could not be responsible
| >| for "gestalt" phenomena -- he short-
| >| circuited brain regions with tantalum
| >| wires and isolated brain regions with
| >| mica insulators but neither intervention
| >| had any effect on cortical function.
| >| [...]
| >
| >I've only been skimming this thread, so
| >my comments will be out-of-context [and
| >I'm not agreeing with anything in what
| >I've only skimmed.]
| >
| >The ionic conductances are necessary
| >for 'normal' neuronal function, which ["of
| >course"] includes 'normal' cortical function.
| >
| >And the ionic conductances are literally
| >a dynamically-formed 'electric field' that's
| >tunable via globally-integrated TD E/I-
| >minimization as I've discussed in form-
| >er posts here in b.n.
| >
| >Your post is the first I've heard of it, but
| >to do what Sperry claimed(?) [as above],
| >one would have to eliminate all ionic cond-
| >uctances.
| >
| >The problem with that is that what's
| >left is not a "brain", but only a bunch
| >of dead stuff.
|
| As I recall, the explanation for the Gestalt
| theory (or at least one explanation) was
| that there were electrical fields at work
| operating over regions of the brain.

Stuff that's analogous to so-called "Gestalts"
does occur ["of course"], but it occurs, as
has been discussed in AoK all along and as
I've discussed, further, here in b.n, via glob-
ally-integrated TD E/I-minimization. When
folks refer to "Gestalts" they are 'just' noting
that, "Yes, unified-consciousness happens."

There's worth in seeing that unified-consci-
ousness happens, but this worth is with re-
spect to enabling one to see that which must
be 'contained' in work that remains after it
is realized that unified-consciousness Exists.

| Sperry took a brain (rat, I believe, but you could
| look it up) and threaded a large number of
| tantalum wires through it which should readily
| equalize the electrical field potential at all points.
|
| He took another and make numerous
| slits (in directions to avoid cutting major
| axonal pathways) and inserted mica
| sheets into the slits.  That would insulate
| one area from another, preventing the
| electric field from spreading across the
| gaps.  He did not interfere with the intra-
| cellular ionic conductances so each cell
| could function normally.

=Iff= there were a =single= uniform 'electric field',
it'd be Possible to redistribute 'charge' in this
sort of way.

'within' nervous systems ["brains"], however,
every 'atom', 'ion', and 'molecule' has it's own
'electric field', and, if one wanted to send all
of these 'electric fields' to ground, one would
have to do so in a way that cancels each of
them.

This's not Possible. [I Know, because I did
analogous Experiments [in straight-Physics],
let's see... 1972-3 academic 'year'.

The Impossibility derives in the experiment-
ally-Verified [by me] fact that energy flows
=Continuously=, and, if it were Possible to
send 'atomic', 'ionic', and 'molecular' 'elec-
tric fields' to ground, the 'atoms', 'ions', and
'molecules' would 'just' dis-integrate [with
extreme-violence.]

Not only did this not happen in the work of
Sperry that you described, but "cortical func-
tion" remained 'normal', which Discloses
that the 'electric fields' of the 'atoms', 'ions',
and 'molecules' remained relatively-unef-
fected.

You didn't comment with respect to whole-
nervous-system functionality after Sperry
laced-and-insulation-'gridded' his subject
brain, but some degree of TD E/I-minimiza-
tion will necessarily remain -- as is the
case within routine lesion-induced-deficit
experiments.

The experiment described is flumoxed by
'presumption' that is absent-understanding.

This sort of thing happens routinely within
experimental analyses -- because the an-
alyses are, themselves, 'founded-in' ab-
sence-of-understanding.

How and why such happens has been
Reified in AoK all along, which is one of
the main Reasons that I 'push' so hard
to give folks NDT's understanding.

When one understands how and why
nervous systems process in-formation
via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimiza-
tion, one is aware of how and why folks
tend, strongly, to 'presume' 'two'-much
with respect to the in-formation contents
of minimal experience -- as in Sperry's
False-finitizaation [AoK, Ap4] with respect
to 'short-circuiting' brains.

Another case in-point is with respect to
the effects of electromagnetic radiation
upon nervous system function.

Electromagnetic radiation =does= impact
nervous system function. [There was an
interesting recent report that Scientists
have realized that it =might= be cell-
phone microwave radiation that is what
has been causing Bees to lose their
abilities to manifest hive-Directed be-
haviors.]

That electromagnetic radion does not
completely 'short-circuit' neural dynamics,
as Sperry 'presumed' to 'be' the case in
the experiment you described, is be-
cause, as I discussed above, if the elec-
tromagnetic radiation were to completely
'short-circuit' nervous systems, it's wave-
forms would, necessarily, have to be to-
poligically-formed experssly with respect
to the "special topological homeomorph-
isms" of Individual nervous systems -- 
which =can only= occur in a 3D-inwardly-
Directed way with respect to Individual
nervous systems. In other words, for such
to happen, folks'd have to wear completely-
enclosing, inwardly-Directed electromag-
netic-radiation generators.

This said, the flooding of the electromag-
netic spectrum with ever-increasing act-
ivity at ever-increasingly-precise frequen-
cies =IS= negatively-impacting nervous
system function across populations.

This EM-induced negative-impact occurs
in a relatively-'random' way, however, =be-
cause= the topological-correlations I dis-
cussed two paragraphs above are not
instantiated.

The result of this is a 'hit-or-miss' impact
upon nervous systems' functionalities
that occurs 'randomly'.

As has been discussed in AoK all along,
such instantiates a TD E/I(up) condition
'within' Individual nervous systems and
across populations, and it can be said
with Certainty that this electromagnetic-
radiation-induced TD E/I(up) condition
is, in fact, having effects that're analogous
to any other non-minimizable TD E/I(up)
conditions that occur 'within' nervous sys-
tems. [Being written at an introductory
'level', AoK doesn't treat molecular 'level'
dynamics, but everything that's necessary
with respect to understanding such net-
TD E/I conditions has been in AoK all
along.]

| I was commenting on theories that pro-
| pose overall electromagnetic fields as
| important in brain operation.

They are.

They're 'just' extremely-topologically-com-
plex, as I've reiterated above [and as I've
been discussing here in b.n all along.]

Nervous systems literally =Grasp= energy.

it's their special topological homeomorph-
isms [AoK, "Short Paper" and throughout]
that enable them to do such.

Which is why anyone who wants to under-
stand nervous system function [curiosity,
creativity, volition, consciousness, 'con-
science', behavior, etc.] can =ONLY= do
so 'through the lens' of 'the' special topo-
logical homeomorphism.

That's why AoK was written as it was
written -- to enable folks to 'see' the
special topological homeomorphism,
and how and why the special topological
homeomorphism enables nervous sys-
tems to do =everything= that they do via
=simple= TD E/I-minimization that re-
duces to 'just'-energy that's 'constrained'
to flow in a way that's Directed by, and
'within' 'the' special topological homeo-
morphism.

| In particular, we know that one cubic
| millimeter of mammalian brain may
| have several thousand neurons, each
| doing rather distinct and specialized
| computations (or whatever you want
| to call neuronal activity).  Is there any
| known mechanism that would allow
| for fine variations of the electromagnetic
| field so that points just a few dozen
| micrometers apart have very distinct
| field values?

Yes.

This's what's been in AoK, at a macro-
scopic [e.g., introductory] 'level' all along.

This's also what I've been discussing,
all the way down to 'just'-energy, here
in b.n over the course of more than 15
'years'.

[Folks've 'presumed' this or that about
'me' and the work I'm actually doing
here in b.n. But I've just kept-on-keep-
ing-on be-cause I understood that the
stuff I'd 'had to' get-across to folks was
'just' relatively-'unfamiliar' to folks. So
I understood that, be-cause the stuff I
'had to' discuss here in b.n was, in fact,
relatively-'unfamiliar' to others, my dis-
cussing it would, necessarily, result in
TD E/I(up) occurring 'within' folks' nerv-
out systems, and that folks' nervous
systems would 'blindly' and automatic-
ally 'react' to that TD E/I(up) by 'moving
away from' both the stuff I 'had to' discuss
and 'me'.

It's been NDT's stuff that has enabled
me to endure such [not only as it has
occurred here in b.n, but =everywhere=
and =always= in my experiences out-
side of the work I do in various Disci-
plines where I'm just synthesizing the
work done by others as it's been com-
municated in one form or another.

NDT's understanding is very-useful in
this way.

I've been working to enable others to
Benefit from this usefulness.

When NDT's understanding becomes
generally-communicated, to the degree
of such, Peace will happen at all scales
within human interactive dynamics.

It's be-cause NDT Reifies Neuroscience
all the way down to 'just'-energy that I've
'got to' look to folks who do-Neuroscience -- 
because folks in general populations can-
not be expected to 'become neuroscientists',
NDT's understanding has to be dealt-with
by folks who do-Neuroscience and 'vetted'
by them. It's been to accomplish this 'vet-
ting' that I've discussed NDT's stuff here
in b.n -- be-cause, folks wouldn't allow
AoK to be Published in any 'normal' way.]

| Is there any known mechanism whereby
| small changes in the electromagnetic field
| can cause variation in nerve activity?

Yes, as above -- =in 'the' special topological
homeomorphisms of Individual nervous
systems. [In a topologically-complex way
that, nevertheless, literally Grasps 'just'-
energy.

I've reiterated all that's inherent repeatedly
here in b.n.

| People live and work in environments
| where there are strong electrical and
| magnetic fields and electromagnetic
| fields without noticeable effect on
| behavior.

As I've discussed above, this is Not-True.

| Magnetic stimulation requires pretty
| hefty field strength, something far out
| of the normal range.

I discussed such, Thoroughly, with re-
spect to the stuff that Matthew and Neil
brought-up long ago, then reducing it
all to the same-stuff to which I've, once
more, reduced the same-stuff above.

Cheers Dr. Norman,

=Thank You= for presenting this Oppor-
tunity-to-discuss.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/21/2007 7:27:12 PM
"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:6p8k235shkq443l75v8pfv06ebvcvo03el@4ax.com...
| On 21 Apr 2007 06:21:48 -0700, "rscan@nycap.rr.com"
| [...]

| Then there are people (Penrose comes
| to mind, here) who make (or have made)
| arguments like: "We don't understand
| consciousness.  We don't understand
| gravity.  We understand everything else
| in the world of physics and physics
| explains everything.  Therefore consci-
| ousness must rely on theories of gravity."

:-]

k. p. collins



0
Benjamin
4/21/2007 11:43:23 PM
"Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message 
news:f0cvu6$jlr$1@news1.xnet.hr...
| Benjamin wrote:
| >
| > It's not only all measurable, but
| > was measured long ago, and is
| > routinely measured whenever
| > folks use scanning medhods.
|
| '3D memory tracings have to occur
| within very short time slots ~3-10ms
| and be registered as extremely low
| continuous media changes.'

Neither of the above is True.

"Memory tracings" can, and often do,
take whole Life-'times' to "occur", if
they do, in fact, "occur".

While everything that happens 'within'
nervous systems is physically-contin-
uous, "memory tracings" can, and do,
"occur" at rates that can be said to
vary greatly as a function of 'time'

| Did you comment on *this type* of
| EM field/ionic changes?

I've discussed this stuff, in sufficient
detail, in long-former posts in b.n.

You might try searching NewsGroup
archives on "3D-E", but 'good luck' --
I did some searches 'yesterday' and
discovered that very-little of my prior
discussions are available via Google[tm].
[even though Google's 'profits' are up 69%
since I came back online.]

| And, can you please point me to some
| specific scanning methods?
|
| Regards...

fMRI, 2-deoxyglucose, PET, EEG, and a
method that [if it's an actual method] I
found Thrilling in it's potential, "Diffusion-
weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging
(DWMRI)", which was discussed in a
conference notice posted in b.n on
3/28/2007, etc.

If one knows the Neuroanatomy, =any=
"scanning" method allows one to meas-
ure neural dynamics [within the resolution
of the scanning technique.

When scan-movies are produced, the
measurement can be made very-precise
macroscopically.

In the future, such precision will get bet-
ter and better, but, if one Knows the
Neuroanatomy, current resolutions are
sufficient to enable folks to understand
stuff like how and why creativity, curiosity,
volition and consciousness happen.

k. p. collins


0
Benjamin
4/21/2007 11:43:23 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:kAtWh.3132$0d2.1046@trndny02...
>
> When one understands how and why
> nervous systems process in-formation
> via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimiza-
> tion,

....then one also will be taking into account that "TD E/I-up
changes in some neurons of the central nervous (actention selection serving) 
system has positively motivating (~pleasurable and/or attracting) behavioral 
effects whereas when such changes occur in other neurons they have 
negatively motivating (painful and/or repelling) effects.

This is something you have 'non-consciously neglected' to do - for reasons 
that has not been adequately covered in AoK all along. ;-)

If Ken understood how brains work in a more EPT (extended primal 
theoretical) way - see www.primaltherapy.com - he (you) would also have a 
slightly better chance of counteracting his (your) literally and 
figuratively "religiously" defensive and paranoid (they are hacking my 
computer) beliefs, his (your) victim mentality (e.g. "they are stealing my 
ideas" and "I am too poor to ever produce and maintain a web page").

Unfortunately Ken is not just an example of a human animal evolved to be 
AEVASIVE in a theoretically and scientifically *talanted* way, but one who 
has grown to cope with CURSES [-type imprints] - that he has (you have) have 
incurred and that are contained within the contents of his (your) cranial 
cavity - in a clearly "less than ideally dynamic" way.

In other words, Ken's (your) personality has developed under the pressure 
from "primal pain" (or "Pain") that has been 'put' in what can (with help of 
the injection of some of my personally pressure relieving S_EPT_IC humor) be 
described as his (your) "Actention Selection (-serving) System".

> Electromagnetic radiation =does= impact
> nervous system function. [There was an
> interesting recent report that Scientists
> have realized that it =might= be cell-
> phone microwave radiation that is what
> has been causing Bees to lose their
> abilities to manifest hive-Directed be-
> haviors.]
>
> That electromagnetic radion does not
> completely 'short-circuit' neural dynamics,
> as Sperry 'presumed' to 'be' the case in
> the experiment you described, is be-
> cause, as I discussed above, if the elec-
> tromagnetic radiation were to completely
> 'short-circuit' nervous systems, it's wave-
> forms would, necessarily, have to be to-
> poligically-formed experssly with respect
> to the "special topological homeomorph-
> isms" of Individual nervous systems -- 
> which =can only= occur in a 3D-inwardly-
> Directed way with respect to Individual
> nervous systems. In other words, for such
> to happen, folks'd have to wear completely-
> enclosing, inwardly-Directed electromag-
> netic-radiation generators.
>
> This said, the flooding of the electromag-
> netic spectrum with ever-increasing act-
> ivity at ever-increasingly-precise frequen-
> cies =IS= negatively-impacting nervous
> system function across populations.
>
> This EM-induced negative-impact occurs
> in a relatively-'random' way, however, =be-
> cause= the topological-correlations I dis-
> cussed two paragraphs above are not
> instantiated.

Apropos which, it seems that the transcranial magnetic interference method 
of doing neuropsychological research (learning about how brains normally 
allow us to be conscious, be selectively aware, feel, think, and behave in 
one way or another, through the study of the effects of specific brain 
defects/injuries) has not born fruit.

I would be happy if my conclusion were to be proven wrong.

[This has been a research-interest of Matthew K., by the way.]

P 


0
Entertained
4/22/2007 2:40:28 AM
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message 
news:462acb24$0$25465$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
|
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:kAtWh.3132$0d2.1046@trndny02...
| >
| > When one understands how and why
| > nervous systems process in-formation
| > via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimiza-
| > tion,
|
| ...then one also will be taking into account that "TD E/I-up
| changes in some neurons of the central nervous (actention selection 
serving)
| system has positively motivating (~pleasurable and/or attracting) 
behavioral
| effects whereas when such changes occur in other neurons they have
| negatively motivating (painful and/or repelling) effects.
|
| This is something you have 'non-consciously neglected' to do - for reasons
| that has not been adequately covered in AoK all along. ;-)
|
| If Ken understood how brains work in a more EPT (extended primal
| theoretical) way - see www.primaltherapy.com - he (you) would also have a
| slightly better chance of counteracting his (your) literally and
| figuratively "religiously" defensive and paranoid (they are hacking my
| computer) beliefs, his (your) victim mentality (e.g. "they are stealing my
| ideas" and "I am too poor to ever produce and maintain a web page").
|
| Unfortunately Ken is not just an example of a human animal evolved to be
| AEVASIVE in a theoretically and scientifically *talanted* way, but one who
| has grown to cope with CURSES [-type imprints] - that he has (you have) 
have
| incurred and that are contained within the contents of his (your) cranial
| cavity - in a clearly "less than ideally dynamic" way.
|
| In other words, Ken's (your) personality has developed under the pressure
| from "primal pain" (or "Pain") that has been 'put' in what can (with help 
of
| the injection of some of my personally pressure relieving S_EPT_IC humor) 
be
| described as his (your) "Actention Selection (-serving) System".

Peter, if what Needs to be done is
not done because folks expend
energy in ways that're Directed
toward 'moving' one back into
the middle, then, if one is so-Dir-
ected, what Needs to be done
remains undone.

I =understand= that what I'm work-
ing to accomplish is 'Difficult'.

It was Difficult doing the work.

It's 'Difficult' communicating it.

It's 'Difficult' being on the re-
ceiving-end of the communic-
ation.

I =understand= all of this.

Simply understanding it, myself,
does not accomplish what Needs
to be done.

Folks all over the place are Killing
and Ravaging one another's Be-
ings be-cause NDT's stuff remains
not generally-communicated.

I =Refuse= to 'just' 'throw-up-my-
hands', acquiescing to the Killing
and Ravaging -- because it's all
=Needless= -- it happens =sole-
ly= be-cause folks remain the
=Victims= of how and why nervous
systems process in-formation via
'blindly'-automated TD E/I-mini-
mization.

Clearly, the thing that Needs-doing
is the communication of understand-
ing with respect to this absence-of-
understanding.

I'm an 'easy-target' because the 'un-
familiar' stuff I've been working to
communicate elevates TD E/I 'with-
in' folks' nervous systems -- and the
environmental source of the elevated
TD E/I is easy for folks' nervous sys-
tems to calculate [via 'blindly'-auto-
mated TD E/I-minimization :-]

So I just have to take such 'on-the-
chin' while remaining doing what
Needs to be done, until enough is
done to enable folks to understand.

Understand?

| > Electromagnetic radiation =does= impact
| > nervous system function. [There was an
| > interesting recent report that Scientists
| > have realized that it =might= be cell-
| > phone microwave radiation that is what
| > has been causing Bees to lose their
| > abilities to manifest hive-Directed be-
| > haviors.]
| >
| > That electromagnetic radion does not
| > completely 'short-circuit' neural dynamics,
| > as Sperry 'presumed' to 'be' the case in
| > the experiment you described, is be-
| > cause, as I discussed above, if the elec-
| > tromagnetic radiation were to completely
| > 'short-circuit' nervous systems, it's wave-
| > forms would, necessarily, have to be to-
| > poligically-formed experssly with respect
| > to the "special topological homeomorph-
| > isms" of Individual nervous systems -- 
| > which =can only= occur in a 3D-inwardly-
| > Directed way with respect to Individual
| > nervous systems. In other words, for such
| > to happen, folks'd have to wear completely-
| > enclosing, inwardly-Directed electromag-
| > netic-radiation generators.
| >
| > This said, the flooding of the electromag-
| > netic spectrum with ever-increasing act-
| > ivity at ever-increasingly-precise frequen-
| > cies =IS= negatively-impacting nervous
| > system function across populations.
| >
| > This EM-induced negative-impact occurs
| > in a relatively-'random' way, however, =be-
| > cause= the topological-correlations I dis-
| > cussed two paragraphs above are not
| > instantiated.
|
| Apropos which, it seems that the transcranial magnetic interference method
| of doing neuropsychological research (learning about how brains normally
| allow us to be conscious, be selectively aware, feel, think, and behave in
| one way or another, through the study of the effects of specific brain
| defects/injuries) has not born fruit.
|
| I would be happy if my conclusion were to be proven wrong.
|
| [This has been a research-interest of Matthew K., by the way.]
|
| P

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation is
capable of doing =none= of the stuff
that you've mentioned above.

