NDT & evolution 2002-08-25

Peter F. fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au
Mon Aug 26 11:51:16 EST 2002

Hi Ken,

It is seems natural (and inevitable) that there are some deep
"bio-mathematical" potentials at play in our ontogeny and phenotype.

A such a ("bio-mathematical") patterning-program may well assure a certain
symmetry-seeking general tendency such as you suggest.

However, don't forget that Nature also seems to fundamentally be lopsided
and *require* a deep asymetry - something recognized by the sub-biological
science(s) referred to as "Fundamental Physics".

(And, as you would know, there are biological-level examples of 'essential
asymetry' as well.)

It is nothing new or sensational about the fact that life is a localized
resistance-movement against of the "Entropy regime". And it is striking how
comfortable you seem to be with thinking about biological (animal) evolution
in 'smoothed-out and relatively featureless terms', based on the 'WDB2T
trend and concept', rather than in terms of: that *genetic mutations* (not
entirely random such) generate distinct and decisive phenotypal traits
(functures/structions) that are continually trialed by both adversely and
opportunely selective (or evolutionary) "pressures" (in the struggle for -
ultimately reproductive - survival).

I can fit your WDB2T type thinking into my *almost* conventional
evolution-theoretical thinking without any problems, but can you do the same
with mine in yours? ;-)

I put it to you that my way of thinking and focus for explaining ourselves
is more scary than yours because it is more revealing about details and
principles that explain how and why we quite naturally have amongst else
come to rely on selective unconsciousness in order to cope and survive.

Your sweeping schematization skirts-around relatively discrete and concrete
facts/phenomena and concepts such as:

"CURSES" (=~memories of 'slow' *as well as* 'fast' trauma); "SHITS"
(gradually as well as suddenly traumatizing *situations*); "SHITS-detecting
(and deflecting)" inhibitory interneurons.
Such neurons are associated with all actention modules that has the
possibility of being environmentally as if turned into overwhelmingly tragic
and/or ditto torterous focuses of actention; they usually manages to
'preconsciously "gate"', hence to prevent or render "selectively
unconscious", self-defeatingly distressful focuses of actention that *would
otherwise* become motivated by SHITS and subsequently by CURSES; And they
also as if help to reroute (deflect) the gated neural-motivational signals
towards often adaptive alternative and focuses of actention.

I know it is dangerous to dive too steep and deep into certain truths!
Because one might 'drown'! ;-)

But I rather risque that kind of drowning than debase myself and my
intelligence (however much I do have) by naive neurotic beliefs in any kind
of deity.

However, that was me letting of some steam, since I also know that we do
whatever we can given our respective individual "total situation".



"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:yXga9.35083$Ke2.2470973 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hi Peter.

I've discussed everything that's in NDT's view of evolutionatry dynamics.
The discussion is 'scttered', in little 'snippets' over the course of years
of posts. I'm not going to reiterate it, here [it requires detailed
discussion of Physics [with respect to which, I'm still sorting-out a couple
of numbers], with a correlated discussion of Chemistry [which follows
directly from the Physics]], but I will offer an example of how it differs
from the traditional approach.

Last Friday night, here in the U. S. A., ABC TV broadcast an installment of
its 20/20 program. The show presented information pertaining to how
perceptions of 'facial beauty' enter-into folks' daily decision-making
processes. It presented some 'under-cover' work in which 'beautiful' folks
gained preference, and discussed how such preference is discernable even in

Although it was not rigorously-stated, the gist of it is that there is a
'genetic basis' for such 'preference' - that there 'must be a gene' that
'establishes' such preference for 'facial beauty'.

NDT's position on evolutionary dynamics hold that such is not True.

Rather, NDT's position is that sensing, and recognizing, 'facial beauty'
occurs as a function of symmetry, and relative symmetry correlates
rigorously with relative-TD E/I within the visual 'subsystem' -the greater
the symmetry, the more-minimized is visual 'subsystem' TD E/I [see AoK, Ap4
"facial expressions", Ap3, 5, 6, 7, "ramparchitecture", and all of Ap6,
"relative symmetry", for correlated discussion].

The sensing and recognition of relative-symmetry is a highly-generalized
aspect to genetic stuff be-cause relative-symmetry is rigorously-correlated
with WDB2T ^ -1.

That is, high-symmetry, is anti-WDB2T, and, so, is coincident with what Life
does - 'climb' the energy-flow gradient that is the one-way flow of energy
from order to disorder that is what's described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T].

So the 'facial-beauty' thing is 'just' a reproduction-correlated instance of
'stuff' that's evaluated as being 'well-put-together' be-cause, when it's
stuff drives visual sensation, a relatively-high degree of TD
E/I-minimization occurs within the visual 'subsystem'.

