"Peter F" <fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Jw7va.197$S92.12756 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
|| "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
| news:D3Oua.76539$cO3.4986540 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...| > In the future, elementary school Children
| > will be conversant with respect to
| > "Consciousness". They'll just laugh and
| > laugh that it was once considered to be
| > "the hard problem' [they won't laugh =at=
| > folks - they'll know better than that - they'll
| > just think it's funny that folks didn't always
| > understand "Consciousness"].
| > In their living, they'll be as 'giants' relative to
| > what we are now. They'll go through Life, and,
| > where ever they go, they'll so shine with Reason
| > [and for those who aren't 'afraid' of such,
| > Loving-Reason] that they'll just win 'hearts',
| > showing them the way, as a matter of course -
| > just as a matter of course - it'll be what
| > they, commonplace, just do.
| > This's the Future I want for the Children, and
| > it's within our grasp - not at all a 'fairy tale'.
| > It's, even now, so close to being Real that I
| > can almost reach out and touch it.
|| For right on relevance to what you wrote, try
| go to a second-hand bookstore and pick up
| "Primal Man The New Consciousness", to see
| if that helps. There is neuropsychophysiology in
| it, that might be of some interest to you.
I've not read the book. What I've done is work the view I hold up
from first principles - ionic conductances as they are governed
within the neural tissue at all scales.
I'm aching to discuss "consciousness", but a prerequisite of doing so
is the establishment of the =globally-integrated= neural dynamics,
which is why I'm still doing pretty much just that Fundamental stuff.
You know - "supersystem TD E/I-minimization" as it's been discussed
in AoK all along.
I'll gladly Demonstrate, in-person, that folks working in
"consciousness" have not yet even imagined what's actually in
Consciousnedd, and I'll recude it all to the Proven Neuroscience
But even such an in-person thing with respect to Consciousness has to
be founded in the stuff that's been in AoK all along - there's just
no way around learning the integrated neural functionality - so I'm
still working to accomplish that.
[ALL: I =do= understand that, when it is juxtaposed against the way
things're 'normally' done in Neuroscience, the presentation in AoK
=seems= 'crude', but it is not. I wrote AoK understanding how much
would be in-it, and wanting not to 'offend', so, between those two
'prerequisites', the 'style' of AoK was a 'happy medium". AoK was
written as a =guide= to the study of the then-existing Literature.
The 'mormal' Neuroscience way is right-in all the Literature that's
referenced in AoK. When I wrote AoK, all I wanted to do was
=integrate= what was, then, left 'disconnected' ar every level within
the Literature. The Literature was a 'jungle', growing wild'. In AoK,
I 'domesticated' this 'wildness'. I want =not= to 'offend'. Anyone
who just looks at the then-existing Literature can see clearly that
the need for doing so was the then-most-important thing that needed
to be done in Neuroscience. So I did it, and tried [mightily] to do
it in a way that would not 'offend'. Understand? What I'm getting at
is that what's been in AoK all along is =still= at least 20 years
ahead of the now-current Literature. Folks "can't" see that because
they just haven't Learned what's in the Literature sufficiently. But,
please, don't 'cast me out' just because I did what needed to be
done, and presented it in a 'self-effacing' way, so as not to
'offend'. 'You' were in my 'heart' even way back then, see?]
K. P. Collins