All it does is render neural dynamics
relatively-disordered [imposes TD E/I(up)
'within' nervous systems] be-cause, in a
way that's closely-analogous to the stuff
I discussed in what you've quoted, above,
from my previous post, TMS does not 'see'
the topological-complexity of the Neuro-
anatomy [of "the special topological
homeomorphism"], which is what enables
nervous systems to do =everything= they
do.

The Neural Topology is as it is for in-form-
ation-processing-Necessary Reasons.

Anything that proposes to either disclose
and/or enhance nervous system function
=must= -- =can only= -- do so to the degree
that it does, in fact, 'address' the neural To-
pology.

If folks look, folks'll See that this is why,
in everything I discuss, everything re-
duces to the neural Topology. Neuro-
science =cannot= be done without ad-
dressing the neural Topology.

My 'crime', that has 'everyone' 'presuming'
that 'the thing to do' is to 'beat-up' on 'me'
is that I've done the work that needed to
be done to understand how and why
nervous systems function.

However-much 'beating-up' folks pursue,
I =still= 'have to' do the one thing -- Elim-
inate the absence-of-understanding that
has had folks Killing and otherwise Ravag-
ing one anothers' Beings.

Folks 'think' that "Ken is [this or that that's
untoward]", but all I'm doing is what Needs
to be done to give folks Reason where on-
ly absence-of-Reason has 'existed'.

The work is Hard-enough, Peter.

Why 'beat-up' on 'me' when all I've done is
Love folks enough to do the work?

You know? :-]

What would you, or anyone else, have
me do?

Let you, and anyone else, 'interject' de-
structive-disorder upon ['within'] the dis-
cussion of NDT's stuff =before= folks
have had opportunity to understand
NDT's stuff?

That's what =routinely= happens with
respect to =anything= that's not generally-
'familiar' [for Reasons that've been in AoK
all along].

When such happens, 'everything' remains
as it was, 'the middle', thus, being 'sustained'.

But the whole-Problem is that, thus far, in
Humanity's History, 'the middle' has not
'contained' what Needs to be understood.

Folks 'love' 'the middle' more than they
Love Truth, and 'do-anything' to 'sus-
tain' that which they 'love'.

What is one who understands the way
out of such 'supposed' to do?

Be 'coerced' back-into 'the middle'?

'forsake' Hope?

One just does what Needs to be done.

Saying 'ouch' when it 'hurts'.

BTW, I discussed TMS in sufficient detail
with Matthew and Neil Fornier here in b.n,
back during my last online 'life'.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/22/2007 4:34:37 AM
On Apr 21, 10:56 am, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:

Every explanation has its starting point. If we look at the nervous
system, should we see an electrical circuit, or a biological
structure? I would argue, both!

Reductionism is everywhere. The material universe is explained as a
field by the physicist. As astronomical bodies by the cosmologist. Big
bang, big crunch, tiny electrons. The molecular cell biologist touts
the genome. Nucleotides explain all.

The psychologist, the social scientist, has his story. The only
measure of validity that I can see is whether or not the story is
interesting.

I am only one man, but I have opinions. I judge the molecular
interactions within a neuron (or any cell) to be highly interesting,
fascinating. But then I also see the 20,250 (presently accepted number
in some places) sequences of nucleotides that ultimately determine
these proteins as an ultimate explanation of living forms, sex, Wall
Street, and wars.

I see this group as having two fundamental interests. One is the
relationship between the soul (mind) and the body. The other is the
functioning of the nervous system (brain) as an entity. It is
difficult to separate them, and to keep them separate.

I must say that I see the glia as peripheral in this group, just like
toenails and the liver. But then, maybe not. Maybe the glia will
emerge as crucial to understanding our mental life. What is a nervous
system? Look at the sponge! Either it has no nervous system, or every
cell is a neuron. The glia must have their place.

In the meantime, I would pursue the interplay of action potentials. I
say there is interest in the nervous system as an electrical circuit.
Circuitry explains the heartbeat. But we need molecular tides in the
neurons to explain the rhythmicity.

I am taken with this notion of an interface between the nervous system
and the Other. If you say that the glib are a part of the nervous
system, I say, "Why not! Think of the sponge.".

So, let us include the glia, even as a circuit includes the insulating
jacket on the wires.

> There do exist groups who are very active in modeling true neuronal
> activity, including local potentials, synaptic modulation, calcium
> effects, the whole works, in a method that tries to be as true as
> possible to physiological reality.

In some sense, Blue Brain belongs in this ensemble. They have a mass
of data involving the input to, and the output from, a macrocolumn in
the neocortex. Their objective is to model the approximately 10,000
neurons involved, making the ten million synaptic junctions according
to anatomic data. The addition of gross molecular effects is trivial
(except in computational load). This is done everyday in small
neuronal nets using NEURON. Physiological reality depends on the
viewer's eye. If we are to model each protein molecule, each ion, I
say we are going to far.

I am not touting Blue Brain. They are funded, and we shall see.

> On the other hand, there are
> people who model artificial "neurons" and build all sorts of complex
> networks from them with no or little regard to physiological reality.
> Both types of work can accomplish important results, each in their own
> arena.  I just don't care for the claim that AI work on "neural"
> networks has much connection to actual brain function.

We agree. Two points: They are paid, and they are published.

Ray

0
rscan
4/22/2007 5:11:36 PM
"smart" <smartnose@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1177133718.963394.224200@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> But to human brain, the input singnal obviously can't be finite, or
> even countable. So are its states.

Why can't it be finite?  Admittedly, both numbers appear
to be very, very large, but I see no reason to believe that
either would be infinite.

Bob M.


0
Bob
4/22/2007 8:36:09 PM
<rscan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:1177261896.116542.22040@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| On Apr 21, 10:56 am, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
| [...]

| They are paid, and they are published.

Which says absolutely-nothing with re-
spect to Truth.

Scandal sheets are published,
and those who write them get
paid.

The only thing that matters is
'movement' with respect to
Truth.

Most often, 'moving toward' 'un-
familiar' Truth is actively negatively-
sanctioned -- unpaid, unpublished,
then stolen, 'two'.

'payment' and 'publishing' are not
factors in Proof.

k. p. collins


0
Benjamin
4/22/2007 8:37:36 PM
On 22 apr, 22:37, "Benjamin" <Benja...@verizon.net> wrote:
> <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177261896.116542.22040@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> | On Apr 21, 10:56 am, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> | [...]
>
> | They are paid, and they are published.
>
> Which says absolutely-nothing with re-
> spect to Truth.
>
> Scandal sheets are published,
> and those who write them get
> paid.
>
> The only thing that matters is
> 'movement' with respect to
> Truth.
>
> Most often, 'moving toward' 'un-
> familiar' Truth is actively negatively-
> sanctioned -- unpaid, unpublished,
> then stolen, 'two'.
>
> 'payment' and 'publishing' are not
> factors in Proof.
>
> k. p. collins

I , as a Jedi, understand. Its foolish to ignore the force. As obi wan
kenobi once told me: " you can ignore the force but the force wont
ignore you". But back to the topic discussed. An electronic brain is
only possible when the force is strong the electronic parts which make
up the brain.

May the force be with you.


0
bob
4/23/2007 1:52:16 PM
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message 
news:f0ggvq$ldq$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
|
| "smart" <smartnose@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1177133718.963394.224200@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
|
| > But to human brain, the input singnal
| > obviously can't be finite, or even
| > countable. So are its states.
|
| Why can't it be finite?  Admittedly, both
| numbers appear to be very, very large,
| but I see no reason to believe that
| either would be infinite.
|
| Bob M.

You know the old joke about long-im-
prisoned folks who've heard all of each
others' jokes so many times that they
gave the jokes numbers? A number is
called out -- "79" -- everyone laughs.

"AoK, Ap1"

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/24/2007 6:57:03 AM
IMHO the reason we haven=B4t had any real breaktroughs in this field, is
because integration is too sparse and flat to compite with Nature's.
Electronic devices are faster than brains and so, we can simulate a
few hundred neurons at a time, but the brain use massive parallelism
involving thousands of neurons. Our computers and simulations have the
intelligence of half a flea and perform mostly well with planar
technology; we can only imagine what will be when solid state gains a
new dimension and we start to use cubic processors and cubic memories!

0
ChaosDevil
4/26/2007 12:11:54 AM
r norman wrote:
> 
> Pretty much all the central pattern generators that I know about rely
> very heavily on non-action potential mechanisms to produce patterned
> rhythmic activity.  These are usually local semi-active potentials due
> to calcium conductance changes that modulate cell activity.  
> 
> When glial activity interacts and modulates neuronal activity, then
> they certainly are not "external" to the nervous system.

OMG brainwaves come from glial activity?!:)
Like,
Conductance changes, an electrogenic pump and the hyperpolarization of 
leech neurones following impulses
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1350554
A Glia-Neural Theory of Brain Function
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/47/1/129.pdf

'A brain without glia would, in this conception, be a giant computer 
operating at random for lack of a program.'
LOL:)

Well thanks guys I learned quite interesting stuff!:)

And of course I have more questions;)

Whats the ionic density?
And who cares anyway?:) Well, ionic density is cruical for formation of 
quantum neural networks; so my question turns to 'do QNNs form'.

QNN: The approach does not make any assumption about the nature and 
shape of both signal and noise. The average response of a neural lattice 
is described using Schrodinger wave equation. Capable of recognizing 
structures in data. [1][2][3] Usage: speech, vision... stohastic filtering.

So it's a theoretical model, just its so damn good compared to 
'ordinary' ANNs, that I can't help but wonder if there's anything in 
meatspace that implements it.
I doubt that there's any specific neural/synaptical circuit(s) that 
calculates joint Schrodinger's, OTOH, who knows.
Bottom line, a silicon crystal or a cellular membrane (?) may have much 
more signal processing power than we usually think of.

BTW, note that 'conductance changes' thing. Dielectric permitivity 
influences signal propagation speed, so due to Doppler effect signal 
gets frequency modulation.
If you are to feed anything into a quantum implementation of quantum NN, 
you have to use frequency modulation.
Well you could probably use spin or polarization etc. for input and 
readout. But Doppler is most likelly here, so if there's any QNNs 
involved, my bet is on frequency.

As you see, I have no clue of neuroscience, but that's why I'm asking:)

Regards...

[1] Stochastic filtering and speech enhancement using a recurrent 
quantum neural network
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/9048/28701/01287645.pdf
[2] Quantum neural networks (QNNs): inherently fuzzy feedforward 
neuralnetworks
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel4/72/12383/00572106.pdf?arnumber=572106
[3] A Recurrent Quantum Neural Network Model to Describe Eye Tracking of 
Moving Targets
http://www.springerlink.com/content/xr5h36146350g685/
0
Josip
4/26/2007 2:32:59 PM
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:32:59 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe@vrspace.org>
wrote:

>r norman wrote:
>> 
>> Pretty much all the central pattern generators that I know about rely
>> very heavily on non-action potential mechanisms to produce patterned
>> rhythmic activity.  These are usually local semi-active potentials due
>> to calcium conductance changes that modulate cell activity.  
>> 
>> When glial activity interacts and modulates neuronal activity, then
>> they certainly are not "external" to the nervous system.
>
>OMG brainwaves come from glial activity?!:)
>Like,
>Conductance changes, an electrogenic pump and the hyperpolarization of 
>leech neurones following impulses
>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1350554
>A Glia-Neural Theory of Brain Function
>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/47/1/129.pdf
>
>'A brain without glia would, in this conception, be a giant computer 
>operating at random for lack of a program.'
>LOL:)
>
>Well thanks guys I learned quite interesting stuff!:)
>
>And of course I have more questions;)
>
>Whats the ionic density?
>And who cares anyway?:) Well, ionic density is cruical for formation of 
>quantum neural networks; so my question turns to 'do QNNs form'.
>
>QNN: The approach does not make any assumption about the nature and 
>shape of both signal and noise. The average response of a neural lattice 
>is described using Schrodinger wave equation. Capable of recognizing 
>structures in data. [1][2][3] Usage: speech, vision... stohastic filtering.
>
>So it's a theoretical model, just its so damn good compared to 
>'ordinary' ANNs, that I can't help but wonder if there's anything in 
>meatspace that implements it.
>I doubt that there's any specific neural/synaptical circuit(s) that 
>calculates joint Schrodinger's, OTOH, who knows.
>Bottom line, a silicon crystal or a cellular membrane (?) may have much 
>more signal processing power than we usually think of.
>
>BTW, note that 'conductance changes' thing. Dielectric permitivity 
>influences signal propagation speed, so due to Doppler effect signal 
>gets frequency modulation.
>If you are to feed anything into a quantum implementation of quantum NN, 
>you have to use frequency modulation.
>Well you could probably use spin or polarization etc. for input and 
>readout. But Doppler is most likelly here, so if there's any QNNs 
>involved, my bet is on frequency.
>
>As you see, I have no clue of neuroscience, but that's why I'm asking:)
>
>Regards...
>
>[1] Stochastic filtering and speech enhancement using a recurrent 
>quantum neural network
>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/9048/28701/01287645.pdf
>[2] Quantum neural networks (QNNs): inherently fuzzy feedforward 
>neuralnetworks
>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel4/72/12383/00572106.pdf?arnumber=572106
>[3] A Recurrent Quantum Neural Network Model to Describe Eye Tracking of 
>Moving Targets
>http://www.springerlink.com/content/xr5h36146350g685/

I agree that you have no clue of neuroscience.  You ask questions and
then seemingly give the answers you want to hear.  

The two actual science references you cite are good work, but are now
35 to 45 years old.  We have learned some things since.

The two IEEE papers require registration, but the third paper on
quantum neural network models is typical of the work of electrical
engineers or physicists who develop models not terribly dependent on
actual neuroscience mechanisms.   If you would like information about
actual physiology, then please ask and I will respond. 
0
r
4/26/2007 3:15:33 PM
"Ouch!"

"Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message 
news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
|r norman wrote:
| >
| > Pretty much all the central pattern generators that I know about rely
| > very heavily on non-action potential mechanisms to produce patterned
| > rhythmic activity.  These are usually local semi-active potentials due
| > to calcium conductance changes that modulate cell activity.
| >
| > When glial activity interacts and modulates neuronal activity, then
| > they certainly are not "external" to the nervous system.
|
| OMG brainwaves come from glial activity?!:)
| Like,
| Conductance changes, an electrogenic pump and the hyperpolarization of
| leech neurones following impulses
| http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1350554
| A Glia-Neural Theory of Brain Function
| http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/47/1/129.pdf

"Ouch!"

| 'A brain without glia would, in this conception, be a giant computer
| operating at random for lack of a program.'
| LOL:)
|
| Well thanks guys I learned quite interesting stuff!:)
|
| And of course I have more questions;)
|
| Whats the ionic density?
| And who cares anyway?:) Well, ionic density is cruical for formation of
| quantum neural networks; so my question turns to 'do QNNs form'.

No -- if you drop into bionet.neuroscience,
I've been discussing why not, and discuss-
ing, vastly-more-powerful stuff than a so-
called "quantum" thing could ever instan-
tiate, [for the g'zillionth' 'time' over the course
of the last three 'decades'].

| QNN: The approach does not make any assumption about the nature and
| shape of both signal and noise. The average response of a neural lattice
| is described using Schrodinger wave equation. Capable of recognizing
| structures in data. [1][2][3] Usage: speech, vision... stohastic 
filtering.

Ho, ho, ho :-]

| So it's a theoretical model, just its so damn good compared to
| 'ordinary' ANNs, that I can't help but wonder if there's anything in
| meatspace that implements it.

Ho, ho, ho.

| I doubt that there's any specific neural/synaptical circuit(s) that
| calculates joint Schrodinger's, OTOH, who knows.

Ho, ho, ho.

| Bottom line, a silicon crystal or a cellular membrane (?) may have much
| more signal processing power than we usually think of.

Ho, ho, ho.

One of the primary functionalities of
glia is that they physically-alter] neuronal-
network Topology dynamically in a way
that's structurally infinitely-tunable.

Can you say, "Grains of sand?" :-]

| BTW, note that 'conductance changes' thing. Dielectric permitivity
| influences signal propagation speed, so due to Doppler effect signal
| gets frequency modulation.
| If you are to feed anything into a quantum implementation of quantum NN,
| you have to use frequency modulation.

There's exactly-Zero'quantum' =anything=
within physical reality.

| Well you could probably use spin or polarization etc. for input and
| readout. But Doppler is most likelly here, so if there's any QNNs
| involved, my bet is on frequency.

Ho, ho, ho.

| As you see, I have no clue of neuroscience, but that's why I'm asking:)
|
| Regards...
|
| [1] Stochastic filtering and speech enhancement using a recurrent
| quantum neural network
| 
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/9048/28701/01287645.pdf
| [2] Quantum neural networks (QNNs): inherently fuzzy feedforward
| neuralnetworks
| 
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel4/72/12383/00572106.pdf?arnumber=572106
| [3] A Recurrent Quantum Neural Network Model to Describe Eye Tracking of
| Moving Targets
| http://www.springerlink.com/content/xr5h36146350g685/

It's all so Sorrowfully-'hilarious'.

I Resolved all of this Stuff 'decades'
ago, presenting the basics of it
in an invited presentation at the
NRL in 1983.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/26/2007 7:13:28 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
| [...]
| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
||[...]
|| A Glia-Neural Theory of Brain Function
|| http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/47/1/129.pdf
|
| "Ouch!"
| [...]

BTW, because I've got my browser
screwed-down-tight, I couldn't DL
the .PDF.

I'd like to know what it says.

Anyone know?

I sent-out Papers and letters dis-
cussing glial fx, as it's still implement-
ed in NDT, starting in the early-1970s.

[It was some of what I continued work-
ing-on as a non-degree-candidate
grad student during the 1974-5 academ-
ic 'year'.

It was the topic of my Masters' Thesis
during the 1976-7 academic 'year'.

Got an A+ on what I'd done before I
came to the Defense of my Dear
Friend, resigned and withdrew.

It's right-there in my Transcript.

'Spect that'll 'mysteriously'-alter 'now' :-]

Before taking-up the development of
NDT, I'd worked on developing TH,
in which the NL-P stuff originated,
beginning when I was 11, 49 'years'
ago, after having had my Life Reordered
when I read the Little Orange Book,
=Young Thomas Edison=. From
then onward, almost all the $ I earned
went into "working-like-Edison", be-
ginning with the $ I earned on my
'morning' paper route [when one Sees
what Needs to be done, one just does it  :-]

But, "gees, 'louise'!", what about
Honor-in-Science?

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/26/2007 7:35:15 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:T97Yh.2368$KB1.448@trndny09...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
|| [...]
|| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
|| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
|||[...]
|| [...]
| [...]

| But, "gees, 'louise'!", what about
| Honor-in-Science?

Or do folks 'think' that Honor-in-Science,
and the absence-of-such, do not Ram-
ify throughout general Populations.

They do.

The net result is what the Children
learn, and 'carry'-with-them in all of
their endeavors.

