Consciousness

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Fri Dec 19 23:44:24 EST 2003


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo at bilkent.edu.tr>
Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience,sci.cognitive
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: Consciousness


> "kenneth p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<ROhEb.3508$wL6.1160 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > Coulomb's Law.
> >
> > If Coulomb's Law is to be sustained,
> > then the field must be infinitely-divisible
> > and, therefore, continuous.
> >
>
> That is, if space-time is continuous. (ie continuum
> hypothesis is not just a mathematical hypothesis,
> it's also a physical law!)

My position is that the modern problem has been
that so-called "space-time" [physical reality] has been
regarded to be 'discretely parcelized' when it's easy
to verify that all of what's been considered to con-
stitute "parcelization" derives in continuous energy
thresholding dynamics.

The problem has been in the 'seeing' of 'quanta'
instead of seeing these continuous energy
thresholding dynamics.

The former artificially impose all sorts of non-
sense upon folks perceptions of physical real-
ity [to the degree that, instead of serving Hu-
manity, Science has dis-served Humanity by
rendering it 'blind' to physical reality. All sorts of
negative consequences have followed from this
one unfortunate circumstance, all of which have,
at their bases, the form of 'inarguable postulates'
that virtually prohibit questioning - and, therefore,
progress in understanding, itself.

The goal I've been pursuing for the last two dec-
ades+ has been the elimination of these artificially
and arbitrarily] 'restrictions' that have been imposed
upon Thought.

The positions I take, as in this discussion that I've
taken up with you [thank you for the opportunity
inherent] are not 'whimsical'. They are all fully-
substantiated, and all reduce directly to replicable
experimental results.

They simultaneously, however, 'transgress' what
has become accepted dogma in Science, and, in
my discussions, besides addressing the Physics, I
also routinely address the nervous system dynamics
through which this perception of 'transgression'
arises. My goal in this endeavor, which is held by
'tradition' to be 'superfluous' [and, therefore, 'un-
speakable', is actually the primary thing that I do.
That is, all of the work I've done in Physics, although
substantial and of  verified consequence, is less-
significant than are these nervous system considera-
tions, for it's the prevailing absence-of-understanding
with respect to the nervous system considerations
that not only 'permits' but actively fosters the non-
sense to which I referred above.

The non-sense has been deadly, inflicting awesome
tragedy within Human interactive dynamics, and it
needs to be addressed forthrightly, at a 'level' that's
commensurate with the tragedy that it inflicts upon
Humanity.

I've included all of this in order to make it clear to
you [and others who might read our discussions]
the full realm that I'll be addressing.

> > With respect to 'particles', the problem
> > is analogous to that of Zeno's 'paradox' -
> > pick a 'particle' size, and, by Coulomb's
> > Law, one can always 'go halfway' with
> > respect to the selected 'particle's param-
> > eters.
>
> Well, Zeno's paradox is a non-paradox
> technically,

I agree, but it applies to the "continuity"
question that you've brought up, in the way
that I asserted. The folks who assert 'particles'
cannot assert a 'particle' small enough to make
going half way with respect to the asserted
'particular' parameters impossible. I cited
Zeno in the hope of invoking a premise with
which folks have already-established familiarity,
in the further hope that the relative familiarity
would give folks a firm 'handle' to grasp.

> but let's leave this aside for a moment :)
> [There was some Australian idiot who
> recenty published a paper about "Zeno's
> paradox" claiming a "solution"]
>
> > It's not a big deal. There are other ex-
> > amples of accepted continuity. My 'fav-
> > orite' is the black body power spectrum.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > That assertions of continuity are commonly
> > questioned comes down to artificial 'parcel-
> > ization' that was imposed upon theory while
> > experiment had none of the modern tools
> > that are now commonplace.
>
> That is probably a valid psychological speculation.

It is, in actuality, what happened. Leading up to
1900, Classical approaches were breaking-down
all over the place in the face of experimental ob-
servations that were being newly accumulated.