In other words, there exists no 'gene' for 'facial-beauty'.

Rather, what exists within the tablo-rasa genetic stuff is a
highly-generalized innate information-processing capability with respect to
TD E/I-minimization, and it can See-right-into the genetic-stuff
['xray-vision - we all have it :-]

Folks've mis-taken such as 'indicating' that stuff like appreciation of
'facial-beauty' has a 'gene'. It doesn't.

Folks're 'attracted' to 'Beautiful' faces for the same reason that they're
attracted to 'Beautiful' anything, including relatively-'abstract' stuff,
such as Logic, be-cause it's correlated with relative TD E/I-minimization
[it's only superficially-'relative' because, at it's most-'detailed'
'level', the dynamics become 'defined' with respect to the stuff of one's
experiential-environment - but it remains the Same-Stuff - TD
E/I-minimization. This's why a Mathematician might be moved-to-tears by a
'Beautiful' set of equations, while a Lay-person, typically, is not. Why a
Breeder 'appreciates' the beauty of Champion bull more than does a
Lay-Person, and, in general, why a person born and raised in one culture, or
a person who becomes 'expert' in this or that, considers the stuff of that
culture, or his area of 'expertise', to be more-'beautiful' than the stuff
of 'foreign' cultures, or his field of 'expertise'.

So, it's not "selfish-genes", etc., that determine the course of
evolutionary dynamics through 'reproductive choice', and there's nothing
that occurs 'by-chance' in-there. It's WDB2T determining the course of
evolutionary dynamics be-cause, for the genetic material to do anything, it
must, first, 'climb' the one-way flow of energy from order to disorcer that
is WDB2T..

That is exactly what the genetic stuff does, and what evolutionary dynamics

WDB2T, itself, actively-drives evolutionary dynamics, deterministically -
that is WDB2T determines what 'mutations' are 'acceptable', not anything
that's innate within any 'species'. If a 'species' is relatively-more-facile
with respect to 'climbing'-WDB2T, it's survival-propensity is commensurately

And there's not 'a gene for this' and 'a gene for that'.

What there is is a genetic-totality, in which genetic-stuff co-operates,
of-a-piece, to imbue an organism with the greatest 'facility' with respect
to 'climbing' the WDB2T energy-gradient. [If folks have former discussions,
search on "standing-wave genetics"]

The Logic of the 'climb' is that doing so 'carries' an organism to 'the
place' where the energy upon which its Life-stuff depends is

This's what 'Life' is.

As is discussed in AoK, Ap4, even bacteria do such.

It's WDB2T that forms the neural topology, not 'the genes'. The genetic
stuff is 'only' analogous to a 'piano'. It's WDB2T that 'composes' the
'symphony' of Life, conducts and performs it in-concert, upon a 'piano' that
it has created.

k. p. collins
Peter F. wrote in message ...
"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Lfn99.39$p%3.9460 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I understand that the stuff I've been discussing is 'Difficult', and even a
bit 'frightening'.

Understanding the manner in which nervous systems process-information via
'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization 'turns-off' the 'blind'-automation -
allows one to recognize the information-processing functionality of this or
that formerly-'scary' stuff inherent in nervous systems' innate functioning,
with the result that, rather than being 'coerced', via 'blindly'-automated
nervous system functioning, into this or that 'blindly'-automated behavioral
manifestation - rather than Killing, for instance - one can understand the
TD E/I-differential[s] inherent, and work things out on the basis of such
understanding, seeking TD E/I-minimization routes that are not necessarily
predetermined within experience, giving, as well as receiving, such, without
Prejudice with respect to that which they constitute - without 'banning'
them just because they are not, yet, within experience.

PF comments:-

Your "NDT" view of the brain is not difficult. And, more importantly, it is
NOT frightening enough!

Your encompassing explanation for how the brain works creates  "*too
comfortable* a cocoon" of cognitive comprehension.

It is too comfortable because of what it fails to directly address (or
because of what it largely leaves out).

It has failed the test for "specifics" as far as our evolution is concerned;
Similarly it falls-down on being far too feeble an explanatory force as far
as "selective unconsciousness" is concerned, and what it is that "selective
unconsciousness" hides, and how (by which cultural / psychobehavioural /
neurophysiological means and mechanisms -- "AEVASIVE such") what we "hide"
is being hidden.

All of *these aspects* of "what is going on" -- "what is hidden, and how,
and central evolutionary (peripherally even down to ultimate cosmological
reasons) why" -- are *generally* (but still with poignant philosophical
precision) *specifiable* in a compactly 'concEPTualized' way which is, if
not formal and conventional, so at least in essence *entirely aligned* with
our best bet, by "Science" (holistically defined) securely confirmed and/or
established, principles and theories.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list