Absence-of-Honor spreads like any
other disorder-imposing disease.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/26/2007 7:41:49 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:T97Yh.2368$KB1.448@trndny09...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
|| [...]
|| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
|| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
|||[...]
||| A Glia-Neural Theory of Brain Function
||| http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/47/1/129.pdf
||
|| "Ouch!"
|| [...]
|
| BTW, because I've got my browser
| screwed-down-tight, I couldn't DL
| the .PDF.
| [...]

I didn't access the other links.

'heart'-'questioning' be-cause of the
other post, but still aware that I've
got to maintain extreme-Discipline
with this 9th internet PC.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/26/2007 7:47:15 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:7l7Yh.9864$dM1.2120@trndny07...
| [...]

"Burma Shave." 


0
Benjamin
4/26/2007 7:48:48 PM
On Apr 16, 8:17 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain that is
> exactly like a human brain except that its uses purely-electric
> signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
> If so would this brain be able to link to actual human brain and
> transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural signals?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium


I appologize for not reading this very long thread but thought I would
throw this thought in just in case it wasn't mentioned:

If you have a system of linear equations, you can turn them into a
analog computer circuit which is a bunch of wires, resisters and
gates.  (I think you have to take a Laplace Xform to do this if I
remember....)

What is interesting is that for a forced response problem, the circuit
behaves in real time.

I always thought it would be neat if you had, say a 10 million DOF FEM
model, obtained the analog computer network, and then built a solid
stateone by burning a chip with a device not totally unlike an ink-jet
printer, powered it up, applied the inputs and measured your outputs.

I don't know what can be done with non-linear systems, but I suspect
they might also be Xformable.


0
tomhoo
4/26/2007 8:43:38 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
| [...]
| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
|| [...]
| [...]

| There's exactly-Zero 'quantum' =anything= <-edited
| within physical reality.
| [...]

I've explained it so many 'times' that doing
so, 'now', kind of like having to 'beg for my
life'.

And there is something like that -- but the
'life' I 'beg' for is the 'life' of Physics, not my
own -- be-cause, as things stand, Physics'
'belief' in Impossible 'infinities', which are
grouped together, usually with an "inverted"
[AoK, Ap4] 'pride', under the 'heading' of so-
called "quantum weirdness", has been 're-
sulting' in all of Humanity's 'moving away
from' Truth.

So there are actual Lives on whose behalfs
I =am= Begging for -- countless real Lives,
including every Person who reads this post.

This is the Spirit in which I've pursued the
work I've been sharing in bionet.neuroscience,
in which NG, =everything= necessary to Prove
the position that I'm discussing has been re-
peatedly reiterated.

In this post, I'll go over the extreme-basics
of the Difference between Tapered Harmony's
Continuous-3D-Energydynamics [3D-E] and
the so-called "quantum mechanical" 'discrete
particle' view, showing how and why the TH
Continuous-3D-E rigorously accounts for all
known experimental results while simultan-
eously eliminating =all= 'quantum weirdness'.

Although he was in-Error in his 1905 photo-
electric effect paper, Einstein was Correct,
to the end of his Life, in the Courageous
stand he encapsulated in saying, "God
does not play with dice" -- in which Ein-
stein was asserting that 'randomness' ex-
plains nothing, and that any system that
incorporates 'randomness' is False to the
degree that it does so.

It's flat-out-easy to See that, in so saying,
Einstein was, and still is, Correct, be-cause,
if it actually had any physically-real existence,
the information-content of "randomness" is
exactly-Zero [which is the =same= "exactly-
Zero" that I asserted in what I've quoted
from my earlier post, above.]

The way that 'randomness' is in the 'heart'
of 'quantum mechanics' reflects the Error
inherent in the 'presumption' that, 'at micro-
scopic scales', energy 'is exchanged via
discrete particles', so-called "quanta of en-
ergy".

This Error dates back to 1900 when folks
in Physics had come-up-hard against the
so-called "ultraviolet catastrophe" pertaining
to the prediction of infinite-energy in the
Rayleigh-Jeans theoretical position with
respect to power-at-radiation-frequency.

It was observed that, in a "black body" set-
up, rather than heading-off to infinity, as
Rayleigh-Jeans had predicted, as TempK
is continuously-increased, power drops
back to Zero, in stereotypically-replicable
ways, as frequency increases in an un-
bounded way -- beyond this power-drop-
off, the most-significant other thing being
that, as TempK increases, the maximum-
power-peak of the net black-body radiation
shifts toward the high-frequency 'end' of
the black-body power-spectrum.

The 'difference' between the Rayleigh-Jeans
prediction with respect to radiated-power-at-
frequency and what was routinely observed
in black-body experimental set-ups is what
has been referred to as the "ultraviolet cat-
astrophe", which provoked late-19th-'century'
Physics to enter a problem-solving 'frenzy',
out of which came Max Planck's famous
'resolution' of the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'.

Planck converged upon his result via em-
pirical methods that, at first, even he was
skeptical of. But as word of his result, and
the fact that it did yeild numerical values
that were relatively-close to the experiment-
ally-observed power-at-frequency-at-TempK
values of black bodies, folks began to in-
terpret the 'constant' that Planck had in-
cluded in his empirical calculation as 'say-
ing something' "about physical reality".

And that's where almost-all of Physics [with
the notable exception of Albert Einstein]
'flew-off-the-handle', and, while there are
many analogous Errors that've long-endur-
ed during the History of Science, I know of
nothing that is as Sorrow-Filled as has
been the 'feeding-frenzy' which ensued
Planck's Erroneous-'guess'.

It's Sorrowfully-'hilarious', 'two', because
the Infinity predicted by Rayleigh-Jeans
was right-there, plain-to-see, in the black
body experimental results, and, subseq-
uently, in the agreed-upon relationship
between frequency and power. And, when
Einstein wrote his 1905 "Special Relativ-
aty" paper, the Infinity was right-there,
plain-to-see, too, but, by 'then', 'modern'-
Pysics had 'flown' completely 'off-the-handle,
and the 'die-was-cast' with respect to what
has been a ~100-'year' sojourn in a desert
of absence-of-understanding with respect
to physical reality.

Just-'now', I'm hungry. I'll continue the dis-
cussion after I find something to eat.

k. p. collins




0
Benjamin
4/27/2007 6:39:46 PM
Benjamin wrote:

   ...

> Just-'now', I'm hungry. I'll continue the dis-
> cussion after I find something to eat.

Please don't. At least not in comp.dsp.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
0
Jerry
4/27/2007 7:46:23 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SrrYh.19$f17.18@trndny05...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
|| [...]
|| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
|| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
||| [...]
|| [...]
|
|| There's exactly-Zero 'quantum' =anything= <-edited
|| within physical reality.
|| [...]
| [...]

| It's Sorrowfully-'hilarious', 'two', because
| the Infinity predicted by Rayleigh-Jeans
| was right-there, plain-to-see, in the black
| body experimental results, and, subseq-
| uently, in the agreed-upon relationship
| between frequency and power. And, when
| Einstein wrote his 1905 "Special Relativ-
| aty" paper, the Infinity was right-there,
| plain-to-see, too, but, by 'then', 'modern'-
| Pysics had 'flown' completely 'off-the-handle,
| and the 'die-was-cast' with respect to what
| has been a ~100-'year' sojourn in a desert
| of absence-of-understanding with respect
| to physical reality.
| [...]

Imagined reply:

"Ken, Ken, the black body power spectrum
has been verified to be a commonplace
phenomenon throughout the universe. For
goodness sakes, our own sun radiates as
a black body!"

Yup, and yup.

Releigh-Jeans just got the =whole= black-
body power-spectrum mixed-up with 'atom-
ic'-radiation-power -- even though the idea
that everything 'within' physical reality is
comprised of 'indivisible atoms' was already
'millenia'-old.

Because, when one distinguishes betwen
the whole black-body-power-specturm and
the radiating-powers of 'individual-atoms',
the infinity predicted in Raleigh-Jeans is
right-there, plain-to-see in the observed
black-body experimental results -- because,
if the 'containment' vessel used in a black-
body experiment did not melt-down and
vaporize as TempK was increased =without-
bounds=, as TempK increases =without-
bounds=, greatest-frequency emitted from
the black-body would also increase =with-
out-bounds=.

The 'infinite'-power is 'in' the 'individual-atom'
consideration, not in the whole-black-body-
power-spectrum consideration.

But, if TempK could, infact, be increased
without-bounds, =all= instances of black-
body experiments point Directly to the fact
that 'atomic'-radiation-frequency would
also 'increase without-bounds'.

And, since it's long been verified that the
power of radiated EM occurs as a function
of frequency, if TempK could be increased
without-bounds, frequency would increase
without-bounds, hence radiated-EM-power
would increase without-bounds.

So the Raleigh-Jeans prediction was cor-
rect except that it just didn't integrate the
already-then-known fact  that TempK can
=never= be increased without bounds, be-
cause all matter vaporizes at it's Temper
ature-of-vaporization.

But, instead of working on =this= "excep-
tion", which is clearly the thing that need-
ed to be explained, folks 'decided' to pur-
sue 'fitting' everything to Planck's Erron-
eous empirical calculation -- 'because',
after all, the =curves= it produced do
look like the data-plots from actual black-
body experiments. The Maths 'replaced'
the Doing-of-Physics, and, because 'ran-
domness' does, in fact, exactly-Zero in-
formation, it is, in fact, Possible to invoke
'randomness' in an Infinite variety of 'ways'
to 'explain' =anything=.

The 'only' Problem is that, to the degree
to which 'randomness' is incorporated
'within' a Problem-'resolution', the inform-
ation-content of the Problem-'resolution'
is also exactly-Zero.

Imagined reply:

"Ken, Ken, quantum mechanics has pro-
duced vast numbers of correct problem
resolutions. All of the modern electron-
ics, and devices that they have made
possible, like the computer you are
writing this tripe upon. It's what you are
writing that has 'exactly-zero' information
content."

"Harrumph!"

:-]

I didn't say that there has been no con-
vergence. There, of course, has been.

It's 'just' that the convergence that has
occurred has =nothing= to do with so-
called "quantized energy", and =every-
thing= to do with the fact that the con-
vergence that has occurred has occurred
be-cause of the TD E/I-minimization that's
occurred 'within' the nervous systems of
the folks who were 'curve-fitting' exper-
imental results to calculations that have
been 'founded'-in 'randomness', which,
as above, because they are 'founded'-in
'randomness' can be produced in Infinite
varieties, all of which have exactly-Zero
information-content with respect to =phys-
ical reality=, except that, yes, the calcul-
ations did, in fact, occur 'within' the phys-
ical real neural dynamics of nervous sys-
tems [in modern 'days', usually with the
assistance of computational devices.]

The Problem inherent in the above has
been that, absent-understanding with
respect to how and why nervous systems
process in-formation via 'blindly'-automat-
ed TD E/I-minimization [which I'm not go-
ing to formally address in this thread, but
which I've been discussing in b.n over
the course of more than 15 'years'], nerv-
ous systems tend, strongly, to converge-
upon Problem-'resolutions' that merely
'take-the-mean' correlating to that which
has driven the neural dynamics that have
actually occurred 'within' them as a result
of the external-experiential-environments
that Individuals have experienced.

So, if =any= group of folks experiences
relatively-exclusively 'within' a relatively-
closed group, the nervous systems of
the 'members' of that group will tend,
strongly, to converge-upon 'agreement'
with respect to =whatever= is commonly-
occurring 'within' what has been their
group-wise experience -- which can be
=anything=, as long as the 'majority' of
the 'members' of the group behave rel-
atively-in-accord-with =whatever= "it" is.

And that's exactly what happend as folks
in Physics converged into groupwise-in-
teractive dynamics with respect to Planck's
Erroneous empirical result 'with respect
to' the black-body power-spectrum, flying-
off-the-handle with respect to physical
reality, as a group -- 'because' "after all",
they were 'calculating' everything that
they agreed upon. In 'modern' 'days', all
of this has literally become entrenched
as a result of the hijacking of 'science' in
the name of 'national security' -- which
has literally coerced folks who want to
do Science into extraordinarily-cloister-
ed group-wise interactive dynamics.

Why does all of this matter?

To begin to understand that, return to the
impossibility of increasing TempK with-
out bounds in a black-body [or in anything
else within physical reality.]

I'll post this, and continue the discussion
in a follow-up.

k. p. collins




0
Benjamin
4/27/2007 8:47:49 PM
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:7JydnRh6eMKNzq_bnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@rcn.net...
| Benjamin wrote:
|
|   ...
|
| > Just-'now', I'm hungry. I'll continue the dis-
| > cussion after I find something to eat.
|
| Please don't. At least not in comp.dsp.
|
| Jerry
| -- 
| Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Hey, it wasn't me who started the cross-posting.

"Engineering is the art of making what you want
from things you can get."

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/27/2007 8:50:47 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:VjtYh.35$kg1.8@trndny04...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:SrrYh.19$f17.18@trndny05...
|| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
|| news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
||| [...]
||| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
||| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
|||| [...]
||| [...]
||
||| There's exactly-Zero 'quantum' =anything= <-edited
||| within physical reality.
||| [...]
|| [...]
| [...]

| And that's exactly what happend as folks
| in Physics converged into groupwise-in-
| teractive dynamics with respect to Planck's
| Erroneous empirical result 'with respect
| to' the black-body power-spectrum, flying-
| off-the-handle with respect to physical
| reality, as a group -- 'because' "after all",
| they were 'calculating' everything that
| they agreed upon. In 'modern' 'days', all
| of this has literally become entrenched
| as a result of the hijacking of 'science' in
| the name of 'national security' -- which
| has literally coerced folks who want to
| do Science into extraordinarily-cloister-
| ed group-wise interactive dynamics.
|
| Why does all of this matter?
|
| To begin to understand that, return to the
| impossibility of increasing TempK with-
| out bounds in a black-body [or in anything
| else within physical reality.]
| [...]

Saying that "heat-of-vaporization" is a "prop-
erty of an isotope" doesn't say anything
about how and why it's so, and it's how and
why it's so that matters, in particular, with
respect to Physis' having 'flown-off-the-
handle' in the aftermath of the "ultraviolet
catastrophe's" being encountered in the
late-19th-'century'.

'statistical mechanics' and 'thermodynamics'
[which, to date, have both literally embodied
the mean-seeking stuff that I discussed in
my preceding post, doing so in empirical
ways that 'leave-it-at-that' without actually ex-
plaining how and why it's so] view the "vapor-
ization" that is always observed as TempK is
increased 'without-limit' as occurring as a
consequence of 'atoms' exhibiting "vibration"
that increases in both frequency and intens-
ity as TempK is increased, and that 'atoms'
and 'molecules' move with increasing vel-
ocities 'because' they 'bounce-off-of' one
another with increasing-intensity that derives
in the fact that they are "vibrating" relatively-
intensely, or, in the case of accelerator ex-
periments, because imparted-motion is
relatively-large in 'particle'-collisions.

But that doesn't say how and why 'atoms'
and 'molecules' 'vibrate more-intensely' as
TempK increases.

'quantum mechanics' views such increas-
ing-vibrational-intensity as 'being' the re-
sult of so-called "sub-atimic particles"
'jumping-between' so-called "energy lev-
els" 'within' 'atoms'.

'quantum mechanics' 'believes' in the 'ex-
istences' of such 'sub-atomic particles'
because, during the course of experiment-
ation, such as with respect to the photo-
electric effect, Compton 'scattering', 'atomic'-
spectrum-analyses, and in modern 'particle'-
accelerators, there's the =appearance= of
'there being hard, point-like, things within
the target media', that can 'jump-between-
levels' in 'atoms' [corresponding to the
"lines" in line-spectra", and/or be emitted-
by and/or absorbed-within other 'atoms'.

I long-ago worked-through =all= of the ex-
perimental results that were invoked in
ways that 'presumed' that energy 'is quant-
ized', reducing everything in all of them to
=Continuous= energy-flows, but I'll stick
with the black-body stuff in this discussion
because the Continuity-of-energy-flow in
it applies to all of the other experimental
results too -- and one might as well Cor-
rect an Error where the Error first occurred,
which was with respect to the ultraviolet
catastrophe in the late-19th-'century'.

Back in the early-20th-'century', what have
been referred to as "atoms" were viewed
as being 'little solar systems', largely on
the basis of the results of Compton's 'scat-
tering' experiments, in which it was 'pre-
sumed' that incident 'photons' resulted
in the deflection of 'electrons' that were
'orbiting' the 'much-heavier' 'nucleus' of
'atoms' in the target material.

During these experiments, however, it
was also observed that such 'deflections'
were =never= precisely-replicable, occur-
ing, instead, within stereotypically-occur-
ring =ranges= of 'deflection'-angles which
ranges, themselves, had stereotypically-
occurring angular-intensity-variations.

It was in attempts' to explain this observ-
ed 'flexibility' that so-called "randomness"
entered-into calculations that were, short-
ly thereafter, to form the 'foundation' of
what has become 'quantum mechanics'.

It was with respect to observed stuff like
this that Heisenberg posed his so-called
"uncertainty principle", which states that
position and momentum of a 'particle'
cannot be simultaneously-determined, so
stuff like the observed angular-intensity-
variance in the Compton 'scattering' re-
sults could be 'accounted' for.

'uncertainty' marked the beginning of
'quantum weirdness', =all= of which
actually resulted from the fact that folks
'presumed' that energy was 'quantized'
rather than flowing Continuously.

There's no 'easy' way to transition to the
Correct resolution, so I'll just 'jump' to
stating it :-]

That there =must= be =something=
that 'segregates' "matter" into relatively-
'discrete' 'atoms' is obvious in the fact
that there exist 'discrete' "elements",
which, although they can be mixed and
or compounded, can always be purified
again, but not 'purified' beyond their "el-
emental" 'states'. [Their elemental 'states'
can ["of course"] be temporarily 'broken-
down', as occurs in so-called 'nuclear'
"fissions" and "fusions", but the results
of such 'nuclear' reactions are different
elemental 'states' which will segregate
in accord with their newly-transitioned-
into elemental 'states' during 'normal'
chemical reactions.]

Don't the chemical and 'nuclear' dyn-
amics above "require" that there 'be
discrete stuff' that can be so 'mixed-
and-matched"? Because, after all,
although some of the above is relatively-
hard to accomplish, when it is accom-
plished, it routinely occurs in replicable
ways.

Nope.

Continuous flowing of 'just'-energy can,
and does, accomplish everything with-
in physical reality, all in a way that is
Rigorously-Verified by all known exper-
imental results -- the 'only' thing is that
seeing continuous-energy enables one
to do vastly-much-more than can be
accomplished if one 'restricts' what one
'sees' to so-called "discrete particles"
[not in the least, because seeing con-
tinuous-energy Eliminates =all= so-
called "quantum weirdness", in the
process, disclosing that 'quantum
weirdness' never did have any physic-
ally-real existence -- just as Einstein
asserted in his Courageous, Life-
long-unrelenting, stand -- even though
folks who'd jumped-onto the 'quantum'
band-wagon, 'forgetting' that he'd lit-
erally carried Physics forward on his
back, excorciated him 'just' as relent-
lessly.]

What have been referred to as "atoms"
are 'just' quantities of energy 'contained-
within' harmonic compression<->expan-
sion harmonic-interaction with a con-
tinuous energy-surround -- 

Spherical-Standing-Wave<->Universal-
Energy-Supply harmonics --

SSW<->UES harmonics.

'containment' happens be-cause, dur-
ing some creation violence -- as in a
supernova -- more energy is compressed
'within' a spherical volume of space than
can pass-through the surface-area of that
spherical volume without instantiating
a perpheral spherical 'shell' in which the
energy-pressure surpasses the energy-
pressure that the volume of 'contained'
energy can exert upon its energy-surround.

The main feature of SSW<->UES harmon-
ics is that their compression<->expan-
sion harmonics are nonlinearly-dynamic.

