Ken Collins KPaulC at email.msn.com
Fri Sep 17 21:13:02 EST 1999

...every 'time' i try to post something, i'm getting 'rejected' msgs... even
if i post to only bionet.neuroscience.

K. P. Collins

Ken Collins <KPaulC at email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ekV$geXA$GA.307 at cpmsnbbsa05...
> hack <hack at watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:7ruh46$le0$1 at poknews.pok.ibm.com...
> > Here's a different approach.  Consider the brain strictly from the
> outside.
> > How much information could there possibly be?  Well, where could it have
> come
> > from?
> >
> > At conception, a bound on the amount of starting information can be
> obtained
> > from the human genome:  so many bits encoded in the DNA (at two bits per
> base
> > pair).
> i've only considered the problem at a more-inclusive 'level' than that of
> single 'genes', but my view on 'genes' is that they're much-more
> information-containing than that. my view started at my attendance of an
> AAAS 'protein conformation' plenium thing... and, from then on, i saw that
> even 'just' proteins are subject to the information-content of
> continuously-varying 'charge'... one can see this in the ways that
> protein-'folding' dynamics vary at various 'stages'... one can see that
> net-information being responded to is varying with such conformation
> variations... so, since the 'genes' code protein synthesis, they must have
> all of these dynamics coded within them, and, if the information-content
> these dynamics, ultimately manifested in continuous-charge interactions,
> were to be represented 'digitally', say as 3-D vector fields, the digital
> representations would be, necessarily, huge... something akin to those
> 'thunder-cloud' dynamics simulations that the supercomputer folks do.
> but, although it works for me, and i intend to keep expanding it, i
> stand-alone in these observations, so be 'careful' if you carry such into
> other discussions... wouldn't want you to catch flack because of me.
> >
> > From that point on (probably a bit later than conception, but probably
> earlier
> > than birth), additional information can only come via sensory input.
> right from conception, the embryo communicates with the prenatal
> environment, and the prenatal evironment makes a difference in the
> expression of the genetic stuff. i'm anot 'expert' but i know the number
> 'factors' is huge... so all of those 'nubers' are in-there, in my view,
> interacting on the basis of continuous 'charge' (for those who know of
> Tapered Harmony, when i refer to "continuous 'charge'", i'm refering to
> UES-flows underpinning interactions among the SSW<->UES harmonics.)
> > I think
> > we can get some idea of the bandwidth of a nerve.  How much information
> could
> > be added over, say, 20 years?  (Yes, we do learn after 20, but we also
> lose
> > information.)
> i'm sorry. everywhere i look within nervous systems, i see
> infinitely-ranging dynamics... not that they 'stretch to the end of the
> Universe' :-)
> it's 'just' that nervous systems commonly deal with problems that are
> infinitely-large in scope in milli-second 'time' frame... some retinal
> processing occurs in pico-seconds... and everything is continuously
> integrated in a massively-parallel way.
> it just leaves one's jaw-hanging when one takes a peek in-there... the
> Wonder of it all.
> my answer is that the information-processing capacity of the nervous
> is infinite.
> ken collins (K. P.)

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list