IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Information-content Encoding via 'work' [the End of Darwin's Position]

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Tue Apr 8 14:50:18 EST 2003


If this "work-encoding"-of-information-content stuff hasn't been
obvious to folks who've monitored the stuff I've posted over the
course of the last ten years here in b.n, then I =promise=, if only
some small group of Neuro folks let me come and talk with them, it'll
be pure do-back-flips Joy stuff. [It's all flat-out-easy to
comprehend -right down to the molecular 'level' - diagrammatically.]

I thought it was all obvious. If not, then I've got to fall back to
~2% in my estimate of what's been communicated of the work I've done.

Nervous systems work by doing work :-]

The information-content of this or that 'memory' is rigorously mapped
with respect to external WDB2T because the internal neural Topology
is rigorously mapped to the body-environment interface.

Thus, as external WDB2T is passed into the nervous system, it
constitutes an energydynamics transform of physical reality within
the external environment within which 'moving toward' and 'moving
away from' is 'all' rigorously mapped with respect to TD
E/I-minimization.

External energydynamics that result in TD E/I(up) [like activation of
nociceptors due to close contact with, say, hot or sharp objects]
result in 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization that transforms the
TD E/I(up) 'mountain' of activation into a TD E/I(down) 'valley' of
activation and, when this inverted transformation is mapped back to
the effectors, the effectors are activated in a way that drives
behavior that 'moves away from' the hot or sharp object.

All that's happening is that the external energy gradient is being
'measured' in rigorous accord against the internal 'goal' og TD
E/I-minimization.

The activation of the nociceptors imposes work-demands upon the rest
of the system.

The information-content is encoded in the work-demands.

The rest of the system 'knows' how to respond because all it does is
'blindly' and automatically 'seek' to 'climb' the WDB2T
energy-gradient, which is always in there in a g'zillion ways, but,
in this example, is comprised primarily of the 'pain' activation
which imposes a work-demand back upon the rest of the system.

The system reacts, and we're spared a burn or a cut.

=Everything= that happens within nervous systems, all the way down to
the single-ion 'level', is 'just' more of the same. [Remember? "It's
activation-depencence all the way down, not turtles." :-]

The 'metabolic' demands that this or that molecular dynamic imposes
within this or that metabolic link =is= the information-content.

Get it?

How the molecular dynamics 'know' what to do derives in their
rigorous coupling with respect to WDB2T. Everything within 'normal'
Biology has such 'knowledge' 'engineered' into it - nothing gains
functionality within the Biology that does not 'contain' this
'knowledge' [Remember? "Darwin was wrong. It's not 'survival of the
fittest'. It's survival of what best 'climbs' the WDB2T
energy-gradient." [The difference, at first seems to be 'subtle', but
it's not - it's actually Enormous. The easiest way to see this is
through the 'lens' of so-called "altruism" - but not the
throw-one's-self-on-a-hand-grenade kind [which, don't get me wrong is
Heroic - it's the more-subtle 'altruism' whose hallmark is the
performance of work with respect to the survival needs of the group].
Such group-wise altruism is not some 'mamby-pamby' 'weird' stuff.
It's stuff that 'knows' it's survival derives in maximizing
groupwise-'climbing' of the WDB2T energy-gradient. It 'knows' that
it, through its contributions to the group effort, the group is
'flush with success' then it's survial propensity becomes maximized.
It 'knows' that it's 'climbing' of the WDB2T energy-gradient is
optimized if work is done to eliminate 'everything' that can deter
'climbing' of the WDB2T energy-gradient. Groupwise-altruism is not
some la-de-da-earn-a-million-dollars stuff - 'cause what good are any
millions of dollars if 'war' rampages through in one's midst?
No-good-at-all. See the Enormous difference? See how, in this way,
survival becomes something much more tangivle - much more Reasoned
and Reasonable than is Darwin's 'crap-shoot'?] All of this stuff is
all right-there in the work-demands that're imposed by, and within,
the information-content that exists in the work performed by
Journalists, isn't it?

Yup.

The only thing that's 'different' in our contemporaneous 'times' is
that the quantity and scope of the information-content inherent the
daily News reports is ever-augmenting - so the work-demands imposed
within it are augmenting commensurately.

The only difference, in 'times' past, was with respect to the
quantity and scope of such information-content. This made the
Darwinian 'crap-shoot' a relatively 'vaible' 'short-cut' to
'survival' - "play the odds" - "It's more probable, statistically,
that you'll be struck by than [insert the Darwinian-'crap-shoot'
stuff of your choice here]." - etc.