At max-compression, all of the energy is
'contained-within' a volume that is non-
linearly-small relative to the volume of
at max-expansion.

The nonlinearity varies both in volume
per unit 'time' and in 'time', =always=
reflecting the relative-actions of 'intern-
al' and 'external' continuous energy-
pressures.

The nonlinear dynamics exhibit a "U"-
shaped acceleration-curve, with max-
energy-redistribution-velocity 'always'
occurring 'in the middle', of the max-
compression and max-expansion 'states'

Because of the compression and expan-
sion, when other quantities of continuous
energy interact with such an 'atom', how
and why they will interact is completely-
Determined by the in-compression<->
expansion 'phase' of the harmonics.

When an SSW<->UES harmonic is in
a relatively-max-compression 'state',
it will 'appear-to-be' what has been re-
ferred to as an "atomic nucleus", and
it's interactions with 'incoming' energy
of sufficiently-high frequency to fit 'with-
in' the max-compression 'state' will be
commensurately 'point'-like "elastic".

When an SSW is in a relatively-max-
expansion 'state', which is, as above,
itself  a "shelling"-compression, it will
'appear', to incoming continuous-energy
having commensurate-frequency 'to-be'
what have been referred to as an "elec-
tron", and experimental observations
will occur accordingly.

In-between max-compression and max-
expansion, analogous continuous-ener-
gy interactive-dynamics occur at relative-
frequencies that 'match' the degree of
compression or expansion that exists
when incident-continuous-energy inter-
acts with the SSW<->UES harmonic.

[Note that the "work functions" and "cut-
off-frequencies" observed in the photo-
electric effect are =Completely= Determ-
ined in the above.]

Also, because the Volume/Surface-Area
ratio of the 'contained' energy varies non-
linearly with compression/expansion
'phase, the 'containment' breaks-down
dynamically either allowing continuous-
energy-flow to be either 'out-of' or 'into'
the SSW<->UES harmonic. Hence the
various elemental "emission" and "ab-
sorption" "line spectra", which are com-
pletely-Determined by the max-expansion
quantity of energy 'contained-within' the
SSW<->UES harmonic -- which is how
and why the line spectra are uniquely-
correlated to the various elements.

Various quantities of energy so 'contained'
have the different properties of the known
elements be-cause their harmonic inter-
actions with their energy-surrounds is
Completely-Determined in their energy-
contents.

All of this happens via =continuous= en-
ergy-exchange between the 'contained'
energy and its energy-surround, and
all of this happens in =Exact=, Contin-
uous accord with the Continuous one-
way universal flowing of energy, from
order to disorder, that is what's =described=
by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T], which physically-
real Continuous energy-flow is what un-
derpins the observed expansion of the
Universe.

So-called "radioactivity" =does not= occur
in a 'random' way.

SSW<->UES harmonics dis-integrate
when, and to the degree that, their rel-
atively-local 'containing' UES-energy-
density decreases below that which is,
as above, required to 'maintain contain-
ment'.

When 'atomic' dis-integration, energy
is permanently 'released' from it's former
'containment', which bolsters the energy-
density of the surrounding UES, 'prevent-
ing' further local SSW<->UES did-inte-
grations, which, further, is how and why
'atomic'-dis-integration 'events' have the
=appearance= of 'being random'.

As the Universe continues its Continuous
overall expansion, relatively-more 'atomic'
dis-integrations will occur with respect to
particular elements that 'live-on-the-edge-
of-being-containable' at any 'point' during
the overall universal-expansion dynamics.

That's "the short story" on Tapered Harmony,
which is a "therory of everything" that occurs
within physical reality.

Tapered Harmony goes on and on, reduc-
ing everything to the SSW<->UES harmon-
ics that I've briefly discussed above. All ex-
perimental results that I know of are com-
pletely-integrated in TH -- and TH opens-
up an entire 'new-world' in which stuff
that has not even been conceived of before
is rendered flat-out Possible.

I've been discussing TH online over the
course of more than 15 'years', and al-
though, yes, I've received a lot of 'flak' for
doing so, I've =never= received a single
response with respect to anything that's
in TH in any specifically-negatively-crit-
ical way.

There'll =never= be any such stuff that can
be sustained -- be-cause, as is my routine
way, I Proved 100% of TH before I ever 'bo-
thered' anyone with it's stuff.

Albert Einstein was Correct in his Courageous
stand.

"God doesn't play at dice with the universe."

All there is is energy, flowing-Continuously,
Completely-Determined, everywhere within
physical reality, in which there is exactly-Zero
'quantum' anything.

'fire'-at-will, folks.

All that'll happen is that you'll learn TH.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/28/2007 12:37:38 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:mHwYh.1202$r77.403@trndny08...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:VjtYh.35$kg1.8@trndny04...
|| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
|| news:SrrYh.19$f17.18@trndny05...
||| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
||| news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
|||| [...]
|||| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
|||| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
||||| [...]
|||| [...]
|||
|||| There's exactly-Zero 'quantum' =anything= <-edited
|||| within physical reality.
|||| [...]
||| [...]
|| [...]
| [...]

| When an SSW<->UES harmonic is in
| a relatively-max-compression 'state',
| it will 'appear-to-be' what has been re-
| ferred to as an "atomic nucleus", and
| it's interactions with 'incoming' energy
| of sufficiently-high frequency to fit 'with-
| in' the max-compression 'state' will be
| commensurately 'point'-like "elastic".
| [...]

The above also discolses that there ex-
ists no such thing as "the strong nuclear
force".

The above also explains why what's
been referred to as the "strong nuclear
force" =appears= to 'act' at only extremely-
short distances -- be-cause experiments
which have Erroneously been 'presumed'
to 'substantiate the existence of' 'the
strong nculear force' see 'only' that 'por-
tion' of the SSW<->UES harmonics that
occur at relatively-max-compression -- 
then the SSW expands and the probing-
energy 'just' passes-right-through -- be-
cause there's nothing in-there having
so-called "nuclear"-density.

For analogous reasons, there exists no
such thing as the so-called "weak-nuclear
force".

| All of this happens via =continuous= en-
| ergy-exchange between the 'contained'
| energy and its energy-surround, and
| all of this happens in =Exact=, Contin-
| uous accord with the Continuous one-
| way universal flowing of energy, from
| order to disorder, that is what's =described=
| by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T], which physically-
| real Continuous energy-flow is what un-
| derpins the observed expansion of the
| Universe.
| [...]

What's been referred to as "gravity" is also
not a 'discrete force'. 'gravity' occurs as a
function of the fact that the UES performs
physically-real work during its sustaining
of all of the SSW<->UES harmonics that
exist within the universe -- which comprises
the greatest part of the energy-flow that un-
derpins the expansion of the Universe.

This's also how and why the Continuous
one-way universal flowing of energy, from
order to disorder, that is what's =described=
by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T],  =permeates=
physical reality -- more energy is required
to sustain the existences of an SSW<->UES
harmonic than is 'contained-within' it. The
excess energy flows away from the SSW
after performing is 'containment'-'sustain-
ing' work in a dissipative way be-cause it's
Directed in accord with the [positively-convex]
spherical Geometry of the SSW -- which
renders the exiting-continuous-energy-flow
always-dissipative -- which is some of how
and why "work" is work, and how and why
work is =always= performed at a WDB2T-
cost.

What's been referred to as "matter" is 'just'
energy that's 'contained-within' SSW<->UES
harmonics as I explained in my previous
post [linked-to at the top, above.] In TH, what's
been referred to as "matter" is, therefore tech-
nically-termed 'contained'-energy.

When 'contained'-energy moves toward
other 'contained'-energy, what's actually
happening is that it's just going with the
net continuous energy-flow that is WDB2T -- 
be-cause there's a relatively-greater energy-
dissipation [as above] on a 'line' between
the two instances of 'contained'-energy.

'gravity' literally is WDB2T. It's been 'pre-
sumed' to 'occur as a property of matter'
be-cause what's been referred to as "mat-
ter" exists as a function of the 'containment'-
'sustaining' work that's performed by the
UES upon =every= 'atom' that exists within
physical reality [which is what 'sustains'
the existences of the SSW<->UES harmon-
ics, which is what 'atoms' physically are.]

The rest of how and why "work" is work, and
the =whole= of how and why what've been
referred to as "mass" and "inertia" exist, is
closely-correlated to the above -- be-cause,
whenever 'contained'-energy is accelerated,
the work performed to impart acceleration
to it must re-Direct =all= of the 'contained'-
energy and =all= of the energy that's 'sus-
taining' the energy's 'containment' -- all of
which gracefully-unifies with all of the above
stuff.

All of Special and General Relativities are
completely-contained in the above stuff.

Again, Tapered Harmony goes on and on
like this, =everything= that's ever been exper-
imentally-observed is unified in TH and all
of it reduced to the =one= Continuous energy-
flow.

Folks who've been reading the discussions
I've posted in b.n over the 'years' have probably
come to understand this(?)

Anyway, I'd like to be allowed to discuss TH
in-person with folks who are interested in
either hearing-more of it.

k. p. collins





0
Benjamin
4/28/2007 5:10:39 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:jHAYh.461$%f7.424@trndny03...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:mHwYh.1202$r77.403@trndny08...
|| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
|| news:VjtYh.35$kg1.8@trndny04...
||| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
||| news:SrrYh.19$f17.18@trndny05...
|||| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
|||| news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
||||| [...]
||||| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
||||| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
|||||| [...]
||||| [...]
||||
||||| There's exactly-Zero 'quantum' =anything= <-edited
||||| within physical reality.
||||| [...]
|||| [...]
||| [...]
|| [...]
| [...]

|| All of this happens via =continuous= en-
|| ergy-exchange between the 'contained'
|| energy and its energy-surround, and
|| all of this happens in =Exact=, Contin-
|| uous accord with the Continuous one-
|| way universal flowing of energy, from
|| order to disorder, that is what's =described=
|| by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T], which physically-
|| real Continuous energy-flow is what un-
|| derpins the observed expansion of the
|| Universe.
| [...]

The 3D-Energydynamics are =continuous=,
but 3D-energy-flow Directionalities vary in
continuous ways with respect to the energy-
'containment' dynamics that I've discussed
in my previous posts.

I 'forgot' to "tie-up" everything in the observed
black-body power-specturm.

As TempK increases, the increased energy-
flow that is what relative-"heat" is drives the
SSW<->UES harmonics of the black-body
vessel's stuff that much more energetically -- 
be-cause the "heat" is 'just' relatively-increas-
ed energy-flow 'within' the local UES that's
"heated".

This occurs as a "bolstering" of the UES
local to the black-body vessel, which bol-
stering results in the local UES performing
relatively-more work during its 'sustaining'
of the SSW<->UES harmonics of the black-
body vessel.

The max-power peak of the black-body
power spectrum shifts toward the high-
frequency 'end' be-cause, since all of the
SSW<->UES harmonics are 'jacked-up'
by the locally-increased UES-pressure
that's due to the addition of energy that
is what "heat" is.

The power-spectrum falls toward 'zero' at
the high-frequency 'end' be-cause energy
=always= flows in the Direction of great-
est freedom-to-move, which [energy's-
freedom-to-move is referred to in Tapered
Harmony as "ephemerance", which term
was coined from "ephemeral" to connote
the uncontainable comings and goings
of energy within the one universal energy-
flow that is WDB2T], in the black-body pow-
er-spectrum is literally demarcated by the
"peak" of the power-spectrum curve -- be-
cause all of the relatively-high-frequency
SSW<->UES harmonics "dump-energy"
relatively-more-powerfully than do the rel-
atively-lower-frequency SSW<->UES
harmonics -- which is how and why the
power-spectrum is skewed toward its
high-frequency 'end', and how and why
the max-power-"peak" shifts contuously
toward the high-frequency 'end' as TempK
is continuously-increased.

All physical "phase-changes" occur for
the reasons briefly explained above -- 
which is how and why the black-body
'vessel' always melts and vaporizes as
TempK approaches and exceeds the
"vaporization-temperatures" of the stuff
of which the 'vessel' is comprised.

The same dynamics briefly-explained
above occur at =all= scales within phys-
ical reality -- from infinitely-small to in-
finitely-large, in Cosmology, wholly-De-
termining stars' evolutions.

Tapered Harmony goes on and on like
this.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/28/2007 5:58:28 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:jHAYh.461$%f7.424@trndny03...
| [...]

||||| There's exactly-Zero 'quantum' =anything= <-edited
||||| within physical reality.
| [...]

| All of Special and General Relativities are
| completely-contained in the above stuff.
| [...]

Only, be-cause all calcs in TH are done in
3-dimensions, it's much easier to calc
anything.

[What's been referred to as "time" is an en-
tirely-man-conceptualized 'thing' that has
no physically-real existence.

What has been referred to as "time" is
actually 'just' continuous-energy flow-
ing in rigorous accord with WDB2T.

To see this, consider what happens when
you wind your watch. In so doing, you per-
form work that imparts "potential energy"
to the mainspring in your watch [you 'pile-
up' energy, in a physically-real way, 'within'
the SSW<->UES harmonics comprising
the stuff out of which the spring was man-
ufactured.] You strap your watch on, and
the "potential energy" that your winding-
work 'imparted' to the spring flows contin-
uously out of the spring, which, because
it's fixed in a relatively-precisely-engineered
way within your watch's "clockworks", im-
parts "power" to the clockworks, which,
since it's engineered to relatively-precise-
ly to "govern" continuous-energy's flowing
'out-of the spring and 'into' the clockworks
so that one complete-rotation of the "min-
ute-hand" will occur in approximately 1/3600th
of an Earth-axial-rotation, and the so that one
complete-rotation of the "hour-hand" will
occur in approximately 1/24th of an Earth-
axial-rotation, by looking at the relative-
positions of the "hands" on your watch,
you'll be able to know, commensurate
to the quality of the Engineering of the
watch, where you 'momentarily' are rel-
ative to Earth's rotational-dynamics, and,
hence, with respect to 'day' and 'night',
and all the 'gradations' in-between.]

There's exactly-Zero "time" anywhere in
the mix.

All there is is energy-flowing-continuously
in Directions that are asserted by the Eng-
ineer who designs the "watch".

=Everything= that's 'presumed' 'time' -- same-
old, same-old.

All there =ever= is is continuous-energy-
flowing in rigorous accord with WDB2T.

This's True in Special and General Rela-
tivities, and in =every= other thing that
Physicists do.

There is =never= any "time" in any of it,
be-cause what's been referred to as
"time" has no physically-real existence.

100% of the Directional information is
right-there in any 3D-Energy-gradient,
anyway, so invoking 'time' only flummox-
es calculations.

So Special and General Relativities can
be done in 3D, and all of what they 'norm-
ally' yield, from the traditional Reimannian-
Geometry [4D] calcs falls-right-out, along
with much-more really-useful stuff.

Let me show you, in-person?

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/28/2007 7:26:05 PM
Whoops-a-dasies!

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:hdNYh.3008$Hd1.1909@trndny07...
| [...]

| one complete-rotation of the "minute-hand"
| will occur in approximately [1/1440th] <- edited
| of an Earth-axial-rotation, [...]

Sorry. Was focused-deeply on the actual
Calculation that I was discussing.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/29/2007 8:14:02 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:VjtYh.35$kg1.8@trndny04...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:SrrYh.19$f17.18@trndny05...
|| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
|| news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
||| [...]
||| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
||| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
|||| [...]
||| [...]
||
||| There's exactly-Zero 'quantum' =anything= <-edited
||| within physical reality.
||| [...]
|| [...]
| [...]

| Releigh-Jeans just got the =whole= black-
| body power-spectrum mixed-up with 'atom-
| ic'-radiation-power -- even though the idea
| that everything 'within' physical reality is
| comprised of 'indivisible atoms' was already
| 'millenia'-old.
|
| Because, when one distinguishes betwen
| the whole black-body-power-specturm and
| the radiating-powers of 'individual-atoms',
| the infinity predicted in Raleigh-Jeans is
| right-there, plain-to-see in the observed
| black-body experimental results -- because,
| if the 'containment' vessel used in a black-
| body experiment did not melt-down and
| vaporize as TempK was increased =without-
| bounds=, as TempK increases =without-
| bounds=, greatest-frequency emitted from
| the black-body would also increase =with-
| out-bounds=.
|
| The 'infinite'-power is 'in' the 'individual-atom'
| consideration, not in the whole-black-body-
| power-spectrum consideration.
|
| But, if TempK could, infact, be increased
| without-bounds, =all= instances of black-
| body experiments point Directly to the fact
| that 'atomic'-radiation-frequency would
| also 'increase without-bounds'.
|
| And, since it's long been verified that the
| power of radiated EM occurs as a function
| of frequency, if TempK could be increased
| without-bounds, frequency would increase
| without-bounds, hence radiated-EM-power
| would increase without-bounds.
|
| So the Raleigh-Jeans prediction was cor-
| rect except that it just didn't integrate the
| already-then-known fact  that TempK can
| =never= be increased without bounds, be-
| cause all matter vaporizes at it's Temper
| ature-of-vaporization.
| [...]

Although it does say what's important, I 'wish'
I'd taken the 'time' to better-compose the
above discussion, point-out, for instance,
that it constitutes a infinitely-precise, phys-
ically-real instance of Zeno's "halving" dyn-
amics that can =never= reach "the finish-
line".

This's the same-stuff that underpins the
so-called "constant speed of light", "in-
creasing mass as speed approaches
c", and the "relativity of time" of Special
Relativity -- all of which, as I've explained
in long-former msgs, reduce directly to
WDB2T-Determined ephemerance [en-
ergy's freedom to move.]

'constant c', 'relative-mass', and 'relative-
time' =all= occur in =exact= accord with
the stuff quoted above from my earlier
discussion of the way max-frequency
and the "peak" of the power spectrum
occur in black bodies as TempK is in-
creased.

One can force the power-specturm "peak"
to 'move toward' the high-frequency 'end'
of the power-spectrum just so much be-
fore the black-body 'vessel' melts and vap-
orizes -- which happens be-cause, in el-
evating TempK, one is acting to increase
ephemerance local to the entirety of the
SSW<->UES harmonics comprising the
black-body 'vessel', and as more and more
energy is thus added, relatively-more en-
ergy 'moves' in =any= Direction =other than=
into the 'sustaining' of the SSW<->UES
harmonics -- which is visible in the 'ordin-
ary' visual-spectrum emissions of the
black body, which go through 'glowing' red,
to white, which 'whitness' 'contains' =all=
frequencies', which renders both "ephem-
erance" and energy's going in any Direc-
tion other than into the 'sustaining' of the
SSW<->UES harmonics visible to the naked
eye [no detectors are necessary.]

All of both Special and General Relativity
are contained as subsets in black-body-
radiation set-ups.

So-called "constant c" is =exactly= the same-
stuff as the max-power "peak" never being
able to proceed to 'infinite-frequency' [nev-
er being able to actually make it to the 'end'
of the black-body power-spectrum.

Which is a physically-real, inviolable, instance
of Zeno's ancient stuff.

Tapered Harmony goes on and on like this.

[Anyway, I wrote more pages-long "to-be-dis-
cussed" topic lists again this 'day', but the
above stuff is so IMPORTANT that I'll post
this before considering what I'll post from
this most-current "list" of topics -- because
list is full of other Important stuff [they always
are :-], and I want not to 'overwhelm' folks
with so much 'new-ness' that nothing will
"stick".

