"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:AVUra.58881$cO3.4006321 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| the 'coordinate system' upon which the "zero" is
| read is, itself, continuously undergoing 'translation'
| [Maths: "coordinate-system translation"] that's
| rigorously-coupled to the overall 3-D energydynamics.
It's not just "translation" within 'the' coordinate system.
The 3-D coordinate system, itself, is different from 'moment' to
Within such, the meter's "zero" is always "zero", so the "zero" is
never the same thing twice - it's "zero" with respect to a
continually augmenting other measure. The "zero" 'rides' this
'augmentation' which is 'learning'.
The "zero' is 'on the up esclator" always correlated to the
'momentarily'-converged-upon "biological mass" within the overall
augmentation that is learning.
It's TD E/I-minimization that empowers this augmentation by guiding
the 3-D energydynamics at all scales with respect to WDB2T ^ -1.
While there's Life in-there, the meter's "zero" is just another
'point' within this work that the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms do.
One thing's 'going-down' necessitates another thing's 'going-up'
within the overall convergence that is TD E/I-minimization, through
which the augmentation of "biological mass" is governed and guided.
Neural dynamics that are configured-out of a 'momentary' "supersystem
configuration" [AoK, Ap5] are actually actively participating in TD
E/I-minimization - because if they weren't configured out,
convergence could not occur.
In Life, there's never anything actually "zero" in-there.
Zero only happens at Death.
The meter reading 'obscures' the fact that the 'zero' is actually a
necessary 'something' with respect to other stuff that's
tightly-integrated in vivo - so it's not 'nothing' :-]
It's 'crossing the line' tends strongly to always be monotonic with
respect to TD E/I-minimization, despite which side of 'the line' it's
'momentarily' on - and discortions [disorder; 'randomness'] with
respect to this global tendency gets quickly 'whittled'-away [AoK,
Ap5] by the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms.
It's important not to attribute 'absolute' significance to something
like "reversal potential" [or "equilibrium potential"] in a way
that's supposedly 'separate' from global TD E/I-minimization - else
one cannot discern the 'sense' in global TD E/I-minimization's
Good Gosh! I feel like an 'assassin for having to discuss this stuff.
I don't mean it in an 'offensive' way.
I mean just the opposite stuff.
ken [still looking for a way to say it better]