But, when group-wise altruism reads the News, it sees, in-it, that
there's work that can be done, which, if accomplished, will augment
group-wise survial propensity, and, therefore, augment individual
survival propensity.

All of this is in rigorous accord with respect to 'climbing' the
WDB2T energy-gradient, but is an Enormous departure from Darwin's
conceptualization of "survival of the fittest".

Whare Darwin's 'way' actually encourages 'gambling' with respect to
'risk', group-wise altruism  encourages the doing of the work
inherent in eliminating 'risk'.

It's group-wise altruism that's 'engineered' into the 'genes', not
Darwin's 'crap-shoot' stuff, because, as I discussed in my "3-D
energydynamics" posts a few months back, the molecular stuff is
'engineered' =solely= with respect to 'climbing' the WDB2T
energy-gradient [Remember the discussion of the always-down-hill-ness
inherent in the energydynamics of protein-folding? That's pure WDB2T
"all the way down" into the least energydynamic of the DNA. If anyone
wants the former discussion re-posted, reply and I'll do so.]

I've discussed the two main reasons why Darwin's Error is becoming
increasingly discernable - 1. proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, 2. modern means of communication imposing 'unfamiliar'
[TD E/I(up)-generating] information-content across the 'borders' of
formerly relatively-mutually-exclusive experience.

Get it?

Both of these factors are imposing work upon nervous systems that, in
former 'times', was simply not imposed upon nervous systems because
1. weapons of mass destruction did not exist [virtually all of them
are products of the last century - themselves converged upon via TD
E/I-minimization with respect to the ancient Ravaging of 'War'], and
2. mass-informing communicative means did not exist.

So, responding to the work imposed by the information-contents of 1.
and 2., above, is =just= what nervous systems have 'always' done -
there's no 'mutation' required - it's just that 1. and 2., above, did
not have existence that could be experienced in former 'times'.

Get it?

For nervous systems to 'know' with respect to this or that, this or
that =must= impose work-encoded information-content upon nervous
systems.

Darwin's position is completely devoid of meaning with respect to
such because, these 'modern' work-encoded information-contents
flat-out =require= optimization with respect to group-wise TD
E/I-minimization - they flat-out require group-wise 'altruism' - they
flat-out require the performance of work on behalf of not-self, if
survival of 'self' is to be optimized.

Get it?

=This= is what's been in the evolutionarily-'engineered' 'design' of
nervous systems' generalized adaptability all along.

Not "selfish genes", not "personal fitness", or anything remotely
analogous.

Our nervous systems have 'always' [quotes are in accord with
evolutionary dynamics in which, presumably, there is some vague, but
consequential, 'border' in-there 'between' animals and Humans] been
'tuned' solely with respect to WDB2T.

This's verifiably the =only= way through which generalized
adaptability can, in fact. be achieved. [I'll gladly give the
verification in-person. [I've been going over what's entailed for the
past ten years here in b.n, but it's much, much easier to grasp when
it's done diagrammatically, in-person - with opportunity to deal with
questions right on the spot]]

All of this can be taken all the way down to the 'level' of single
ions within nervous systems [and beyond, but such requires Tapered
Harmony].

Which has me all-blood-pouring-from-my-heart at the thought that no
one will allow me to come to them to just do Science together.

It's 'hilarious', you know?

Group-wise survival doesn't 'grow on trees'.

It derives in the doing of information-processing work that does the
'heavy lifting' of Humanity that's entailed in the
information-content-work imposed by 1. and 2., above.

It derives in achieving TD E/I-minimization with respect to the
experiencing of 1. and 2., above.

It derives in Reason.

And it's the =only= thing that Humans can do that'll actually work
with respect to the Survival of Humanity.

Anyway, if you didn't get the information-content-encoding-via-work
stuff, then do the work inherent in understanding such  if you want
to understand, all-the-way-down, how nervous systems work.

[I'll probably add more detail to this discussion later, after I go
over it to see what can be stated better - after it's stuff imposes
further work demands upon my nervous system. Right now, I just want
to post what's here.]