It's =really Important= to "get" the stuff I've
briefly discussed above -- be-cause =all=
physically-real Action-Limits are Reified
in-it. This stuff is particularly-Important for
=any= folks who'd 'pretend' to 'know' what
so-called "nuclear weapons" are, and what
=use= of 'nuclear' weapons actually Constitutes.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/30/2007 6:17:51 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:jSfZh.4555$Hd1.1671@trndny07...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:VjtYh.35$kg1.8@trndny04...
|| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
|| news:SrrYh.19$f17.18@trndny05...
||| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
||| news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
|||| [...]
|||| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
|||| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
||||| [...]
|||| [...]
|||
|||| There's exactly-Zero 'quantum' =anything= <-edited
|||| within physical reality.
|||| [...]
||| [...]
|| [...]
| [...]

| 'constant c', 'relative-mass', and 'relative-
| time' =all= occur in =exact= accord with
| the stuff quoted above from my earlier
| discussion of the way max-frequency
| and the "peak" of the power spectrum
| occur in black bodies as TempK is in-
| creased.
| [...]

Understand?

"c" is 'constant' be-cause, as matter is
accelerated toward c, relatively more
of the accelerating energy 'moves' in
any direction =other than= in the dir-
ection of the acceleration.

This's a fundamental 'property' of phys-
ical reality that reduces directly to the
physically-real one-way flow of energy,
from order to disorder, that is what's
=described= by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T.]

Verification of =all= of this of this has
long existed in data that's been going
unused in accelerator set-ups.

If it was metered, the "power" that's
necessary to 'contain' the accelerated
energy yields a direct measure of
ephemerance as c is approached.

Understand?

The power supplied to the 'contain-
ment' magnets has to be metered
with respect to acceleration.

Accelerator set-ups are 'just' macro-
scopic, 'strangely-deformed' 's'SW<->
UES harmonics as I discussed them
earlier in this thread.

The most-important data have been
going-to-waste all along in such set-
ups.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/30/2007 12:31:58 PM
Whoops-a-dasies! :-]

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:hdNYh.3008$Hd1.1909@trndny07...
| [...]

CORRECTION:

| so that one complete-rotation of the "min-
| ute-hand" will occur in approximately [1/12th] <-edited
| of an Earth-axial-rotation, and the so that one
| complete-rotation of the "hour-hand" will
| occur in approximately [1/2] an Earth- <-edited
| axial-rotation, by looking at the relative-
| positions of the "hands" on your watch,
| you'll be able to know, commensurate
| to the quality of the Engineering of the
| watch, where you 'momentarily' are rel-
| ative to Earth's rotational-dynamics, and,
| hence, with respect to 'day' and 'night',
| and all the 'gradations' in-between.]
| [...]

[=I= knew what I was writing about :-]

Sorry.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/30/2007 1:30:54 PM
Benjamin wrote:
...
> "c" is 'constant' be-cause, as matter is
> accelerated toward c, relatively more
> of the accelerating energy 'moves' in
> any direction =other than= in the dir-
> ection of the acceleration.
> 

Any chance you can remove comp.dsp from these messages now? As far as 
appears here, you are only responding to yourself, which is never a good 
sign. Also, there is too much use of the = sign (to say nothing of the 
mixtures of " and ' here and there, which make the text appear most 
un-'scientific'), which has a specific meaning in dsp, and so makes your 
messages difficult to parse (assignment(=)  is of course a binary 
operator, not an unary one). Writing "because" as "be-cause" is, um, 
equally strange, since you appear to be subtracting "cause" from "be", 
which seems  suited more to a mystically-oriented list  than to a purely 
scientific one.


Richard Dobson
0
Richard
4/30/2007 2:22:42 PM
"Richard Dobson" <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:4635FB8E.2070304@blueyonder.co.uk...
| Benjamin wrote:
| ..
| > "c" is 'constant' be-cause, as matter is
| > accelerated toward c, relatively more
| > of the accelerating energy 'moves' in
| > any direction =other than= in the dir-
| > ection of the acceleration.
| >
|
| Any chance you can remove comp.dsp from these messages now? As far as
| appears here, you are only responding to yourself, which is never a good
| sign. Also, there is too much use of the = sign (to say nothing of the
| mixtures of " and ' here and there, which make the text appear most
| un-'scientific'), which has a specific meaning in dsp, and so makes your
| messages difficult to parse (assignment(=)  is of course a binary
| operator, not an unary one). Writing "because" as "be-cause" is, um,
| equally strange, since you appear to be subtracting "cause" from "be",
| which seems  suited more to a mystically-oriented list  than to a purely
| scientific one.
|
|
| Richard Dobson

as in "orientation" subtracted from "mystical"...? :-]

I didn't instantiate the cross-posting.

The msgs you're 'whining' about are some of the
most-significant stuff that's ever been communicated
in Science.

How and why "digital" anything is illusory is explained
in them.

How and why folks honor their 'illusions' more than
Truth is in-there, 'two'.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
4/30/2007 11:57:42 PM
Benjamin wrote:
...
> 
> I didn't instantiate the cross-posting.
> 

A remarkable confession of powerlessness - you didn't start it, so there 
is no way you can (or will) stop it.

> The msgs you're 'whining' about are some of the
> most-significant stuff that's ever been communicated
> in Science.
> 
> How and why "digital" anything is illusory is explained
> in them.
> 

But every-thing is an 'illusion', =truth= not Least.

Bye!
:-)

0
Richard
5/1/2007 8:36:33 AM
"Richard Dobson" <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4636FBED.1080706@blueyonder.co.uk...
| Benjamin wrote:
| ..
| >
| > I didn't instantiate the cross-posting.
| >
|
| A remarkable confession of powerlessness -
| you didn't start it, so there is no way you can
| (or will) stop it.
|
| > The msgs you're 'whining' about are some of the
| > most-significant stuff that's ever been communicated
| > in Science.
| >
| > How and why "digital" anything is illusory is explained
| > in them.
| >
| > How and why folks honor their 'illusions' more than
| > Truth is in-there, 'two'. [Restored my me kpc.]
| >
| > k. p. collins
|
| But every-thing is an 'illusion', =truth= not Least.
|
| Bye!
| :-)

[To all who reply: Please do so in a follow-up NG
post -- I've no viable access to email. I tried, earlier,
to cross-post to sci.physics.research. Seems it
never made it 'because' of that(?)]

Mr. Dobson,

How many times have you rewritten all of Physics?

How many times have you rewritten all of Chemistry?

How many times have you unified the four forces, re-
ducing them to a single verified 3D-Energydynamic?

How many times have you shown how and why "mat-
ter" and "mass" exist, and how and why they form
and act as they do?

How many times have you rewritten all of Neuroscience?
[Including, BTW, how and why auditory-recognition
happens 'within' nervous systems during 'language'-
interface dynamics -- which should be interesting
enough to folks who study digital-signal-processing.]

How many times have you explained how and why
creativity, curiosity, and volition occur within nervous
systems?

How many times have you explained how and why
the genome is activated with explicit respect to ex-
perience [BTW, in a 100%-unified way, through the
molecular 'level']?

How many times have you explained how and why
the Prejudice that has so-Ravaged Humanity exists?

How many times have you explained how and why
all the Wars in History have occurred?

How many times have you explained how and why
all of the current Slaughter is happening?

I understand that you just don't understand, but I've
done all of the above, along with many other
things in the same 'class', including how and
why Truth exists.

I've been communicating this work for 'decades',
and no one has ever uncovered a single flaw in
it [beyond the 'stylistic' considerations that you
commented upon in an earlier post -- which, BTW,
I do in order to separate folks who are more-con-
cerned about 'style' than Science.]

Until you've done any one such thing, please refrain
from Censoring my participation in a thread in the
midst of my having broached topics that I'm not yet
finished discussing.

If you don't want to receive the discussion, just
don't read it.

Don't 'decide for' others.

It's a First Amendment thing, not only with respect
to me.

Others have the Right to receive the stuff I'm dis-
cussing, as well as the Right to just not read it.

=No one= has any Right to 'decide for' others.

k. p. collins





0
Benjamin
5/1/2007 7:49:06 PM
"Richard Dobson" <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:4636FBED.1080706@blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> But every-thing is an 'illusion', =truth= not Least.

By the ingenious single brackets around "'illusion'" you are smoke-screening 
the "obvious" fact (:-\) that your are wrong about =truth= (with or without 
stripes) being "not Least" illusory; I.e., being more illusory, or IOW less 
underpinned by rational mental reflections of (or on) Reality, than 
=falsehood=.

And, BTW, thanks for giving me this opportunity to set this particular 
philosophical flaw of yours, straight! ;-)

Cheers,

Peter 


0
Entertained
5/3/2007 7:42:18 AM
Benjamin wrote:
[far too much for this offtopic crosspost]

Well Benjamin, thanks for free lectures.
I have to admit you accounted for all that comes to my mind. Err, except 
maybe... hardy's paradox?
http://altman.casimirinstitute.net/measurement.html

FTR I don't buy that 'god plays dice' thing neither. And BTW in fact I'd 
like to bet some money on they won't find that god particle in LHC once 
again, any hints where to bet?;)
Still I don't buy your explanation... well at least not yet:)
For two reasons:

1) I got myself perfectly fine 'hidden variable' style explanation. 
Check it out, pure Maxwell:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0306/0306073.pdf

2) WTF are SSW<->UES harmonics? Googling it returns this thread... (so 
no, I don't *understand* what you're saying)

Also, where's your neat 3D math?

Also, where's experiment that proves you're right and they're wrong?
Since it's all the same crap I suppose it might be some sort of 
influence of EM field to gravitation or something.

And I mean, you just said you're explaining it all over and over again 
over years, why don't you put it in a book or on a website?
'Discussing' with yourself is usually called monologue, and usenet is 
clearly no place for it.

As you see I'm rarerly around, drop me a mail if you wish... no access 
to email account is a no issue, there's loads of free mail companies 
around just make yourself another one.

Regards...
0
Josip
5/9/2007 7:13:48 AM
r norman wrote:
> 
> I agree that you have no clue of neuroscience.  You ask questions and
> then seemingly give the answers you want to hear.  

....expecting to get responses I seemingly don't won't to hear, yes.
IOW I contribute my answers, right or wrong, for others to learn or 
critique.

> The two actual science references you cite are good work, but are now
> 35 to 45 years old.  We have learned some things since.

Like?

> The two IEEE papers require registration, but the third paper on
> quantum neural network models is typical of the work of electrical
> engineers or physicists who develop models not terribly dependent on
> actual neuroscience mechanisms.   If you would like information about
> actual physiology, then please ask and I will respond. 

Please do.

Regards...
0
Josip
5/9/2007 7:20:41 AM
On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:20:41 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe@vrspace.org>
wrote:

>r norman wrote:
>> 
>> I agree that you have no clue of neuroscience.  You ask questions and
>> then seemingly give the answers you want to hear.  
>
>...expecting to get responses I seemingly don't won't to hear, yes.
>IOW I contribute my answers, right or wrong, for others to learn or 
>critique.
>
>> The two actual science references you cite are good work, but are now
>> 35 to 45 years old.  We have learned some things since.
>
>Like?
>
>> The two IEEE papers require registration, but the third paper on
>> quantum neural network models is typical of the work of electrical
>> engineers or physicists who develop models not terribly dependent on
>> actual neuroscience mechanisms.   If you would like information about
>> actual physiology, then please ask and I will respond. 
>
>Please do.
>
>Regards...

You want me to summarize everything that is known about neuroscience
in the last 35  to 40 years and then have me tell you everything about
physiology?

Here is my answer.

Buy a book and read it.




0
r
5/9/2007 11:34:31 AM
busy 'day', I'll reply later.

ken

"Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message 
news:f1rs9i$248$1@news1.xnet.hr...
| Benjamin wrote:
| [far too much for this offtopic crosspost]
|
| Well Benjamin, thanks for free lectures.
| I have to admit you accounted for all that comes to my mind. Err, except
| maybe... hardy's paradox?
| http://altman.casimirinstitute.net/measurement.html
|
| FTR I don't buy that 'god plays dice' thing neither. And BTW in fact I'd
| like to bet some money on they won't find that god particle in LHC once
| again, any hints where to bet?;)
| Still I don't buy your explanation... well at least not yet:)
| For two reasons:
|
| 1) I got myself perfectly fine 'hidden variable' style explanation.
| Check it out, pure Maxwell:
| http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0306/0306073.pdf
|
| 2) WTF are SSW<->UES harmonics? Googling it returns this thread... (so
| no, I don't *understand* what you're saying)
|
| Also, where's your neat 3D math?
|
| Also, where's experiment that proves you're right and they're wrong?
| Since it's all the same crap I suppose it might be some sort of
| influence of EM field to gravitation or something.
|
| And I mean, you just said you're explaining it all over and over again
| over years, why don't you put it in a book or on a website?
| 'Discussing' with yourself is usually called monologue, and usenet is
| clearly no place for it.
|
| As you see I'm rarerly around, drop me a mail if you wish... no access
| to email account is a no issue, there's loads of free mail companies
| around just make yourself another one.
|
| Regards... 


0
Benjamin
5/9/2007 4:35:54 PM
I won't really say anything in this post
because I've been discussing in
bionet.neuroscience over the course
of more than 15 'years', and, when I
discuss the work I've done, my dis-
cussions always build upon stuff that
I've already discussed in b.n.

So I post exclusively in b.n, not in the
least to Honor folks who've been, all
along, reading the discussions I've
posted in b.n.

"Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message 
news:f1rs9i$248$1@news1.xnet.hr...
| Benjamin wrote:
| [far too much for this offtopic crosspost]
|
| Well Benjamin, thanks for free lectures.
| I have to admit you accounted for all that
| comes to my mind. Err, except maybe...
| hardy's paradox?
| http://altman.casimirinstitute.net/measurement.html

I'm not free to follow arbitrary links, so
I don't know what "hardy's paradox" is.

I do Know that no so-called "paradoxes"
have any physically-real existence, though.

| FTR I don't buy that 'god plays dice' thing
| neither. And BTW in fact I'd like to bet some
| money on they won't find that god particle in
| LHC once again, any hints where to bet?;)

They'll find something that has the appearance
of 'being' the Higgs boson, sooner or later, be-
cause it's just in the way folks've been doing
so-called "particle physics" that, if someone
thinks it, they can 'find' it :-]

What I'm hoping is that some result that folks'll
observe at CERN will enable folks to transition
to understanding continuous-energy.

| Still I don't buy your explanation... well at least
| not yet:) For two reasons:
|
| 1) I got myself perfectly fine 'hidden variable'
| style explanation.
| Check it out, pure Maxwell:
| http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0306/0306073.pdf

I'm not free to follow arbitrary links.

As far as I'm concerned, continuous-energy
has already been Confirmed.

I've discussed many different ways in which
it can be observed, but folks 'move toward'
the 'discrete particle' conceptualization for
'reasons' I've discussed in other posts.

['blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization
'moving toward' that which has formerly
been TD E/I-minimized. It's in physical
reality, but folks in Physics can't yet see
that it's not in physical reality 'outside' of
nervous systems, so they 'confuse' the
nervous system stuff, as it happens 'with-
in' their own nervous systems, with the
'external' stuff that is the subject ot Physics..]

| 2) WTF are SSW<->UES harmonics?
| Googling it returns this thread... (so
| no, I don't *understand* what you're saying)

I've no control with respect to what Google[tm]
does, and does not, make available to folks
who search NG archives using Google.

It does give me immense-Sorrow that
the discussions I've posted are virtually
Censured as you point out [with respect
to which I've long been aware.]

| Also, where's your neat 3D math?

I've discussed it all, in the contexts of the
work I do in b.n.

Recurse into my having no control with
respect to what Google does, and does
not, make available to folks.

I'll gladly discuss it, and/or anything else,
with folks, in-person.

| Also, where's experiment that proves you're
| right and they're wrong?

I discussed a slew of them in the msg to
which you replied :-]

The Proof, in them, is in the way that,
taken together, they eliminate all so-
called "quantum weirdness".

I've also discussed explicit experiments
and "devices" that  constitute self-con-
tained Proofs of Tapered Harmony's
position.

Unfortunately, because the "devices"
have such technological value, they
are routinely 'taken' whenever I dis-
cuss them.

I'll discuss this kind of self-contained
stuff with folks, in-person.

| Since it's all the same crap I suppose
| it might be some sort of influence of EM
| field to gravitation or something.

In TH, everything's reconceptualized in
terms of continuous-energy flowing in
rigorous accord with the physically-real
flow of energy, from order to disorder,
that is what's =described= by 2nd Thermo
[WDB2T.]

| And I mean, you just said you're explain-
| ing it all over and over again over years,
| why don't you put it in a book or on a
| website?

I'm dirt-poor.

| 'Discussing' with yourself is usually
| called monologue, and usenet is
| clearly no place for it.

If this's the only way that's 'open' to me,
why not?

| As you see I'm rarerly around, drop me
| a mail if you wish... no access to email
| account is a no issue, there's loads of
| free mail companies around just make
| yourself another one.

I'm not free to receive email.

| Regards...

Cheers, Josip,

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
5/10/2007 12:08:34 AM
One of the goals of making a silicon-based electronic brain is to give
congenitally-blind individuals the ability to see and to give
congenitally-deaf individuals the ability to hear.

A congenitally-deaf individual's brain does not have auditory regions
because of neuroplasticity using the supposed "hearing areas" for
other purposes. So an electronic substitute could -- at least in
theory -- feed the brain with electric signals it would receive if it
did have hearing areas used for auditory perceptions [e.g. the
cochlear nucleus, inferior olivary nucleus, etc, etc.]


0
Radium
5/12/2007 4:48:29 PM
CORRECTION below.

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:SrrYh.19$f17.18@trndny05...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
|| [...]
|| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
|| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
||| [...]
|| [...]
|
|| There's exactly-Zero 'quantum' =anything= <-edited
|| within physical reality.
|| [...]
| [...]

| The 'difference' between the Rayleigh-Jeans
| prediction with respect to radiated-power-at-
| frequency and what was routinely observed
| in black-body experimental set-ups is what
| has been referred to as the "ultraviolet cat-
| astrophe", which provoked late-19th-'century'
| Physics to enter a problem-solving 'frenzy',
| out of which came Max Planck's famous
| 'resolution' of the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'.
|
| Planck converged upon his result via em-
| pirical methods that, at first, even he was
| skeptical of. But as word of his result, and
| the fact that it did yeild numerical values
| that were relatively-close to the experiment-
| ally-observed power-at-frequency-at-TempK
| values of black bodies, folks began to in-
| terpret the 'constant' that Planck had in-
| cluded in his empirical calculation as 'say-
| ing something' "about physical reality".
|
| And that's where almost-all of Physics [with
| the notable exception of Albert Einstein]
| 'flew-off-the-handle', and, while there are
| many analogous Errors that've long-endur-
| ed during the History of Science, I know of
| nothing that is as Sorrow-Filled as has
| been the 'feeding-frenzy' which ensued
| Planck's Erroneous-'guess'.
| [...]

I'm 'taking a break' from my routine partic-
ipation here in b.n -- to "breath-in" for a
change :-]

Purchased some Books, both recently,
and long-ago, and've been reading them.

One of them is =Einstein=, by W. Isaac-
son, which I'm finding to be Interesting
and a well-done view on Dr. Einstein's
Life and Work.

But I've just gotten to the part that discuss-
es Einstein's "Special Relativity" paper,
and I've realized that I did Max Planck an
Injustice in what I wrote above.

Planck was =Correct= in viewing 'quanta'
as a consequence of emission and ab-
sorbtion and =not= as a "property" of
EM radiation.

Sorry, Dr. Planck. You were =Correct=,
along with Max Laue [of those in the
Book as far as I've read.]

I'll discuss more, after I read further in
the Book -- because I've not yet gotten,
in this Book, to any 'point' in which Ein-
stein's view of 'quanta' is explicitly-stated.

But I want to briefly discuss [once again]
Einstein's conceptualization of his "Equiv-
alency Principle", a pillar of General Rel-
ativity. [I worked all of this stuff out 'dec-
ades' ago, but I'm going to use the pace
of Mr. Issacson's Book to "meter-out"
what will be my discussion -- be-cause
the Book provides an excellent 'time'-line
with respect to which to do so, and, well,
it's the Book I'm reading :-]

The Equivalency Principle holds that
there's no way to distinguish between
"gravitational mass" and "inertial mass",
but this's not True, and it =matters=.

