Sorry, there's no way folks can have understood what I posted in the paragraph quoted below. I'll try to state the same-stuff more-clearly in this update.
"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message news:...
With respect to all dis-ease:
The main problem is the way that "functional-multiplexing" [AoK, Ap9] is driven with specific respect to experience - that is, the way that experience 'addresses' molecular-level 3-D energydynamics, and this problem is generalized across Humanity.
Here, the "functional multiplexing" stuff is extended beyond Biochemistry in-general, right down into the DNA.
"Functional multiplexing" conceptually-groups all dynamics in which 'atomic'-'level' stuff is mixed-and-matched, with functionality being created in-process, the main feature being an extended version of the stuff that's the subject of AoK, Ap9 - that, at all scales, constituent parts have functionality that derives in their relatively-local 3-D energydynamics, and not in their 'atomic' composition sans 3-D energydynamics - the 3-D energydynamics impose order upon the 'atomic' composition, and functionality derives in that imposed ['vector'] order, not in the ['scalar'] 'list' of 'atomic' components - the 'atomic' components can partake in radically-different functionalities depending upon the relatively-local 3-D energydynamics in which they occur - the 'atoms' are 'just' 'tools' in a 'kit of tools' - 3-D energydynamics imbue the tools with functionalty.
Within the above, what is "relatively-local" occurs along a continuum of locality, from single 'atoms' through the "supersystem" as a whole, to beyond the body-environment interface, into the external experiential environment - it's all 'just' 3-D energydynamics at all scales, within which 3-D energydynamics scope is hierarchically-ordered - like one of those Russian 'egg doll' things where a little 'doll' fits within a slightly-bigger 'doll', which fits within a slightly-bigger 'doll', ...
With respect to all of this, "experience" is literally the 3-D energydynamics at all scales.
So experience Determines functionality all the way down [which is the same as "it's activation-dependence all the way down, not 'turtles' :-]"]
The main Problem in fighting cancer [all dis-ease] is to 'intercept' and alter 3-D energydynamics at the 'appropriate' scales so that overall relative-order is only increased.
Dis-ease conditions are decreases in relative-order, at-scale, within 3-D energydynamics.
The sub-problems of the main Problem include discerning and defining the scale within the overall 3-D energydynamics at which divergence from maximum-order occurs - in tradition, folks've referred to such as a "mutation", or a "lesion", or an "aneuriism", or a "cut", or a "fracture", or a "poisoning", or an "infection", or a "sprain", or a "limp", or etc., but all of these are just the one-thing - relative-order differentials at-scale within the 3-D energydynamics.
In tradition, folks speak of "treatments" with respect to individual "symptoms", but the only 'symptom' there actually is is divergence from maximum-order within the 3-D energydynamics, and each such divergence rigorously-maps the 'directionality' of it's 'cure' within the 3-D energydynamics.
Discover the relative-order differential, and one simultaneously discovers its 'cure' be-cause the 'cure' is rigorously-mapped in the at-scale 3-D energydynamics relative-order differential, which is why the main Problem is the way that "functional-multiplexing" [AoK, Ap9] is driven with specific respect to experience - it's through experience that the relative-order differentials become 'fuzzy'.
Tradition looks at this 'fuzziness' and attributes it to "genetic variation", but that's not the main thing because "genetic variation" 'hovers' about, never straying far from, maximum-order.
Even in "genetically-inherited" dis-ease, the relative-order differentials of dis-ease derive in reproductive experience - they only potentially-'exist' prior to reproductive experience - prior to reproductive experience, the relative-order differentials 'hover' within safe distances from maximum-order, else reproduction would not occur successfully.
My 'point' is that, rather than treating molecular constituents, go directly to treat the relative-order differentials, by just 'inverting' the at-scale 3-D energydynamics divergence directionalities that are rigorously-mapped within them, and the dis-ease will be cured because you'll have 'pushed' the 3-D energydynamics back toward maximum-order.
And it's here that the 'fuzziness' that's induced by experience forces the main Problem's difficulties. Remember my exchanges with Didier with respect to "the same thing never happening twice" within a nervous system, and how nervous systems, nevertheless, converge upon increased neural-activation order via TD E/I-minimization? Experience enters into 3-D energydynamics at all scales in the 'same' way.
The relative-order differentials do not derive in the 'genes'. They derive in the way experience activates the genes - in the way experience "functionally-multiplexes" the 'tools' in the DNA-enumerated 'toolkit'.
So, clearly, the greatest difficulty is not 'genetic variability', but, experiential variability which activates the 'genes' in ways that cannot be seen except through the comparative-mapping of relative-order differentials.
No 'genes' stand alone. :-]
K. P. Collins
"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...