K. P. Collins

"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:5_ika.17238$cO3.1283093 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| One more thing and then I've got to go check on a job that's my
only
| remaining hope.
|
| I understand that all of my work is 'strange'. I'm =not= saying
that
| folks've got to 'drop everything' with which they're 'fmailiar' and
| do things 'my way'.
|
| All along I've been trying only to contribute - to fill-in-the-gaps
| that existed within the traditional approach.
|
| Folks really can't be 'angry' with me that the 'language' of my
| research is 'unfamiliar' - I was 'banned' from grad school, and
just
| had to do what needed to be done in any way that I could.
|
| There's worth in the work I've done. For instance, the stuff that
| I've discussed in the last two msgs of this thread applies directly
| to the standard "meddenger cascades" that the molecular folks've
been
| working out. If folks look, they'll see that the 'work function'
| links together all of what remains as 'scattered' bits and pieces
in
| the standard molecular approach.
|
| That is, they'll see that all the connections within the 'messenger
| cascades' are 'just' this thing's work passing information in the
| form of an imposition of work upon the next thing.
|
| It's just more of the 3-D energydynamics stuff that I discussed a
| while back with respect to the protein-folding problem.
|
| All intermediate steps encode information within the work that
occurs
| within them, until the net information content develops in the form
| of macroscopic nervous system trophic modifications that reflect
the
| neural impulse activity that's actually occurred within the
system -
| which neural impulse activity is just one window into the
| work-encoded information content that's being developed.
|
| Folks don't have to use my addmittedly-inelegant nomenclature, but
I
| do hope folks'll not hesitate to integrate the gist of it - because
| it's what's verifiably in-there.
|
| Do this, and your work will, including most of its standard stuff,
| implode to unity.
|
| Then, communicate your work, and folks'll stop non-sensically
| Slaughtering one another.
|
| And that's all I care about.
|
| Gotta go check on the job.
|
| ken
|
| "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
| news:CRhka.17128$cO3.1277201 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | The work-encoding of information is hierarchical along a
structural
| | continuum that runs from single ions to the whole nervous system.
| |
| | For instance, the work a "gate" performs communicates via
| correlated
| | relative metabolic demands from the gate to other organelles
within
| | the cell, demanding such and such performance from them, which,
| | through the correlated functioning of the organelles,
communicates
| | further, and so forth, up to the nervous system as a whole,
driving
| | macroscopic action [performing macroscopic work].
| |
| | Throughout, one thing integrates everything - work with respect
to
| | WDB2T - throughout, everything is 'just' TD E/I-minimization that
| | 'senses' WDB2T, and which by-produces 'volition', cognition,
affect
| | and behavior accordingly.
| |
| | The main thing that I've been discussing all along is the way
that,
| | because the way nervous systems process information has not been
| | generally comprehended, nervous systems 'blindly' and
automatically
| | treat experientially-driven TD E/I-minimization as if it
| constitutes
| | Truth when all it is is experientially-driven TD E/I-minimization
| | that occurs with respect to collective behavioral inertia that
| exists
| | within the experiential environment.
| |
| | It's important to get this straight because the absence of
| | understanding with respect to it leads to folks Slaughtering one
| | another for 'reasons' that have no existence within any absolute
| | external experiential reality.
| |
| | Folks are killing one another - or doing stuff like perverting
The
| | Constitution of The United States of America to cling to
| | nineteenth-century, or more ancient, stuff that Ravages others,
| etc.,
| | etc., etc. - ad infinitum within Human interactive dynamics - for
| no
| | reason than that their nervous systems are acquiescing to
| | 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization.
| |
| | All of this Slaughter can be transcended through the
understanding
| of
| | how nervous systems process information.
| |
| | Looking to such understanding is the only practical method
because
| | the work entailed includes folks going back therough their
branches
| | of Civilization and recognizing how and why the 'passions' that
| | induce them to 'hate' arise, not with respect to this or that
| 'rule'
| | but solely with respect to their
| intergenerationally-converged-upon,
| | and intergenerationally-handed-down 'consensus'.
| |
| | The 'program' entails replacing happenstance experiential
| convergence
| | with Reasoned convergence.
| |
| | Why an understanding of how nervous systems work is Necessary is
| | because it's necessary to understand how affective alignment