"Inertial mass" is correlated to accel-
erations.

All accelerations require energy-'ex-
penditure'.

So all one has to do to See the 'dif-
ference' between "inertial mass" and
"gravitational mass" is to 'view the
energy gauge', which maps "inertial
mass" into WDB2T, Rigorously.

Which allows one to recurse back in-
to the original "equivalency", Seeing
that what's been referred to as "grav-
ity" =must=, itself, be an energy-'con-
suming' dynamic that also has to map-
into WDB2T, be-cause, since "gravita-
tional mass" and "inertial mass"
are indistinguishable with respect to
=motion=, and, since, as above, it's
easy to See that "inertial mass" =re-
quires= energy-'expenditure', if 'grav-
itational mass' 'did not' require energy-
expenditure, =then= it would be 'differ-
ent' from "inertial mass", and that'd
'mean' that the =motion= 'due to'
'gravity' would be 'free', relative to
motion due to energy-'expenditure'-
driven accelerations -- which dis-
closes that there's something, in-
the-mix, that's not properly Reified.

Understand?

Same motion.

In the "inertial" case, requiring en-
ergy-'expenditure'.

In the "gravitational" case, "not re-
quiring" energy-'expenditure'.

But it's the =same= motion.

So it cannot be that the same thing
'requires' energy-'expenditure' just
'because' of the reference-frame in
which it occurs [Galilean Relativity
demonstrates that the "laws of phys-
ics" are the same regardless of
frame of reference.]

I'd Proven it in other ways, and I've
discussed the fundamentals of it's
resolution in prior posts in this thread,
and in other long-ago posts here in
b.n and elsewhere, but, what's been
referred to a "gravity" is an energy-
'consuming' dynamic.

It's the =only= way to preserve "Equiv-
alency" and Galilean Relativity, which
have been right-there, plain-to-See,
all along.

Q. E. D. [again.]

Anyway, the Book is Worth-the-reading,
it's "number one" on =The New York
Times= Best Seller List] so if folks want
to read along, I'll take any and all ques-
tions with respect to anything that's in-it
[eventually, with respect to the whole
Book, but, if folks read ahead of me,
post your Qs, but I'll reply when I've
caught-up to where, in this Book, your
Q arises.]

What I'll be doing is "transforming"
Einstein's Work into Tapered Harmony's
view of physical reality, toward which
end, I'm really looking-forward-to the
'quantum' stuff and reading about
Einstein's Heroic Resistance to it.

It gives me Joy to've Corrected my own
Error with respect to Max Planck's
early view of 'quanta' [as above], and
I'm looking-forward to reading Mr.
Isaacson's account of how Dr. Planck's
view played-out as the 'quantum band-
wagon' began to 'roll'.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
5/17/2007 2:51:22 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:KqP2i.7462$4a1.5721@trndny07...
| [...]

If folks 'wonder', working in Physics
is how I 'recharge my batteries' [since
a Child.]

It's a 'good' strategy because it 'shifts'
mind's focus, enabling 'different' TD
E/I-minimization with respect to stuff
that's gotten 'boring' because one's
pushed-so-much-energy with respect
to it.

Folks can try-out this "strategy" by
reading the Isaacson book to see
for themselves the benefits of the
cognitive-straqtegy.

All of Life is like this.

You know -- "range widely" :-]

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
5/17/2007 2:56:30 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:KqP2i.7462$4a1.5721@trndny07...
| [...]

| I want to briefly discuss [once again]
| Einstein's conceptualization of his "Equiv-
| alency Principle", a pillar of General Rel-
| ativity. [I worked all of this stuff out 'dec-
| ades' ago, but I'm going to use the pace
| of Mr. Issacson's Book to "meter-out"
| what will be my discussion -- be-cause
| the Book provides an excellent 'time'-line
| with respect to which to do so, and, well,
| it's the Book I'm reading :-]
|
| The Equivalency Principle holds that
| there's no way to distinguish between
| "gravitational mass" and "inertial mass",
| but this's not True, and it =matters=.
|
| "Inertial mass" is correlated to accel-
| erations.
|
| All accelerations require energy-'ex-
| penditure'.

Consider the "elevator" thought exper-
iment that Einstein did, in which a man
was in a "box without windows" that was
accelerated 'upward' by an attached rope.
[Analogous 'boxes' include space ships
on take-off and, =partially=, you in your
car, pulling away from a stoplight -- as
you are pressed-back into your seat.
Such accelerating dynamics are =ubiq-
uitous= during routine experience. The
"hair cells" of the "semicircular cannals",
for instance, translate accelerations
experienced by your head and body into
effector activations that're coordinated to
maintain your body's posture. [Which,
when one knows the neural Topology, is,
BTW, all the information one needs to
Reify 'gravity' as an energy-'consuming'
dynamic :-]

| So all one has to do to See the 'dif-
| ference' between "inertial mass" and
| "gravitational mass" is to 'view the
| energy gauge', which maps "inertial
| mass" into WDB2T, Rigorously.

In your car, just watch your 'fancy' 'instant-
aneous-fuel-flow gauge. When it goes
up or down, you're accelerating, posi-
tively or negatively, respectively.

In the spaceship, same-old, same-old.

With respect to semicircular-cannal
dynamics, one can use Myographic
Array Diagnosis [MAD] equipment to
detect the net muscle activations that
occur, as above, to maintain body-pos-
ture [with respect to which it ["of course"]
helps to have electrode-arrays mon-
itoring neural activation emmanating
from the semicircular cannals.]

The muscular, so activated, literally im-
parts accelerations to one's body that
maintain, say, the body in a "standing"
position. One can do a lot of Physics
using such a set-up. For instance, one
can map the "wind" because 'the' mus-
culature will be differentially-activated -- 
'the' body differentially-accelerated with
respect to accelerations inherent in
the "wind". [Nervous systems contin-
uously 'resolve' myriad such Problems
that are of infinitely-large scope, in this
case be-cause the "wind" can vary in
acceleration [velocity and direction]
continuously.]

| Which allows one to recurse back in-
| to the original "equivalency", Seeing
| that what's been referred to as "grav-
| ity" =must=, itself, be an energy-'con-
| suming' dynamic that also has to map-
| into WDB2T, be-cause, since "gravita-
| tional mass" and "inertial mass"
| are indistinguishable with respect to
| =motion=, and, since, as above, it's
| easy to See that "inertial mass" [accel- <-edited
| erations] =require[...]= energy-'expend-
| iture', if 'gravitational mass' 'did not'
| require energy-expenditure, =then= it
| would be 'different' from "inertial mass",
| and that'd 'mean' that the =motion=
| 'due to' 'gravity' would be 'free', relative
| to motion due to energy-'expenditure'-
| driven accelerations -- which dis-
| closes that there's something, in-
| the-mix, that's not properly Reified.
|
| Understand?
|
| Same motion.
|
| In the "inertial" case, requiring en-
| ergy-'expenditure'.
|
| In the "gravitational" case, "not re-
| quiring" energy-'expenditure'.
|
| But it's the =same= motion.
|
| So it cannot be that the same thing
| 'requires' energy-'expenditure' just
| 'because' of the reference-frame in
| which it occurs [Galilean Relativity
| demonstrates that the "laws of phys-
| ics" are the same regardless of
| frame of reference.]
|
| I'd Proven it in other ways,

How and why I first Reified all of this,
'decades' ago [mid-1970s], was in Rei-
fying how and why "biological mass"
[the microscopic trophic ["growth"] mod-
ifications ["micro-mods"] that are literally
empowered by the neural activation that
actually occurs 'within' nervous systems,
and which constitute the physical sub-
strate for "memory" and "learning", in turn
exert inertial-'force' 'within' neural dynamics
so as to actualize "memory" and "learning"
during the course of subsequent neural-
activation dynamics.

Understand?

The micro-mods literally constitute a
biological instantiation of inertial mass,
which inertial mass is 'encountered' 'with-
in' the 3D-Energydynamics [3D-E] that un-
derpin nerual activation dynamics, there-
by 'steering' neural activation dynamics
in ways that;re literally Directed in accord-
with the micro-mods that've formed dur-
ing the course of prior experience [=all=
of this stuff being, as has been discussed
in AoK all alogn, Deterministically-guided
by TD E/I-minimization, be-cause the
special topological homeomorphism is
"blue-printed" in 'the' "genome" by evolu-
tionary dynamics that are Deterministic-
ally-guided by WDB2T.]

Nervous systems =really= Know Physics,
and assert such Knowledge Magnificantly.

| and I've
| discussed the fundamentals of it's
| resolution in prior posts in this thread,
| and in other long-ago posts here in
| b.n and elsewhere, but, what's been
| referred to a "gravity" is an energy-
| 'consuming' dynamic.
|
| It's the =only= way to preserve "Equiv-
| alency" and Galilean Relativity, which
| have been right-there, plain-to-See,
| all along.
|
| Q. E. D. [again.]
| [...]

See what I Saw back in the mid-1970s?

All of the neural stuff that I've discussed
above [and everything else that occurs
'within' nervous systems] is =energy-
'consuming'=.

So everything that occurs 'within' nervous
systems, as in =all= of their interactions
with the rest of physical reality [with re-
spect to "external" physical reality] require
energy-'consumption'.

So, after having worked-out how and why
'all' of this happens 'within' nervous sys-
tems, it was apparent to me that "the rest"
of physical reality =must= be 'just' more
of the same-stuff -- everything empowered
by the one-way flowing of energy, from
order to disorder, that is what's =described=
by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T.]

So I rewrote all of Physics in accord with
such, reducing =everything= to the =one=
thing, WDB2T.

The "gravitational" 'vs.' "inertial" mass stuff
was one of the early things so reified be-
cause, as above, I saw that the only way
to maintain "equivalency" and Galilean Rel-
ativity was by Seeing that they =both= de-
rive in energy-'consumption' -- which they
=must= be-cause nervous system function
interfaces with 'gravity' in =Infinite= ways,
with respect to any and all of which there
exist no 'discontinuities' in which 'non-en-
ergy-'consuming'-'gravity' ' "can exist".

Understand?

There exist no 'cracks' between what's
been referred to as "gravity" and the In-
finite ways in which nervous system
function interfaces with 'gravity' -- so, if
the Infinity 'within' =always= requires en-
ergy-'consumption', the =only= way in
which 'gravity', which also acts in Infinite
ways, can act in the common physical
reality in which nervous systems act is
iff 'gravity' is an energy-'consuming' dyn-
amic.

The ancient 'way' of 'seeing' what's been
referred to as "gravity" was to 'assert'
that it "occurred as a property of mass" -- 
a "force" that's powerful enough to, for
instance, enable Sun to "hold" Earth and
the other planets in their orbits.

Think about that with respect to just
Earth.

The mass of Earth is 5.974^24 Kg,
which mass is being =constantly= re-
directed by Sun's 'gravity'.

That's a =lot= of physically-real work,
'supposedly' being constantly done 'with-
out' any energy-'consumption' costs.

It didn't compute.

How and why could "gravitational" dyn-
amics occur 'without' energy-'consump-
tion' cost when "inertial" dynamics could
=only= occur =with= energy-'consump-
tion' costs?

Imagine a crane that hoists a wreaking-
ball.

The crane does so at an energy-'consump-
tion' cost that's easily monitored by just
watching the crane's fuel gauge.

Say the crane is being used to demolish
a previously-existing foundation so that
a new foundation can be constructed up-
on which a new structure will be construct-
ed.

"Rrrrroooaaarrrr..." the wreaking-ball goes
up.

"Ssswwwwiiiissshhhh..." the wreaking-ball
goes down, being accelerated from zero
by 32 feet-per-second-per-second by 'grav-
ity'.

It's a big foundation, so there's a lot of it to
demolish, and the crane operator has to
repeatedly stop working so the fuel truck
can resupply the crane with the energy it
will 'consume' as it continues being used
to do the work inherent in demolishing the
previously-'existing' foundation.

But 'gravity', 'supposedly', requires no such
refueling.

It, 'supposedly, 'sits-there' always ready to
do work for 'free' -- just because it's there
as a 'property of mass'.

It doesn't compute.

Two =completely= intermingled Infinities.

One 'in' which, energy-'consumption' is
=always= required, the other 'in' which
energy-'consumption' is not only not-
'allowed', but 'in' which energy-'consump-
tion' is 'outlawed'.

Yet, they're =completely= intermingled.

So, as has been declared in AoK all along,
since I Saw that neural dynamics occur in
a way [via TD E/I-minimization] that yields
the =Illusion= of "attraction", but which is
obviously 'just' 3D-E being Directed to flow
in 'the' anti-WDB2T Direction, I used what
I'd learned while reifying nervous system
function to explore energy-'consuming'
ways of instantiating the same-stuff as
'gravity', which simultaneously Eliminated
=all= 'discontinuous' energy-flows -- the
WDB2T-'maintained' SSW<->UES harmon-
ics that I discussed earlier in this thread,
in which there's an energy-flow differential,
resulting from the physically-real work that
the UES does in its 'sustenance' of the ex-
istences of 'atoms', which is what that which
has been referred to as "gravity" physically
is.

"Matter" 'just' "rides" this energy-flow differen-
tial, which, be-cause it arises with respect
to =every= 'atom', is, therefore, rigorously-
correlated to the existence of "matter" [e.g.,
"a property of matter"], and which is cum-
ulatively aggregated with respect to aglom-
erations of "matter" -- the more "matter",
the greater is the energy-flow differential
on a line between agglomerations of "mat-
ter", and the greater the "tendency" for "mat-
ter" to move in this energy-flow differential
on a line between agglomerated "matter".

What's been referred to as "mass" falls
right out of the above be-cause it is the
3D-energy-flow differential that arises
in the WDB2T-'sustenance' of SSW<->UES
harmonics [what have been referred to as
"atoms"] that determines an 'atom's inter-
activity with its energy-surround [with its
local UES]. [Which is actually what Phys-
icists at CERN's LHC will 'discover' if they
'presume' to have 'discovered' the so-called
"Higgs boson" :-] [There was a fairly-good
diagram of the "clustering of the Higgs
field" that's actually 'just' the stuff I've dis-
cussed with respect to the WDB2T-Determ-
ined action of the UES on SSW<->UES
harmonics as I've been discussing it here
in b.n over the course of the past ~17 'years'.
The diagram was in an article entitled "A
Giant Takes On Physics' Biggest Questions",
by D. Overbye, p. D1, =The New York Times=,
Tuesday, 5/15/2007 [rated 40 "big-grins", a
record for a Newspaper Article I've read.]

Understand?

What's been referred to as "mass" is =just=
a =Continuous= energy-flow dynamic that
derives in the =Continuous=, WDB2T-Determ-
ined energy-flow differential above.

All there is within physical reality is energy
flowing in rigorous accord with WDB2T.

When, in some catastrophic creation violence,
more energy is 'contained within' a volume
than can escape from that 'containment' be-
cause it's easier for energy to flow inward
that it is to flow outward in the SSW<->UES
compression<->expansion harmonics, an
'atom' corresponding to the quantity of energy
so 'contained' is instantiated. The energy-
'containment' dynamics inherent in the in-
stantiation of 'atoms' also give rise to the
energy-content-dependent absorbtion and
emission "line spectra", which are =just=
energy flowing into into, and out of, the
SSW<->UES compression<->expansion
harmonics as the harmonics exist at var-
ious spherical-radii. [One can See the
compressions and expansions in the var-
ious "series" of the "line spectra", although,
in the case of heavier elements, the harmon-
ics overlay.]

Aren't the "line spectra" indicative of 'there
being discrete packets of energy'?

Nope.

All there is is the =one= Continuous 3D-E
that =only= changes Direction, Continuously,
in rigorous accord with the SSW<->UES
harmonics stuff that I discussed both earl-
ier in this thread, and in much-more detail
[including a little QBASIC[tm] app that cal-
culates the fundamentals of all that's in-
herent [the "Compton Refraction" app.]]

All there is within physical reality is =waves=.

There're exactly-Zero 'particles'.

What've been considered to "be particles"
in accelerator experiments are 'just' the
=emission= phase 'portions' of the =Con-
tinuous= 3D-E, which constitute slightly-
more than =half= of what's =in= physical
reality -- the "absorption" phase Continu-
ous 3D-E =always= literally 'move away
from' observability -- be-cause the ab-
sorbtion-phase is always Directed =in-
to= the SSW<->UES harmonics.

"Charge", "matter" 'vs.' 'anti-matter', the
various energies in the Continuous 3D-E,
"momentum", "mass", "pressure", "weight",
"electro-magnetic"-ness, so-called "strong"
and "weak" 'forces', "radioactivity", the Per-
iodic Taple, the distribution of "isotopes"
and how and why they are 'stable' or 'unstable',
and =much more= [everything that I know
of -- all experimental results that I know of,
are already tightly-integrated, along the lines
of what I've discussed above, all =Unified=
and reduced to the =one= Continuous en-
ergy-flow that is WDB2T.

I did this work in Tapered Harmony in order
to Completely account for all of nervous sys-
tem function. When I've so-often discussed
the "3D-E" that occur 'within' nervous systems
[as when I reified how and why the activation
of 'the genome' is coupled to experience], I've
been discussing the Physics that was Reified
in Tapered Harmony 'decades' ago.

I did this work because I Love you, and want-
ed to Free you from what's been "man's in-
humanity to man."

Which makes 'the rest' pretty-funny.

Forgive me, Please, for Loving you enough
to Honor Truth in your electronic-'presence'.

I can handle what's transpired. I understood,
all along, that it would, and Chose to do
what Needed to be done, "Anyway."

You know?

It's =not= the 'B. S.' that happens that matters.

It's what folks do, =despite= the 'B. S.' that
happens, that matters.

Choose Love.

You'll get 'bounced-around', a bit.

But you'll =matter=.

And, so-mattering, you'll make the world a
better place for its Children.

For our Children.

For the Future.

Choose Love.

Anyway, there're much-more-efficient ways
in which to work than by posting discussions
in NewsGroups.

Will such ways ever become Open to me?

In some quiet place, where folks Love Science.

Where work, done, can be shared, in-detail,
diagrams, computer programs, Maths, and
all.

Where folks're not 'afraid' of Truth.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
5/18/2007 3:01:39 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:nG83i.14469$1X1.8530@trndny02...
| [...]

| The micro-mods literally constitute a
| biological instantiation of inertial mass,
| which inertial mass is 'encountered' 'with-
| in' the 3D-Energydynamics [3D-E] that un-
| derpin nerual activation dynamics, there-
| by 'steering' neural activation dynamics
| in ways that;re literally Directed in accord-
| with the micro-mods that've formed dur-
| ing the course of prior experience [=all=
| of this stuff being, as has been discussed
| in AoK all alogn, Deterministically-guided
| by TD E/I-minimization, be-cause the
| special topological homeomorphism is
| "blue-printed" in 'the' "genome" by evolu-
| tionary dynamics that are Deterministic-
| ally-guided by WDB2T.]
|
| Nervous systems =really= Know Physics,
| and assert such Knowledge Magnificantly.
| [...]

Understand?

Nervous systems literally =use= the 3D-E
that I've been discussing with respect to
the SSW<->UES harmonics, energy-'con-
suming' 'gravity', and "the rest".

Nervous systems literally use the energy-
flow differentials of SSW<->UES harmonics.

It's functional because, as has been discussed
in AoK, Ap1 all along, nervous systems
literally corral Infinity -- 'move'-infinitely 'with-
in' Infinity, literally grasping 'just'-energy, and
=using= it in their information-processing
dynamics -- literally Directing the 'movements'
of 'ions', 'atoms', and 'molecules' by literally
Directing the flow of 'just'-energy.

