DNA-Tuning [was Re: The Nonlinearity of Perspective [___]

KP_PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Sep 22 10:01:58 EST 2003


"NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:nymbb.326$PT3.50085 at news20.bellglobal.com...
| Excellent.  Thanks for your response.
| Once again I'm sorry for misinterpreting
| aspects of your previous posts.  I
| completely agree that the actual EM
| wave pattern is the most critical
| component in evoking dynamic
| changes within interacting neuronal
| ensembles.  Over the last few years one
| aspect of my research has been investi-
| gating the potential effects of
| extremely low frequency (ELF) electro
| magnetic fields on living systems.  One
| of our critical hypothesis is that the inform-
| ation content of the wave structure be-
| comes critical once the necessary minimal
| thresholds have been met.  However, we
| believe that intensity per se, is not the
| critical parameter but it is the time-varying
| and informational components embedded
| within the wave form itself that can mediate
| the most salient effects.  For analogy, say
| you and I are sitting in a  room and listening
| to a pure 1000 Hz tone.  Unless the intensity
| is considerably high (to produce pain) the
| information content is basically useless and
| uninformative.  However, if the structure of
| the sonic field was modified to exhibit a
| complex pattern that was equivalent to
| biorelevant information such as "Help me",
| field strengths several orders weaker, e.g.
| 30 dB(intensity of a whisper), could be
| sufficient to evoke a response.  This has
| been the premise that many of my
| colleagues as well as myself have took
| in order to investigate the effects of ELF
| fields.

With ELF, this's a stretch be-cause the
features of the neural Topology that must
be 'hooked' if information-content-relevant
EM coupling is to occur are orders of mag-
nitude smaller than ELF wavelengths.

If there's an ELF effect, it'd have to occur
as a result of ephemeral ELF interference
dynamics that just happen to 'instantaneously'
sum to establish a 'hook' within the neural
Topology at the necessarily-small scale.

Because of this ephermeral 'happenstance'
condition, it's extremely-improbable that the
neural Topology can be 'addressed' in an
information-content way, such as in your,
"Help me", example, by EM that is produced
for wide-ranging other purposes.

This is not to say that the 'conjunctions' I
point out above are not significant.

My view is that they do occur, and that they
can have significant effects, not only within
the neural Topology, but within the body as
a whole, with respect to instantiating dis-
ease processes.

It's just that they are fleeting and 'freaky'
coincidences - like any other accidental
thing that folks encounter in their daily Living.

[Note, I've addressed nothing other than ELF,
so my comments should not be 'construed'
with respect to other EM.]

| Thus "intensity-dependent" relationships
| in regards to biomagnetic interaction are
| probably both artifactual and epiphenomenal.

Probably.

| This would explain the disparity of results
| investigating the effects of exposure to power
| (60 Hz) frequency magnetic fields and certain
| types of cancers.  Often the subtle, transient
| temporal anomalies that may be superimposed
| upon or within the primary frequency bandwidth
| (i.e. subharmonics) are unfortunately ignored.
| It is these transients perturbations within the
| wave signature itself that produces the
| informational content that is relevant to biophys-
| ical systems.   We have used waveforms that
| model the biorelevant informational content of
| neuronal systems, i.e. theta burst stimulation,
| burst firing, etc.  in order to evoke effects that
| proliferate within various domains of brain
| space.

I'm sorry, our views are diverging. It's =Hard= to
separate the intrinsic activity of a wired-up
subject from the externally-induced activity,
and, before I can accept any experimental
results, I have to see that this 'separation' has
been accomplished successfully.

| Your concepts that the actual topological
| organization within Coulomb-force interactions
| is the important component for mediating
| signals is in direct lines with this.

Only if the 'separation', as above, is success-
fully demonstrated. Otherwise it's 'just' normal
nervous system function.

| I am looking forward to confirmed experimental
| data that reinforce the types of effects and
| interactions you are proposing (which i have
| adovacated do take place... however,
| dogmas exists and must be challenged through
| the scientific method).

I'm not an Experimentalist. I theorize with respect
to the Experimental results produced by others.

| Perhaps one day there will be enough evidence.
| If, it is possible that experience can mediate
| significant changes within the DNA itself (that is
| both permanent and long-lasting in nature) there
| will obviously be huge implications.  We always
| consider the hereditary aspects of transmission,
| i.e. the genetic information transfer, however,
| sometimes we forget that within this myriad of
| vast interaction of nucleic signals is the contents
| and information that mediate the representation
| of our sense of self (which is not necessarily a
| static representation but one that is dynamic.
| Thus, who we does become influenced by genetic
| features).  Obviously one converse aspect of your
| theory based on DNA-RNA amplification is that
| the signals may have the effect to alter the
| topological aspects of DNA units itself (perhaps
| through protein-DNA interactions).  If this does
| happen (which may be possible and until
| somebody measures it  the classical dogmas will
| still remain) then besides the obvious genetic
| aspects that get passed on, other aspects of
| informational contents imbedded within such
| material would also get passed.

Here, our positions diverge fairly-completely.

I've been discussing normal nervous system
function - tuning of capabilities that are already
extant within the genetic material - how it might
happen.

Your position goes beyond nervous system
function into reproductive function. While there
could be a 'broadcast' influency upon egg and
sperm, I've not hypothesized within that realm [so
please don't 'construe' my comments in that way.

There is a strong argument against 'heredity
memory'. It stems directly from the fact that such
'inheritance' would strongly diminish Adaptive-
Generality, because offspring are able to, and
typically do, venture into environmental realms
that were 'unknown' to their forebears. To do
so under the burden of old-tuned genetics would
be Deadly.

The strongest-Rule that I can See with respect to
evolutionary dynamics is that they function [in
rigorous accord with WDB2T] to maximize
Adaptive-Generality - to render nervous systems'
information-processing as General as possible.

What you propose above, strongly violates this
Rule.

| If the interactions you have proposed can take
| place, experience itself may have the capacity
| to interact and perhaps change the constituents
| of DNA itself.  As a result, even subtle processes
| like "memory" may get passed on through
| hereditary modes of transmission.  (Obviously
| this is completely theoretical but a similar aspect
| of this hereditary transmission of "memory"
| exists.  Consider the immune system and
| immunal memory that has shown transference
| between embryo and host).
|
| NMF

Immune-System function occurs in a way that
'just' operates upon the genetic 'toolset' that is
in-place.

Another form of such in-utero 'tuning' that I've
discussed in long-former posts occurs in ways
that reflect the stressors that a Mother experiences
while She carries Her Infant. These 'tune' the Infant's
nervous system to the environmental conditions
and circumstances into which the Infant is to be
born.

But this, too, is all right in the Rule of maximized
Adaptive-Generality - all already extant within
the maximally-General Adaptivity of genetic
material. [Which, of course, can vary from indi-
vidual to individual, and which is what's been
referred to as 'intelligence'.]

Anyway, Neil, I'm going to return to my prior
discussion, now. It's with specific respect to
microscopic energydynamics, and, between
it and the considerations that you're discussing,
there is a wide range of intervening neural
Topology, all of which must be addressed
before the high-level considerations you're
discussing can be successfully addressed.

So I'm going to break-off from our discussion.

Thank you for it.

Cheers, ken [k. p. collins]






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list