arises
| | within nervous systems in a 'blindly'-automated way with respect
to
| | TD E/I-minimization.
| |
| | Nothing else can expose the illogic inherent in the 'passions'
that
| | Slaughter.
| |
| | Nothing else can displace 'passion' with Reason.
| |
| | The 'walls' that fracture Humanity dis-integrate into nothingness
| | when one understands how it is that 'passion' comes to be
| correlated
| | with mere experience.
| |
| | Why it matters - why the same-old historical approach is no
nonger
| | workable is that populations-wide TD E/I is net-monotonically
| | augmenting because weapons of mass destruction are proliferating
| and
| | because modern means of communication are imposing 'unfamiliar'
[TD
| | E/I(up)-inducing] stuff across what have, historically,
constituted
| | the 'borders' of relatively-mutually-exclusive experience.
| |
| | It's why understanding how nervous systems work matters, and why
| it's
| | worth doing the work inherent.
| |
| | It's my Analysis that the Survival of Humanity depends upon this
| work
| | being accomplished.
| |
| | I wouldn't 'bother' folks if it weren't so.
| |
| | K. P. Collins
| |
| |
| | "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
| |
news:1Vgka.17066$cO3.1271881 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | | "GRRRROOOOOAAANNNNN!!!"
| | |
| | | "BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
| | | news:Xns9356B3A601FF7BilZ0rhotmailcom at 202.20.93.13...
| | | |
| | | | >| Yes there is, Its defined by the time it
| | | | >| takes for the potassium channels
| | | | >| to be available for opening again.
| | | | >
| | | | > That this or that is "defined" to be that
| | | | > or this does not make this
| | | | > or that that or this.
| | |
| | | =Every= ionic conductance, including charged macromolecules,
| enters
| | | into that which you refer to "potassium channels" - or do you
| | suppose
| | | that, somehow, "charge" is not =always= "charge"? Do you think
K+
| | | sees only K+? That Na++ sees only Na++? Do you think K
| conductance
| | | can exist without Na conductance?
| | |
| | | All ionic "channels" respond to the net ionic "charge" - of
| course
| | | with respect to their specifically-'engineered' "gate"
| correlates,
| | | but there's a whole 'world' in-there that enters into the
| | | determination of the specifics.
| | |
| | | For instance, neural glia act as K+ "electrodes",
redistributing
| K+
| | | concentration gradients in accord with ongoing neural activity.
| | |
| | | Saying this or that is that or this doesn't make tthis or that
| that
| | | or this.
| | |
| | | One has to get in-there and follow the ionic conductances
before
| | one
| | | can discern =anything= with respect to a k+, or other ionic
| | "gate" -
| | | in vivo, 'resting' potentials, etc., vary[everything "ionic"
| | varies]
| | | in accord with the ionic background.
| | |
| | | If one wants to have coctails at conferences, one needn't
follow
| | the
| | | ionic conductances, but if one wants to comprehend CNS
function,
| | one
| | | must do so.
| | |
| | | No "ideal cases" - no "absolutes" - everything's relative to
the
| | | ongiong ionic conductances.
| | |
| | | Understand [all]?
| | |
| | | | Actaully its sodium channels, I've been
| | | | feeling like an idiot all day,
| | | | was at work and couldn't correct myself.
| | |
| | | Obviously, you're not an "idiot". You;ve just read the books
and
| | left
| | | out the most important thing - to think.
| | |
| | | NA++ same-old, same-old.
| | |
| | | Anything ionic, same-old, same-old.
| | |
| | | Of course, with respect to specifically-'engineered' "gates",
| etc.
| | |
| | | The quantity of work a gate must perform against the ionic
| | background
| | | encodes the 'state' from which learning-correlated microscopic
| | | trophic modifications gain their information-contents.
| | |
| | | Everything within nervous systems is rigorously-coupled to
WDB2T.
| | |
| | | The work-encoding with respect to WDB2T is how information is
| | stored,
| | | cross-correlated, and retrieved within nervous systems.
| | |
| | | | Theres a "conseptualization" thats wrong. If I define
something
| | as
| | | | something, that is the only thing I can be sure that it is.
| | | | X=2, now I know that X=2.
| | |
| | | But if your definition stands before you as a 'closed door'
that
| | | prevents your seeing what's necessary to see, your "deinintion"
| is
| | | nothing more than a 'brick wall' that's worthy of nothing other
| | than
| | | being 'torn down'.
| | |
| | | What good is a "definition" that 'blinds' you?
| | |
| | | Good-for-nothing.
| | |
| | | | > The =only= "absolute" that exists within
| | | | > Living nervous systems is that their functioning
| | | | > rigorously conforms to WDB2T.
| | | |
| | | | the absolute refractory period isn't called
| | | | absolute becasue we know exactly what
| | | | it is. Its called that to outline the different
| | | | between it and the relative refractory period.
| | |
| | | In vivo, no such thing as an "absolute refractory period" has
any
| | | existence. It's all as above, with respect to the ongoing ionic