So, once one understands nervous system
function, one can do Physics as nervous
systems do Physics.

Which is informative.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
5/18/2007 4:59:09 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:nG83i.14469$1X1.8530@trndny02...

> Where folks're not 'afraid' of Truth.

What would be the specific characteristics of a state "where folks're not 
'afraid'" of _the implicitly relevant meaning_ of "Truth"?

You yourself (together with most others) do not and most likely will never 
know and understand the answer to this leading question to do with certain 
*relevant and rationally arrived at* aspects of "Truth" (or of What Is - was 
and will be - going on).

P.S.

I have not just offered only you an opportunity (and/or jeopardizing your 
irrationally deluded/inEPTly AEVASIVE worldview - although I have tactfully 
provided a safety-net, or a safe way out, in the form of decEPTively puerile 
and punny products in the form of philosophical profoundities packaged in 
poo-humored profanities) by putting uniquely unifying EPT (e.g. 'extentded 
primal theoretical') percEPTions of What Is going on onto electronic paper 
in reply-posts to what you have written. %-|

A to me far more intensely insidious tragic tangle of examplifying 
psychology/token target (than you), of the kind of insidious insanity that I 
have been both perversely attacking and grasping by way of my etymologically 
pioneering terminology and explanatory philosophical thesis, is Glen 
Sizemore.



0
Entertained
5/18/2007 1:05:20 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:nG83i.14469$1X1.8530@trndny02...
| [...]

| Imagine a crane that hoists a wreaking-
| ball.
|
| The crane does so at an energy-'consump-
| tion' cost that's easily monitored by just
| watching the crane's fuel gauge.
|
| Say the crane is being used to demolish
| a previously-existing foundation so that
| a new foundation can be constructed up-
| on which a new structure will be construct-
| ed.
|
| "Rrrrroooaaarrrr..." the wreaking-ball goes
| up.
|
| "Ssswwwwiiiissshhhh..." the wreaking-ball
| goes down, being accelerated from zero
| by 32 feet-per-second-per-second by 'grav-
| ity'.
| [...]

In the 'gravity' case, "where's the heat?"

It's easiest to see it on macroscopic scales,
like when it blew the top of Mount Saint Hel-
ens ~27 'years' ago.

Understand?

The heat is in earthquakes, tsunamis, plate
tectonics, Earth-sub-surface moltenness,
Earth-corre temperature, Mount Aetna's
recurrent erruptions [you know -- "the vol-
cano's crater" :-]

In Sun's radiation, including in the so-called
'nuclear' fusion that empowers it [and all the
stars, too], which "radiation" is 'just' the energy
in "matter" =flowing=, Continuously, in Rigor-
ous accord with WDB2T.

As the energy of "matter" so flows, the Universe
expands, also in Rigorous accord with WDB2T.

And the so-called "cosmic background rad-
iation" is literally WDB2T's 'fuel-gauge' reading.

The macroscopic cases of "heat" due to energy-
'consuming'-'gravity' are easy to See.

Microscopic cases are somewhat more-dif-
ificult to observe be-cause mechanical proc-
esses mask the heat corresponding to en-
ergy-'consuming'-'gravitational' dynamics.

And, so, the "heat" released in energy-'con-
suming'-'gravitational' dynamics has been
attributed to other stuff in macroscopic cases,
and just overlooked in microscopic cases.

The long-observed cooling-on-expansion
of gasses, which then absorb heat to re-
attain 'equilibrium' temp, and vice versa,
are 'intermediate' cases that can be oper-
ated-upon, at various relative starting pres-
sures, with temp being allowed to reach
'equilibrium', to extract a 'fuzzy' value for
the "heat"-of-'gravity'.

Understand?

Semi-evacuate a starting volume of gas,
let it reach 'equilibrium' temp, then either
increase or decrease the volume [which,
of course, requires calibration with re-
spect to the 'friction' that routinely occurs
in the apparatus -- which "calibration" is
hard to accomplish be-cause gas at var-
ious starting pressures will impose dif-
fering 'frictional' loads 'within' the appar-
atus -- which is =some= of why the early
[pre-experimental-cleverness-in-refining-
the-desing-for-the-apparatus] results
will be 'fuzzy'.

But there should be an observable "heat"-
variation that correlates to the starting-
pressure differentials. Which'll be a =start=
toward microscopic observation of the
"heat"-of-'gravitational' action [work=.]

All that's entailed is already commonly-
observed in many not-yet-routinely-unified
ways.

For instance, "superconductivity" and
"superfluidity" are both instances in
which, be-cause of the relative-energy-
flows imposed in extreme-cooling, the
net inward-outward energy-flows, rel-
ative to SSW<->UES harmonics is loc-
ally-'amplified' -- all in a way that's easy
to map into WDB2T when the =whole=
system is integrated [including the en-
ergy-'expenditure' required by the cool-
ing mechanism that's in the apparatus.]

Then there's the whole spectrum of ex-
periments that can be done using spher-
ically-inwardly-oriented lasers -- in this
case, taking a round-about route to ex-
periment on SSW<->UES harmonics, so
as to ascertain the inward-outward en-
ergy-flow differential that I've discussed
in prior posts, which Discloses the 'grav-
ity' stuff that I've been discussing in an
"implied" way.

Anyway, the "heat"-of-energy-'consuming'-
'gravity' has bee right-there in GR all along -- 
in the "mass"-increase that occurs aa c is
approached ["c" is a universal-'constant' be-
cause, as "mass" is accelerated toward c,
more energy just flows in any direction
=other than= the direction of acceleration,
and this flowing-elsewhere Continuous-
energy literally heats its local energy-sur-
round -- such flow is what "heat" physical-
ly is.

But all one actually has to do to Prove
energy-'consuming'-'gravity' is to see
Sun and the stars, and the way that
they're Continuously dumping-energy
throughout the Universe.

All such is the "heat"-of-energy-'con-
suming'-gravity -- all occurring in Rig-
orous accord with =one= thing: WDB2T.

I've no lab, so all I can do is work in the
ol' noggin lab.

| [There was a fairly-good
| diagram of the "clustering of the Higgs
| field" that's actually 'just' the stuff I've dis-
| cussed with respect to the WDB2T-Determ-
| ined action of the UES on SSW<->UES
| harmonics as I've been discussing it here
| in b.n over the course of the past ~17 'years'.
| The diagram was in an article entitled "A
| Giant Takes On Physics' Biggest Questions",
| by D. Overbye, p. D1, =The New York Times=,
| Tuesday, 5/15/2007 [rated 40 "big-grins", a
| record for a Newspaper Article I've read.]
| [...]

Since I've mentioned the LHC, I should re-
iterate a bit of what I've discussed in long-
former posts with respect to "encapsulation".

"Encapsulation" occurs when some relative
violence breaks-apart volumes of energy
that're 'normally' 'contained' by their surround-
ing energy [the UES].

Earlier in this thread, I "Celebrated!" a 'time'-
series of Hubble images of Supernova 1987a
that'd been Published in =Discover Magazine=.

I pointed out a cosmic-scale "encapsulation"
that was captured in-them.

The same-stuff happens at microscopic
scales 'within' so-called "particle accelerators"
and "coliders", like the LHC.

The disintegration fragments in accelerator
and collider set-ups exist, post-collision, only
to the degrees that their local UES can 'sus-
tain' their existences via "encapsulation".

The various fragmented "encapsulations" of
energy that have been referred to as "protons",
"neutrons", "electrons", etc., have 'independent'
existences outside of SSW<->UES harmonics
=only= to the degrees that the energy through
which they're accelerated instantiates at-energy-
level' "encapsulation" ['containment'], otherwise,
the corresponding quantities of energy exist
either in the UES or 'within' SSW<->UES com-
pression<->expansion harmonics that alter-
nate between "nucleation" and "shelling" sub-
phases. In the "nucleation" sub-phase, all of
the 'contained' energy is compressed 'within'
the radius of what's been referred to as 'the'
"nucleus". In the "shelling" sub-phase, the
'contained' energy is distributed in a spher-
ical "shell", which occurs because, as the
"expansion" phase occurs, the 'contained'
energy compresses the surrounding UES
to the degree that it becomes easier for the
'contained' energy to flow-inward than to
continue flowing-outward [which is how
and why 'containment' happens.]

Experimental results ["resonances", etc.]
that've been interpreted as substantiating
the 'existence' of so-called "quarks" are
actually artifactual with respect to the fact
that the "nucleation" sub-phase of the
harmonics is exceedingly-fleeting -- so
there's an =illusion= of there "being three
things" in-there -- be-cause, at existing
accelerator energies, that's all the energy-
probes that can "fit" into the "nucleation"
phase before it expands so much that
further energy-probes just pass-right-
through.

As I've discussed in earlier posts in this
thread, in between "nucleation" and "shelling"
maximums, there're the various "minor"-com-
pressions that correspond to the "line spec-
tra" of 'atoms' [and 'molecules'.]

What's been referred to as 'charge" cor-
relates to various in-phase conditions.

Zero-charge ["neutral"] stuff, for instance,
is always correlated with "compression"-
phase energy-'containment' sup-'atomic'-
energy-quantities [so-called "neutrons",
"neutrinos", K-zeros, xi-zeros, etc.]

When an 'atom' is "ionized", it just gives-
up, or picks-up, energy that's metered by
the primary quantity of energy that is 'con-
tained' in an SSW<->UES harmonic, which
"metering" accounts, completely, for the so-
called "mass of 'the' electron" [Millikan], for
instance, which "metering" occurs in ex-
actly the same way in which "ground-state"
'containment' occurs.

When energy is given-up, or picked-up, by
an SSW<->UES harmonic, the harmonics
alter in a way that also alters their natural
resonances with other SSW<->UES harm-
onics, which is what what's been referred
to as "charge" physically is -- when SSWs
'attract', it's be-cause their SSW<->UES
harmonics literally share the UES in a way
that =augments= their individual 'contain-
ment' dynamics, and vice versa with re-
spect to what's been referred to as "repul-
sion" -- SSW<->UES harmonics interfere
with each other's 'containment' dynamics,
which yields a net excess-energy-flow along
a line between the SSWs.

Tapered Harmony goes on and on like
this, everything in physical reality reduced
to the =one= thing -- the one-way flow of
energy, from order to disorder [from greater
to lesser density], that is what's =described=
by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T.]

Which energy-flow is Deterministically-
Continuous.

No "discrete particles".

Physical reality is 'just' waves.

The =only= thing that ever alters is energy-
flow-Directionality.

Which gives 'new' meaning to the notion
of "walking hand-in-hand" :-]

I understand that folks'll think, "Why begin
anew?", as Tapered Harmony does.

Not in the least, to Eliminate all so-called
"quantum weirdness", but, also, TH flat-
out makes undreamed-of stuff Possible,
like energy-abundance, along with a =lot=
of longed-for stuff, like Peace.

BTW, a "big-grin" is just a funny smiley-face
that I use, along with other symbols that're
meaningful to me, to "mark" stuff while I'm
reading -- so that I can "read the symbols"
later -- you know -- to find stuff to which I
want to refer-back-to again.

I do the same thing in-stream in my posts
here in b.n.

The "symbols" are not, themselves, "inform-
ation-containing" beyond their "back-reference"
purpose. They just point-back-to information-
content in ways that guide-my-eyes when I
want to reconsider something that I've read
or written] in the past. They're not especially-
consistent. They're just "markers"-to-inform-
ation-content. A "big-grin" in the margins of
somehting I'm reading usually indicates that
I've refified the stuff beyond the 'level' of what's
in the text. That's all.

[My machine is under-attack, which, in my
case, will Kill me -- because this is the
only way in which I can work.

So, to those who're doing such, =Please= don't.]

k. p. collins



0
Benjamin
5/19/2007 11:02:55 AM
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message 
news:464da494$0$9073$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
|
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:nG83i.14469$1X1.8530@trndny02...
|
| > Where folks're not 'afraid' of Truth.
|
| What would be the specific characteristics
| of a state "where folks're not 'afraid'" of _the
| implicitly relevant meaning_ of "Truth"?

When folks understand how and why
nervous systems process inform-
ation via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-
minimization, and act upon what
they so-understand.

[Please refrain from theird-party references
in posts you address to me.]

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
5/19/2007 11:23:50 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:a7B3i.2057$aj.1143@trndny06...
> "Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail.com.au> wrote in 
> message
> news:464da494$0$9073$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> |
> | "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
> | news:nG83i.14469$1X1.8530@trndny02...
> |
> | > Where folks're not 'afraid' of Truth.
> |
> | What would be the specific characteristics
> | of a state "where folks're not 'afraid'" of _the
> | implicitly relevant meaning_ of "Truth"?
>
> When folks understand how and why
> nervous systems process inform-
> ation via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-
> minimization, and act upon what
> they so-understand.

Therein essentially lies your delusion.

In neither sense of "lies" is it true to say that your delusion lies 
deliberately. 


0
Entertained
5/19/2007 12:00:27 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:KqP2i.7462$4a1.5721@trndny07...
| [...]

| I'm 'taking a break' from my routine partic-
| ipation here in b.n -- to "breath-in" for a
| change :-]
|
| Purchased some Books, both recently,
| and long-ago, and've been reading them.
|
| One of them is =Einstein=, by W. Isaac-
| son, which I'm finding to be Interesting
| and a well-done view on Dr. Einstein's
| Life and Work.
| [...]

The Book is well-done, but I'm not enjoy-
ing it as mush as I'd hoped -- because
it's purpose, it turns out, is to attend to
Einstein's human 'side', and his work
is treated from that perspective -- which,
since I've Lived-it, is 'painful' to me.

I enjoy Books that "fill-in" personal hist-
ories while focusing on the Science -- 
the historical context is as a "spoonful
of sugar that helps the [Science] go down."

But this personal history is a bit too
close to home for me -- folks 'think' that
Theorists are 'absent-minded' and 'in-
terpersonally-oblivious', but that's not
it.

Holding-previously-disconnected stuff
'together' in one's 'mind' is just pretty-
hard to do -- a lot of physically-real work.

So the Theorist has to choose between
doing that work and not doing that work
so he can do stuff that's interpersonal-
ly-expected [be-cause of group-wise
TD E/I-minimization dynamics, BTW.]

Theorists aren't 'oblivious' to interpers-
onal stuff -- they feel it all, just like ev-
eryone else does.

It's just that Theorists See stuff that
others don't [yet] See, and they give
themselves over to instantiating un-
derstanding with respect to what they
See -- so that what's 'disconnected'
can be =usefully= connected in ways
that enable Humanity's Progress.

Theorists take the Obligation, inher-
ent, Seriously, which is what leads
them to Choose to Devote themselves
to their work. So that the work will be
done.

Theorists aren't 'oblivious' to interpers-
onal stuff. They just Choose to 'balance'
their interpersonal stuff in ways that en-
able the doing of the work that they See
needs-doing.

So, for me, the Book is slow-going -- be-
cause it's recounting of Einstein's per-
sonal side is 'painful' to me.

"Yes, yes, yes! But the work =Needs=
to be accomplished! =After= what Needs
to be done is done, I can 'play.' "

But no one ever understands.

Folks just 'presume' the Theorist is
'strange' because he doesn't do every-
thing in the same way that they do things
in the context of interpersonal interactive
dynamics.

But the work Needs to be done.

Theorists feel the Loss inherent. They
just Choose between enduring that Loss
and doing the work that they See Needs
to be done.

Sadly, no one else understands, which
compounds the Loss -- and the 'pain'.

I'm still looking-forward, though, to the
Author's recounting of Einstein's resist-
ance to the 'quantum band-wagon' stuff.

I've not yet reached that 'stage' of the
Book, but that's what I want to [contin-
ue to] address in this post.

On p. 128, the Author quotes from Ein-
stein's 1905 Special Relativity Paper:

" 'The introduction of a 'light ether' will
prove to be superfluous, inasmuch as
the view to be developed here will not
require a 'space at absolute rest.' ' "

This's another 'point' at which things
in Science 'fell-off-the-handle' -- be-cause
what Einstein was =actually= Eliminat-
ing were the Newtonian concepts of
'absolute time' and 'absolute space',
which were contemporaneously at-
tributes in the way that the 'luminifer-
ous ether' was, then, viewed in Science -- 
an 'elastic-but-rigid' "ether" that per-
meated all space, in which "light"
traveled as waves [Newton believed
as "particles".]

Einstein's choice of words, in SR 1905
was unfortunate because, if one reads
elsewhere in Einstein's work, one sees
that Einstein =never= 'rejected' 'the ether'.

In his SR 1905 Paper, Einstein used the
language he used more with respect
to what he understood to be the then-
prevailing 'scientific' prejudice than he
did with respect to physical reality. He
was literally confronting the "old system"
in a deliberately-provocative way be-
cause he'd 'intuited' that such was nec-
essary with respect to counter-acting
the prevailing 'band-wagon'-itus [a 'dis-
ease' that routinely plagues Science
and those who 'do' it.]

It the passage quoted above, Einstein
wasn't rejecting an all-permeating med-
ium. He was Eliminating all notions of
'absolute time' and 'absolute space'.

=Big= Difference.

But, because he didn't distinguish, in
the language-interface dynamics that
he used in writing his Paper, between
a medium and the 'absolutes' he knew
he was Eliminating, his actual position
with respect to a medium, which he
affirmed all-along, following, 'got-lost',
and folks, not comprehending, threw-
out the medium with the never-actually-
existing 'absolutes'.

It's particularly-Sorrowful because what
Einstein should've done was Eliminate
non-physically-real 'time', reducing every-
thing to 'just'-energy, which is what's act-
ually in the Maths of Special [and General]
Relativity.

He, apparently, just didn't See this, prob-
ably be-cause Physics was, then, still in
it's Infancy with respect to experimental
methods, and, mostly, because he saw
that there was =something= really-Wrong
in then-prevailing 'notions' with respect to
physical reality, which 'notions' were, nev-
ertheless, strongly-coerced into the TD
E/I-minimization dynamics of Students',
and, therefore, Professionals, in Science.

Understand?

It wasn't the "medium" that Einstein saw
he needed to confront. It was 'scientific'-
prejudice, not yet reified, that induced
Einstein to use "confrontational" words -- 
words that he aimed directly at the 'heart'
of then-existing 'scientific'-prejudice.

It's particularly-Sorrowful because, as
I've reiterated [for the umpteenth time]
earlier in this thread, it's =easy= to See
that what's been referred to as "time" is
purel a mental-construct that's been
routinely used as an ordering-principle
with respect to the one-way-ness in-
herent in the flow of energy from order
to disorder that is what's =described=
by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T]. 'time' is a
verbal-symbolization =convenience=
with respect to ordering =language=
with respect to energy-flow.

Outside of the TD E/I-minimization
dynamics that occur 'within' nervous
systems, what's been referred to as
"time" has exactly-Zero physically-
real existence.

Throughout human History, folks've
been 'confused' with respect to 'time'
be-cause , since folks did not compre-
hend how and why nervous systems
process information via 'blindly'-auto-
mated TD E/I-minimization, folks
'blindly' and automatically attributed
what they could 'feel' in their nervous
systems' TD E/I-minimization dynamics
to =external= physical reality.

But doing such doesn't, somehow,
transform physical reality into what
TD E/I-minimization 'within' nervous
systems 'dictates' that 'physical real-
ity must be'.

Doing such 'just' 'blinds' folks to
physical reality.

Understand?

All of this matters, Greatly, because
what folks can =do= is 'determined'
in the TD E/I-minimizations that occur
'within' folks' nervous systems -- so,
if cognitive dynamics diverge from
Truth with respect to physical reality,
although physical reality does not
block what folks can do, TD E/I-min-
imization within nervous systems
does, in a virtual, but nevertheless,
'dictatorial' way that leaves folks be-
ing virtually-unable to do what phys-
ical reality, in fact, enables folks to do.