The one, of these, that took on greatest significance
was the black body "ultraviolet catastrophe", in which
the trace of the black body power spectrum was
observed to behave in a way that literally contradicted
the classical predictions of Rayleigh-Jeans. Where R-J
predicted that it would head toward infinity [at the
high frequency [short wavelength] end of it, it, instead,
plunged to zero.

What ensued as a result of this theoretical 'catastrophe'
[and other experimental observations in regard to the
photoelectric effect, Compton 'scattering', double-slit
optical experiments, 'atomic' emission and absorption
line spectra] was a scramble to bridge, and eliminate,
the experiment<->theory discrepancies.

I've verified that, in this 'bridging' process, an unfortun-
ate Error was made, which has, more-unfortunately,
been perpetuated ever since. The perpetuation of this
Error has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of
Physics or Maths, and everything to do with the pre-
vailing absence-of-understanding with respect to ner-
vous system function.

It's be-cause of this last circumstance that so much
'heat' is generated by chalenges to the 'quantum'
position [the claim that physical reality 'is parcelized'].
I'll continue below because I broached the wellspring
of the 'heat' in my previous reply.

> > Practitioners became familiar with the 'parcel-
> > ized' approach to calculation, and, thereafter,
> > required Students to calculate in accord with
> > it.
>
> Or discretization was necessary for other reasons! I
> s not that a more plausible explanation?

No. It's just the 'party'-line, deriving in its entirety
in nervous system dynamics left uncomprehended,
and not at all in experimental data or observation.
[Insert chalenges from the perspective of particular
experimental data and observations here :-]

> > It's a case of handed-down presumptions
> > dictating what can be 'observed'.
> >
> > And anyone who disagrees just gets thrown-
> > out into the cold :-]
>
> More or less true with any set of postulates.

Yes, as Thomas S. Kuhn discussed brilliantly in
his Life's work.

> > I sense the possibility of a long, and useful,
> > discussion. If so, fire away.
>
> I was just asking a technical point. From which
> source can you be so sure that the universe is not
> discrete? I can't.

I've worked through every experimental result that
I know of, replacing every instance of so-called
"discreteness" with continuous energy-thresholding
dynamics, and, in doing so, have resolved every
instance of contemporaneous experiment<->theory
discrepancy of which I know. [Again, pick anything,
insert it here, and I'll address it in terms of its inherent
[and verifiable] energy-thresholding dynamics, which.
of course, is a claim that sticks our like a sore thumb -
deliberately so, because I've been discussing the
continuous energy-thresholding dynamics for decades,
but have never received even one argument that
controverts it, yet it has just sort of been 'brushed aside',
without its significance in Physics ever having been
addressed - which is unacceptable, so I present the
challenge blatently, not to you, or anyone else, in part-
icular, but to all who adhere to the 'parcelized' view of
physical reality.]

I don't know if you have access to it, Eray, but there's
a nice article in the December, 2003 issue of =Discover=
Magazine, "A Field Guide to the Invisible Universe", by
M. Rees and P. Nataranjan, p42. The article discusses
;dark energy' and 'dark matter'. It's fornticepiece is a
[presumably[ Hubbel photo of the spiral galaxy NGC 891,
with respect to which the article discusses observed
so-called angular-velocity discrepancies [a contempor-
aneous instance that's 'analogous' to the black body
"ultraviolet catastrophe"].

What observations constitute is evidence that the 'laws
of gravity' were incorrectly formulated - the angular-velocity
'discrepancy' derives in this long-standing Error,

In particular, the observed angular-velocity curve is 'flat'
at distances away from the center of the galactic rotation
where prevailing theory predicts that it should show
center->outward decrementation [because of the 'con-
stancy' of the inverse-square 'law' of 'gravitational attract-
ion']. The traditional view holds that, as more and more
'mass' becomes concentrated toward the center of galactic
rotation, 'masses' under the influence of the resultant
'gravity' should exhibit commensurately-increased angular
velocity.

But the observations, which have been replicated for more
than a decade, disclose that galaxies' physical realities differ
from this prediction.

To resolve this discrepancy requires a complete reworking
of what's been referred to as "gravity", and, to do this, re-
quires that what have been referred to as "atoms" also be
reworked in their entireties.

I've done all of this, and have discussed it all online over
the course of the past 15 years+. This work is referred
to as "Tapered Harmony" because it describes continuous
energydynamic harmonics that are governed by the one-
way flow of energy from order to disorder that wi what's
=described= by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T]. The WDB2T
energy flow is what is "tapered" because it constitutes
a continuous 'rarification' of the stuff of physical reality
[which 'rarification' is what underpins the observed
acceleration of universal expansion, BTW, but that's
another thing].

Briefly, what have been referred to as "atoms" actually
exist as energy that's 'trapped' in spherical standing wave
[SSW] 'compression'<->'expansion' harmonic interaction
with a surrounding universal energy supply [UES].

SSW<->UES harmonics.

What's been referred to as "gravity" derives =not= as
a "property of mass", as it's been held, but as a function
of the continuous energy<->energy interactions that
occur as a result of the SSW<->UES harmonics' energy
'trapping' constitutions.

This energy 'trapping' occurs be-cause the relationship
between the survace area and the volume of a sphere
varies nonlinearly as the spherical radius varies. This
nonlinearity sets the limits for 'cxpansion' and 'com-
pression' of the SSW<->UES harmonics. [I've
posted a bunch of little QBasic apps in various news-
groups, including the comp.ai.philosophy NG where
we had previous interaction, that completely treat these
spherical volume/Surface-area dynamics.]

What happens that's referred to as "gravitational
attraction' is that any two SSW<->UES harmonics
just ride the WDB2T energy flow in a way that's
commensurate with the quantity of energy that's
'trapped' within them. [I've been using a lot of single
quotes, which I use to signify that the term enclosed
within the signle quotes has a connotation that differs
from the popular connotation. This instance, "`trapped`"
needs to be made explicity in this discussion. Energy
is "trapped" within SSW<->UES harmonics in a way
that, itself, impliments WDB2T. That is, the energy flow
=into= SSW<->UES harmonics [into 'atoms'] is more-
ordered than is the energy-flow =out of= the
SSW<->UES harmonics. The result of this energy-
flow differential, which occurs be-cause the UES per-
forms work in its 'containment' of the energy that is
'trapped' within SSW<->UES harmonics, is that
SSW<->UES harmonics ['atoms'] experience a
=mutual= energy-flow differential that correlates rig-
orously with the quantities of energy that are 'trapped
within' them. This occurs be-cause the physical exist-
ence of each SSW<->UES harmonic [of each 'atom']
constitutes a physically-real energydynamic interaction
with its surrounding UES. What this means is that, if
one SSW<->UES harmonic 'ties-up' X energy as a
prerequisite of it's harmonics in fact being sustained,
that energy is commensurately 'unavailable' with re-
spect to the 'sustenance' of the existences of other
SSW<->UES harmonics. [This circumstance stands
verified within Tapered Harmony [TH]. The verification
derives in the observed so-called "radioactive decay"
dynamics. What's been referred to as "radioactive
decay" occurs as a direct result of the endegy-'density'
rarification that derives in universal WDB2T. SSW<->UES
harmonics dis-integrate when their local UES 'pressure'
becomes insufficient to perform the work necessary to
maintain 'containment' [energy 'trapping'] within the
SSW<->UES harmonics. When such dis-integration
occurs, energy is released back to the UES, which
re-establishes the local UES 'pressure', which is why
'atoms' neighboring the 'atom' that has dis-integrated
do not also dis-integrate - why their SSW<->UES
harmonics continue to be 'sustained'. This action simul-
taneously completely reifies the mutual-energy 'sharing'
dynamics of above, which are what that which has been
refgerred to as "gravity" actually is.

So, back to the observed galactic angular-velocity
'discrepancies'.

The rotational dynamics are 'flat' be-cause it's universal
WDB2T that determines them, =not= anything "intrsic"
to this or that 'atom'.

What this means is that it's =not= "central" 'mass' that
determines the interactive dynamics that have been
referred to as being due to "gravitational attraction', but
the WDB2T-determined energy-flow dynamics per unit
3-D space, which is hugely-different.

The flattening of the galactic rotational-velocity curve
results from the fact that the SSW<->UES harmonics
involved 'feel' their relatively-local WDB2T, =not=
some 'spooky' 'action at a distance' that, supposedly,
'"derives" in net 'mass' per direction.

Get it?

The flattening of the galactic angular-velocity curve
occurs be-cause the energy that 'sustains' the existences
of the SSW<->UES harmonics that comprise the
galactic 'mass' is determined by the UES-flow [the
UES-'pressure'] =local= to the SSW<->UES
harmonics, and this UES-'presssure', itself, is 'flat'
with respect to universal WDB2T = and= the energy-
'trapping' dynamics that are inherent in the constitution
of what has been referred to as "mass".

That is, further, the sustinence of the existences of
SSW<->UES harmonics extracts work from the UES,
and the performance of this work 'flattens' the action of
the UES in a way that's commensurate with the net
quantity of such work that the UES is performing. [That
the UES is, in fact, performing such work in the 'sus-
tinence' of the existences of SSW<->UES harmonics
is the physical =why= of the energy-density rarification -
the one-way-flowing-ness of energy from order to dis-
order - that is what's =described= by 2nd Thermo
[WDB2T].]

QED, re. the observed flatness of the galactic angular-
velocity curves.

But why this stuff matters with respect to our question of
"continuity" is that, absent continuity, none of the above,
which completely and exactly reifies the 'discrepant'
observations, is sustainable.

One can see the continuity in the fact that invoking it
matter-of-factly explains that which, absent continuity,
cannot be explained.

To make a long story short, I repeat that I've worked-
through every experimental result of which I know, all
in the analogous way.

It's a done-deal. Tapered Harmony's position stands
proven.

I understand that folks have to see such for themselves.

So I invite folks to propose 'challenges' with respect to
the stuffs of any replicable experimental results [not
only within Physics, but within =all= of Science. Everything
can be reduced to the one-way flow of energy from
order to disorder that is WDB2T, including all of nervous
system function [cognition, affect, language, behavior,
consciousness, love, hate, aggression, etc.] evolutionary
dynamics, all of Biology, all of Chemistry, all of all Science].

[And please forgive me for my having to state things as
I have stated them here. The fact that the work I've done
in Physics remains unpublished is none of my doing. I've
begged and begged for a publication opportunity. All I
ever get is 'bashed' by folks who were coersed into
becoming relatively-exclusively 'familiar' with the 'parcel-
ized' view of physical reality, and "hell hath no fury like
a [theory] scorned" :-] which leads into the 'heart' of the
nervous system dynamics that are actually the most-sig-
nificant stuff that needs to be communicated. It's the stuff
through which non-sense is perpetuated, even in the so-
called "hard science" realm of Physics, and the non-sense
so perpetuated Ravages all of Humanity.

I've reached into it, grasped it's 'heart' and ripped it out.

It's a done-deal.

>
> I read some part of your book, and it turns out
> to be pretty interesting.

Thanks.

> I don't think I agree with all of your claims

Please fire-away with respect to anything that's in
AoK.

> but it's definitely one of the most eccentric written
> works one may find on the internet. I feel lucky :)

The "eccentricity" was 'necessary' - in order to
sustain my Being in the midst of the struggle to get
it down on paper.

> Now, could you please tell me what kind of a
> field is this 4-D energydynamics field? I would
> like to hear, if possible, a precise mathematical
> description.
>
> I hope that is challenging enough for you.

If what's above is insufficient, please clarify.

No, I don't use Maths traditional 'squiggly-lines',
but if you [or anyone else] looks, they'll see that
all of the rates of energy flow are completely
determined in the discussion above, all in a way
that enables anyone who knows the formula for
spherical volume and surface area to calculate
anything that's discussed in this post. [I gave
everything else that's necessary, except, of course,
particular instances of experimental data, in the
Compton Refraction QBasic app that I've posted
in various NGs.

The thing that'd be best would be an opportunity
to discuss TH [and NDT] in-person. That would
allow everything to be translated into anyone's
familiar way of doing Maths right on the spot.

It's all just energy-flow differentials.

Cheers, Eray,

ken [k. p. collins]






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list