| | | conductances.
| | |
| | | | > The rest is dynamic as a function of experience.
| | | | > No neuron is ever in the same 'state' twice
| | | | > because all neurons undergo microscopic
| | | | > trophic modifications as a result of the activation
| | | | > that actually occurs within them, and the rest of
| | | | > the neural structure in which they are embedded
| | | | > - all the way up to the nervous system as a whole.
| | | | >
| | | | > Such feeds-back into the ionic concentration gradients
which
| | | | > determine the stuff that you were non-existent-ideal-case
| | | | > short-shrifting, with the result that the 'ideal case' is
| total
| | | | > fiction.
| | | | >
| | | | >| > [...]
| | | | >| > Within Living nervous systems, there exists
| | | | >| > no such thing as "normal" levels of stimulation.
| | | | >|
| | | | >| What? Yes there are. look at any monosynaptic
| | | | >| nevous pathway.
| | | | >
| | | | > As above, there exists no such thing as a neuron
| | | | > whose energydynamics occur as the sole result
| | | | > of synaptic 'events' - the synaptic 'events',
| | | | > themselves, occur as a function of whole-nervous-
| | | | > system energydynamics.
| | | | >
| | | | > If it were as you say, to the degree it were so,
| | | | > the 'nervous system' in question would be a
| | | | > non-learning automaton.
| | | |
| | | | The normal level of stimulation. The level at which
| | | | is would normal fire an AP at. The threshold of
| | | | activation. Call it whatever you want, if you
| | | | want to argue that there is no such thing, you're
| | | | going against what everybody bar you thinks.
| | |
| | | "What everybody thinks" is wrong, as above, because "everybody"
| | | doesn't get-in-there with the ionic conductances - as above.
| | |
| | | There's =nothing= 'static' within nervous systems. Everything
is
| | | 'tuned' with respect to the ongoing conductances. This's where
| | | "intelligence" arises - in the quantities of work that stuff
like
| | | "gates" ["punps", etc.] perform, the rigorous correlation to
| WDB2T
| | | becomes established - this's how nervous systems "know" what
ever
| | it
| | | is that they [via TD E/I-minimization] converge upon "knowing".
| All
| | | information is work-encoded within nervous systems in this way.
| | |
| | | Everything within nervous systems is 'linked' together in terms
| of
| | | such work.
| | |
| | | The neural Topology establishes the substrate in which the
| | | work-distribution is "recognized" - from the ionic 'level' all
| the
| | | way up to effector-driving, with cognition in-between -
| | =everything=
| | | is work-encoded.
| | |
| | | The easiest way to get an initial 'handle' on this is to study
| the
| | | motions of your hands as you are performing externally-relevant
| | work.
| | | Calculate that work, then follow it back into your nervous
| system.
| | |
| | | Throughout, it's all the same stuff - calculating with respect
to
| | | WDB2T.
| | |
| | | The calculations can be performed by nervous systems because
| WDB2T
| | | permeates physical reality in a way that is consistent.
| | |
| | | That is, there are local variations in WDB2T, but no matter the
| | | vairiance [within the bounds of what's survivable], nervous
| systems
| | | are able to 'sense' its 'meaning' in terms of the work that
| dealing
| | | with it entails.
| | |
| | | Is it freezing-cold outside? -> do the work necessary to find a
| | | more-favorable WDB2T energy-gradient [to find 'warmth'].
| | |
| | | Is it hot? -> do the opposite.
| | |
| | | It's all 'moving toward', or 'moving away from', with respect
to
| | | external WDB2T.
| | |
| | | | >| What I can't say how fast a action potentialtravels?
| | | | >| Lol. Not exactly, but I can give the accepted range.
| | | | >
| | | | > It's like I said, OK at an introductory 'level', but
totally
| | | useless
| | | | > if one actually wants to comprehend how nervous systems
work.
| | | | > Clearly, if it's "bionet.neuroscience", we're beyond the
| | former,
| | | and
| | | | > interested in the latter.
| | | |
| | | | I don't think the poster was interesting in
| | | | comprehending the nervous system as a
| | | | whole. He wanted to know how far a AP
| | | | travel during the absolute refractory period,
| | | | so I told him.
| | |
| | | I explained why I 'jumped' your post.
| | |
| | | The books are 'stepping-stones' upon which one can 'stand', but
| | only
| | | to see-further, not 'dictators'. And if they're left as the
| latter,
| | | then either the Author of the Reader has failed.
| | |
| | | The questioner was best-served by telling him where to go to
| start
| | | thinking, not what to think.
| | |
| | | That, and that you've been 'jumping' my posts as if you think
I'm
| | | some sort of 'crack-pot', and that always gets my 'attention',
| | sooner
| | | or later.
| | |
| | | I mean no 'offense', but there's Truth on the line, and I 'move
| | | toward' Truth.
| | |
| | | Period.
| | |
| | | K. P. Collins
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
|
|





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net