I expect that Dr. Einstein would've
grasped all of this, immediately, if
only the Neuroscience had, then,
been available to him.

Because, rewrite SR & GR to Eliminate
non-physically-real 'time', replacing it
with 3D-Energydynamics [3D-E], and
not only do they still do all that Einstein
saw in them, but =vast= 'new' capabili-
ties open-up to Science, and, through
Science, to Humanity.

Instead of calling the "ether", by which
he actually meant 'absolute time' and
'absolute space', not the medium, Ein-
stein should've just Eliminated 'time'
and let energy flow in accord with WDB2T.

He didn't because Science was, then,
not yet sufficiently-advanced to enable
him to, then, do so.

If he were 34 'today', I expect I'd not be
having to post this discussion.

He'd have seen as above.

It matters, Greatly, because the 3D-E
Reification Eliminates all so-called
"quantum weridness", Concretely re-
turning Physics to its long-embrace
with Deterministic-Causality, simul-
taneously enabling Humanity to do
the analogous thing -- to eschew Il-
logic within its interactive dynamics,
which is a 'stepping-stone' along the
Way to transcending what has been
"man's inhumanity to man."

So it matters-Greatly.

A further note: There's a Serious
Lesson, inherent, with respect to the
way that 'reliance' in Maths that's on-
ly-abstractly 'connected' to physical
reality leads down wrong paths.

The Maths of SR and GR do such be-
cause they include non-physically-real
'time', being forever Wrong as a result
of their doing so, but still exerting 'pow-
erful' force within Humanity's relative-
progress by inducing Humanity to 'move
away from' Truth.

Look back on the last 'century' and you'll
See, clearly, that, 'move away from' Truth,
and Truth 'moves away from' one, right-
back.

Truth =is=.

'move toward' Truth, and Truth 'moves
toward' one, right-back.

Which is how and why =anything=, and
=everything= matters.

[Use "matters" as a verb.]

[For those who've not been reading in
bionet.neuroscience over the 'years',
Truth is literally instantiated 'within'
nervous systems via the globally-inte-
grated TD E/I-minimization dynamics
that occur 'within' their special topolog-
ical homeomorphisms.

'move toward' Truth, and, over the rel-
atively-long-term, TD E/I-minimization
occurs within your nervous system.

Not, and not.

=Always=.

Be-cause nervous systems are Determ-
inistically-coupled to WDB2T all the way
down to 'just'-energy.

"Range widely'"

While "looking-elsewhere."

Testing-everything that's so-experienced,
with respect to everything that's been,
"thus far", experienced.

Nervous systems can innately do such,
even though they most-often 'choose'
to do-less than such [AoK, Ap7.]]

k. p. collins



0
Benjamin
5/20/2007 1:54:42 AM
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message 
news:464ee6de$0$9061$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:a7B3i.2057$aj.1143@trndny06...
| > "Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
| > message
| > news:464da494$0$9073$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
| > |
| > | "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| > | news:nG83i.14469$1X1.8530@trndny02...
| > |
| > | > Where folks're not 'afraid' of Truth.
| > |
| > | What would be the specific characteristics
| > | of a state "where folks're not 'afraid'" of _the
| > | implicitly relevant meaning_ of "Truth"?
| >
| > When folks understand how and why
| > nervous systems process inform-
| > ation via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-
| > minimization, and act upon what
| > they so-understand.
|
| Therein essentially lies your delusion.
|
| In neither sense of "lies" is it true to say
| that your delusion lies deliberately.

What you still don't seem to understand,
Peter, is that I'm not you, and that, there-
fore, we each understand some stuff
that the other does not, yet, understand.

I can only speak with respect to what I
understand, not what you understand.

But I understand that, given understand-
ing, nervous systems act-upon such,
always.

When the understanding so-given is
with respect to how and why nervous
systems process information via
'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization,
folks simultaneously understand what
'fear' physically is, how and why it arises
with respect to absence-of-understand-
ing, and how and why the thing to do is
to 'move' in Directions that gather-in the
understanding that's absent.

Since you've never actually said what's
in that which you assert I'm "lying"
about, I can only 'hypothesize' with re-
sepct to such.

'perhaps' you assert that People are
'irredeemably-bad', and that, no mat-
ter what "understanding" is given to
folks, folks'll remain 'irredeemably-
bad', take 'the understanding' [nev-
er =the understanding=, but that's
another 'ball-of-wax'], and do 'bad'
stuff, anyway.

I've had a lot of experience on the re-
ceiving-end of such, so I understand
how and why such occurs.

It's 'just' that Truth =is=, Peter.

Truth does what it does =regardless=
of what anybody does.

So folks who 'move away from' Truth
will find that Truth 'moves away from'
them, right-back.

It's not =me= who 'determines' any-
thing.

I just 'move toward' Truth.

Period.

Truth takes-care of 'the rest', and,
in the context of out present discus-
sion, folks'll find that Truth is True :-]

In other words, as far as humans are
concerned, Truth is rigorously-Determ-
ined by the one-way flow of energy,
from order to disorder, that is what's
=described= by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T.]

Check it out, and you'll See that Hum-
anity's current juxtaposition with respect
to its own non-Survival, because of glob-
al-warming, is =pure= WDB2T.

=Everything= else is the same-stuff, too.

Give folks understanding with respect
to global-warming, and folks choose
to do what Needs to be done with re-
spect to Humanity's Survival.

Understanding with respect to how and
why nervous systems process inform-
ation, same-old, same-old, only in a
completely-generalized way with re-
spect to =all= Possible human exper-
ience.

Even with respect to what's been our
'interaction' over the 'years'.

Be-cause, 'move toward' Truth, and
Truth 'moves toward' one, right-back.

Not, and not.

Never-failingly.

Be-cause, WDB2T.

Cheers, Peter,

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
5/20/2007 4:11:25 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:CTN3i.4401$ns.189@trndny05...
| [...]

| Instead of calling the "ether", by which
| he actually meant 'absolute time' and
| 'absolute space', not the medium, ["sup- <- edited
| erfluous"] Einstein should've just Elimin-
| ated 'time' and let energy flow in accord
| with WDB2T.
| [...]

Sorry. The 'missing' word matters.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
5/20/2007 4:11:27 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:NTP3i.3179$ix.344@trndny01...
> "Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail.com.au> wrote in 
> message
> news:464ee6de$0$9061$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> | "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
> | news:a7B3i.2057$aj.1143@trndny06...
> | > "Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
> | > message
> | > news:464da494$0$9073$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> | > |
> | > | "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
> | > | news:nG83i.14469$1X1.8530@trndny02...
> | > |
> | > | > Where folks're not 'afraid' of Truth.
> | > |
> | > | What would be the specific characteristics
> | > | of a state "where folks're not 'afraid'" of _the
> | > | implicitly relevant meaning_ of "Truth"?
> | >
> | > When folks understand how and why
> | > nervous systems process inform-
> | > ation via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-
> | > minimization, and act upon what
> | > they so-understand.
> |
> | Therein essentially lies your delusion.
> |
> | In neither sense of "lies" is it true to say
> | that your delusion lies deliberately.
>
> What you still don't seem to understand,
> Peter, is that I'm not you, and that, there-
> fore, we each understand some stuff
> that the other does not, yet, understand.
>
> I can only speak with respect to what I
> understand, not what you understand.
>
> But I understand that, given understand-
> ing, nervous systems act-upon such,
> always.
>
> When the understanding so-given is
> with respect to how and why nervous
> systems process information via
> 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization,
> folks simultaneously understand what
> 'fear' physically is, how and why it arises
> with respect to absence-of-understand-
> ing, and how and why the thing to do is
> to 'move' in Directions that gather-in the
> understanding that's absent.
>
> Since you've never actually said what's
> in that which you assert I'm "lying"
> about, I can only 'hypothesize' with re-
> sepct to such.

I have said this 'aspect of Truth' but you have "'blindly'-automatically" 
evaded 'seeing' it (hence avoided the potential effects - for better or for 
worse - of the insights and other physiological ignitions (emotional and 
visceral/vascular/hormonal effects) that would ensue if you had 'seen'.

>
> 'perhaps' you assert that People are
> 'irredeemably-bad', and that, no mat-
> ter what "understanding" is given to
> folks, folks'll remain 'irredeemably-
> bad', take 'the understanding' [nev-
> er =the understanding=, but that's
> another 'ball-of-wax'], and do 'bad'
> stuff, anyway.

Nothing of the sort!

>
> It's 'just' that Truth =is=, Peter.
>
> Truth does what it does =regardless=
> of what anybody does.

Agree - without reservations.

<snip>
>
> I just 'move toward' Truth.
>
> Period.

Door (certain synaptic gates of yours) slamming shut! ;-)

> In other words, as far as humans are
> concerned, Truth is rigorously-Determ-
> ined by the one-way flow of energy,
> from order to disorder, that is what's
> =described= by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T.]

That is so not even wrong that I can not even refute it with a simple no.

>
> Check it out, and you'll See that Hum-
> anity's current juxtaposition with respect
> to its own non-Survival, because of glob-
> al-warming, is =pure= WDB2T.
>
> =Everything= else is the same-stuff, too.
>
> Give folks understanding with respect
> to global-warming, and folks choose
> to do what Needs to be done with re-
> spect to Humanity's Survival.

Disagree likewise.

>
> Understanding with respect to how and
> why nervous systems process inform-
> ation, same-old, same-old, only in a
> completely-generalized way with re-
> spect to =all= Possible human exper-
> ience.
>
> Even with respect to what's been our
> 'interaction' over the 'years'.
>
> Be-cause, 'move toward' Truth, and
> Truth 'moves toward' one, right-back.
>
> Not, and not.
>
> Never-failingly.
>
> Be-cause, WDB2T.

You are intellectually so close (have had much relevant talent) to, yet are 
so far from from, heuristically finding out about and learning to 
'effectively philosophy terminatingly' handle, this 'psychologically hot 
potatoe'.

P 


0
Entertained
5/20/2007 8:58:56 AM
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message 
news:46500dd4$0$18004$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
| [...]

It's getting-old, Peter.

Do you think that I do not under-
stand why you, and others, hurl
'accusations'?

But it's =funny= how a phrase
that's appeared in the 'news'
ramifies, as it did in your post.

Just goes to show what's lost
in the 'silence' re. NDT's stuff.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
5/21/2007 1:09:14 AM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:CTN3i.4401$ns.189@trndny05...
| [...]

| I'm still looking-forward, though, to the
| Author's recounting of Einstein's resist-
| ance to the 'quantum band-wagon' stuff.
| [...]

Got "there" just this 'night' [p. 320->]

Wearing out a pen drawing big-grin-
smiley-faces :-]

All the 'problems' were resolved long-
ago in TH.

Folks who've read the discussions
I've been posting in this thread should
be able to See how and why that's so.

Am Enjoying the Book, now.

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
5/21/2007 12:59:30 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:_i64i.3700$ix.126@trndny01...
| [...]

I hope the 'silence' on b.n is indicative
of folks coming to understand.

Or am I just clone-servered again?

k. p. collins 


0
Benjamin
5/21/2007 3:15:39 PM
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:PTP3i.3183$ix.846@trndny01...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:CTN3i.4401$ns.189@trndny05...
|| [...]
|
|| Instead of calling the "ether", by which
|| he actually meant 'absolute time' and
|| 'absolute space', not the medium, ["sup- <- edited
|| erfluous"] Einstein should've just Elimin-
|| ated 'time' and let energy flow in accord
|| with WDB2T.
|| [...]
| [...]

With respect to the above, here's a
Prediction:

Folks at LHC will find evidence sub-
stantiating super-asymmetry, rather
than so-called "super-symmetry".

Super-asymmetry derives in the fact
that WDB2T permeates and Determ-
ines everything within physical reality.

Understand?

If 'you' don't, go-back and reread the
discussions that I've posted in this
thread [and in all of my long-former
discussions of Tapered Harmony]
which trace WDB2T through all known
experimental results.

The super-asymmetry is Determined
in the one-way-ness of WDB2T, in-
cluding [along with everything else
in physical reality :-] energy-'consum-
ing' 'gravity', and Life's 'moving' in the
anti-WDB2T Direction, which is pow-
ered in a way that's closely-analogous
to energy-'consuming' 'gravity' -- be-
cause they both reduce to the SSW<->
UES compression<->expansion
harmonics [Spherical-Standing-Waves
<->Universal-Energy-Supply compres-
sion<->expansion harmonics, which
are 'like' de Broglie's "standing waves"
in "wave mechanics", but =spherical=
nonlinear compression<->expansion
'volume'-waves that alternate, =Contin-
uously=, between max-compression
["nucleation"] and max-expansion
["shelling"] in a way that's Determined
by the quantity of energy that's 'con-
tained within' the 'instantaneous'
spherical volume and the local UES
density. Sub-'stable-containment'
quantities of energy can instantiate
temporary-'containments' that 'wink-
out' as the energy 'contained-within'
them 'leaks' back into the energy-
surround [the UES] be-cause the
'contained' energy is insufficient to
instantiate stable-'containment'. Such
sub-'stable-containment' dynamics
occur routinely in =all= accelerator
experiments, in which it's the imposed
acceleration energy that instantiates
the the degree of the temporary sub-
'stable-containment' energy-"encaps-
ulations" that are what experimenters
have viewed as "constituting" so-called
"particles" -- because collisions be
tween SSW<->UES harmonics over-
whelm their on-going energy-'contain-
ment' dynamics, dis-inetgrating the
SSW<->UES harmonics, releasing the
formerly-'contained' energy, which "rams"
into the local energy-surround, which
temporarily "encapsulates" the released
energy in ways that =always= have ster-
eotypical Geometries relative to the overall
energy-density ambient 'within' the accel-
erator apparatus.

Understand this last stuff?

It means that the 'types' of so-called
"particles" that can be observed can be
=Continuously= altered by altering the
ambient energy-density 'within' the ac-
celerator, which is an =easy= way to
Verify [to "Test"] all of Tapered Harmony,
which Verification will simultaneously
calibrate the nonlinearities discussed
above [the relationship between energy-
quantity and 'containment', which is ex-
tremely-rich, and extremely-telling, be-
cause it includes =all= of what've been
refered to as "the four forces", all of which,
as I briefly discussed earlier in this thread,
reduce directly to the =one= thing -- 
WDB2T, always super-asymmetrically,
be-cause of the one-way-energy-flow-
ness that is WDB2T. The super-asym-
metry, inherent, is what makes the Ver-
ification easy be-cause it's =always=
right-there to observe. [Be-cause it's
in WDB2T, no matter =what= one looks-
at, one Sees it [:-] like in the way that
Life =always= 'moves in the anti-WDB2T
Direction, for instance.]

Understand?

The =one= thing Determines =every-
thing' within physical reality, and it's
=all= Testable in practically =any= accel-
erator set-up, not 'only' LHC. [I've already
Verified all of this stuff in RHIC data, but
an set of accelerator experiments in
which net-accelerator-energy is linearly-
modulated [continuously] from some
arbitrary 'low' to the particular accelerat-
or's maximum =will= disclose all of the
SSW<->UES-harmonics stuff that I've
ever discussed, thus Confirming TH
to anyone's satisfaction. [I understand
that accelerators are engineered to op-
erate at specific energies, so convert-
ing an accelerator to operate at contin-
uously-variable energies requires some
re-engineering. A way to approach this
engineered-in circumstance is to =com-
bine= [cross-correlate] experimental re-
sults from accelerators that're already
engineered to operate at various ener-
gies. Each will yield stereotypical ob-
servables. Cross-correlate these with
the energy-'levels' at which specific
accelerators operate. Doing this will
be a little like creating a so-called
"single photon" interference pattern,
but it'll be possible to "interpolate" the
overall continuous-nonlinearity. This'll
give folks sufficient reason to do the
necessary re-engineering to an exist-
ing accelerator [why not Fermilab's
Tevatron, which is due to go off-line
in 2010(?), anyway?]

I Hope that accelerator Physicists will
do this continuous-energy-modulation
experiment as soon as is practically-
possible, because, then, folks can be-
gin to reap the benefits that're in TH's
Unification of Physics, which will yield
profound advances in =every= field of
Science, not in the least, because TH
opens-up 'new' sources of energy that
are a =bit= like the "flux-capacitor" in the
=Back to the Future= movies :-]

I'm not 'kidding' [I do have some "fun"
in the discussions I post, but I =never=
'move away from' Truth [even though
my giving stuff to folks has 'always'
been 'rewarded' by my being more-
virtually-imprisoned the more I so-
Give :-[

I =long-ago= [1975-6 academic 'year']
Proved everything I've ever discussed
with respect to the SSW<->UES harm-
onics while Reifying nervous system
function -- by just 'reading' 'the' "brain",
and what occurs 'within' it [of course by
studying the experimental results pro-
duced by Neuroscientists.] I've been
working to communicate all of this
stuff to folks in b.n, all along. It's been
'Difficult' to do so because I had to
'work-around' [with respect to] the fact
that folks were previously-aware of the
False-finitization that holds that there're
'electrons orbiting a nucleus' in 'atoms',
which concept completely-'blinds' folks
to the more-than-half of physical reality
that's comprised of 'just'-energy flowing
in rigorous accord with WDB2T [which
is why I've 'had to' hammer so hard on
fundamental-'level' stuff -- folks'd not
be able to comprehend higher-'level'
stuff be-cause, until folks're able to un-
derstand the basics of TH, the old,
long-'familiar' False-finitization of 'dis-
crete-particle atoms' 'blinds' folks to
all of the stuff that TH Discloses [which
higher-'level' stuff I've not even been
'able' to begin to discuss -- because
folks'd've not been 'able' to understand
it if I did, =not= 'because' folks 'cannot',
but be-cause the old, long-'familiar'
stuff exists as "biological mass" in
folks' nervous systems, there exerting
physical inertia 'within' folks' cognitive
dynamics, thereby literally Directing
folks' cognitive dynamics to 'move
away from' TH's SSW<->UES harmon-
ics stuff -- which simultaneously 'moves'
folks' cognitive dynamics 'away from'
being 'able' to See "the rest" [even
though the =only= thing involved is
with respect to what's in, and not-in,
folks prior experience -- =not= in any-
thing that's innate 'within' folks' 'norm-
al' nervous systems.]

Understand?

All of this matters be-cause the 'just'-
energy stuff enables Infinite uses that
have not, yet, been actualized outside
of NDT and TH, not in the least, all of
the stuff that nervous systems routinely
do with respect to, for instance, all of
the Infinities [AoK, Ap1] with which
nervous systems routinely, more or
less, cope in real-'time', which, with NDT
and TH, is all flat-out easy to understand.]

How and why all of this matters most is
with respect to lifting Humanity up above
what's been "man's inhumanity to man."

Folks 'should' understand that the ex-
istences of NDT and TH do not 'end'
anything. They just instantiate a 'new'
=Beginning=.

There'll be =plenty= of work to do in Sci-
ence =for as long as= folks want to do
Science -- be-cause it's =Infinite= -- and I
Hope folks'll "roll up their sleeves", and
get-along with doing what Needs to be
done.

For Peace-across-Humanity.

For the Children.

For not 'only' the Survival of Humanity,
but the =Prospering= of Humanity.

You know -- for the Future.

[I 'apologize' that this post is ineloquently-
written [and not checked for syntax of
'spqlling', but I've got to go cut my elder-
ly-Neighbors' lawns, then I've got to go
to the Cemetery -- it's my Mam and Dad's
Aniversary today -- so I'll clean-it-up later,
if it needs-it.]

k. p. collins



0
Benjamin
5/22/2007 1:31:53 PM
Reply: