kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sun Dec 5 00:18:49 EST 2004
Additional comments added at
the end [full prior msg copied
because the context is needed].
"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:d2psd.1030834$Gx4.864460 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| "kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
| news:Mbzrd.81043$7i4.34956 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|| Your brain's already sorted-things-
|| out, so, when a New thing is en-
|| countered, it's connectedness
|| just "happens".
|| There's no 'magic' in any of this.
| I noticed something [that's quite
| Fun] the other 'day'.
| I usually just eat plain peanut
| butter [on] bread, but a couple of
| 'weeks' ago, I bought some
| marshmallow [to Remember
| "Fluff-er-Nutters" from my
| Childhood. For those not in
| the U. S. A., "Fluff" is a name-
| brand of a spreadable marsh-
| Anyway, while making a "Fluff-
| er-Nutter", I dug my knife into
| the marshmallow, to gather the
| amount I wanted to use.
| Doing this left a "gouge" in the
| surface of the marshmallo[w] in
| the container.
| I put the top back on, and put
| the marshmallow away.
| To my surprise, when I went
| to make another sandwitch,
| a couple of 'days' later, the
| surface of the marshmallow
| was really-smoothe.
| I'd 'expected' it to act like
| peanut butter, which holds its
| "gouges" :-]
I'm long-'familiar' with peanut
butter -- TD E/I(min).
| I forget the term for it, but the
| marshmallow slowly =flowed=
| to fill-in the "gouge".
| So, in the vein of my previous
| post, linked-to-above:
| gouge-in-marshmallow and TD E/I(up).
| 'unfamiliarity' and TD E/I(up)
| gouge-smothing-out and TD E/I-minimization.
| 'familiarity' and TD E/I-minimization.
| Get it?
But, in the nervous-system case. where's
| Just as the physical properties [molecular
| structure] of the marshmallow governed
| it's becoming smoothed-out, the phys-
| ical properties of nervous systems gov-
| ern the way that the TD E/I(up), that's
| experienced when 'unfamiliar' stuff is
| encountered within one's experience,
| becomes TD E/I-minimized, and TD
| E/I-minimization happens =in-the-back-
| ground=, 'just like' in my jar of marsh-
| mallow, sitting on the shelf, smothing
| itself out, in-the-background.
But, in the nervous-system case. where's
| Except, with respect to "knowledge",
| the nervous systems dynamics go in
| the opposite direction.
| In the marshmallow, the beginning,
| "gouged", 'state' is the more-ordered
| In nervous systems, the ending, TD
| E/I-minimized, 'state' is the more-
| ordered 'state'.
| The "repulsiveness" of TD E/I(up)
| [beyond the threshold for "curiosity"
| [AoK, Ap5]] is =literally= a Recog-
| nition of "Disorder", the capacity for
| which is built-right-into nervous sys-
The ability to so "Recognize" is =in=
the neural Topology of the "special
It's in the "multi-Mobius-ed-Klein
But where's the =information=?
| Anyway, why I wanted to write, and
| post, this discussion is because I
| wanted to discuss another thing.
| But I've gotta go to Church, 'now',
| so I'll pick-up this discussion later.
That was a "Break", See?
When you're working a problem,
get it set-up, then take a "break".
When you do this, your nervous
system works on the problem in-
the-background, at this 'stage' of
problem-solving, "whittling" [AoK,
Ap5] away anything that can be
trimmed without occurrences of
TD E/I(up, up) [TD E/I-accelera-
tion, which occurs as a function of
your existing "experiential total"
[AoK, Ap8] -- that is, TD E/I-
acceleration occurs at relatively-
low TD E/I when "experiential
total" is relatively-small, and at
relatively-high TD E/I when ex-
periential total" is relatively-large].
So, when you set-up a problem
for solving, and take a "break",
your brain 'blindly'-and-automatic-
ally "cleans" the problem for you.
There's a "trick" in doing this op-
timally. You have to "go for a walk
in the park" -- you know -- =Re-
lease= from the problem, and de-
liberately give yourself over to
just enjoying all the good-stuff
around you. If the 'day' is nice,
actually go for a walk, if not,
listen to an old album that you've
not played for a while, or play with
your little "Payloader". Whatever,
just =Release=. [This "releasing"
stuff, itself, becomes more-efficient,
and more-robust, the more that you
do it -- your nervous system becomes
'familiar' with it. It's "meta-phase" TD
E/I-minimization [AoK, Ap7]].
But, in the nervous-system case.
where's the =information=?
It's in the =Directionality= that's
dynamically in the TD E/I.
We "know" stuff from its "nonlinear-
perspective [NL-P] signature" [AoK,
Ap6], and these are all 'just' Dir-
ectionalities embedded within the
on-going TD E/I. [Folks who recall
the fuss I reiteratively made about
the fact that "synchronization" is not
the information, I did so be-cause
the NL-Ps are extremely-dynamic,
"sliding" amongst one another, so
"synchronization" is just an artifact
of on-going TD E/I-minimization
with respect to the NL-P Direction-
alities -- because, if "synchronization"
was anything, then the NL-P "signa-
tures" would "disappear", and there
wouldn't be anything with respect
to achieve TD E/I-minimization.]
Anyway, because everything re-
duces to Directionality that's em-
bedded within TD E/I is why I'm
always emphasizing 'moving', as
in 'moving toward' and 'moving
Every little thing in-there is cross-
correlated in terms of its NL-P
Directionalities, and these are
simultaneously mapped within
both the "internal" and "external"
If a Directionality occurs within
the "internal environment" that's
contrary to "sensory templates"
that have been converged upon
via TD E/I-minimization that's
occurred during prior experience,
a "sensory-motor mismatch" TD
E/I(up) occurs [AoK, Ap5], and
the nervous system 'recognizes'
the "internal" Directionality as be-
ing "mis-taken", and TD E/I-min-
imization occurs that eliminates
the "mis-taken" "internal" Direc-
tionality. This continues until no
further TD E/I-minimization can
occur 'between' the internal and
external maps. The external stuff
has been "captured", and it's in-
ternally-mapped NL-P Direction-
alities can, and are, literally op-
erated-upon as if they literally
are the external stuff.
And this stuff compounds awe-
somely, which allows g'zillions
of NL-P "signatures" to be op-
erated-upon in-parallel, be-
cause each NL-P "signature"
was TD E/I-minimized during
prior experience with its ex-
So the NL-P Directionalities
"slide" amongst each other, and,
when TD E/I-minimization oc-
curs with respect to their "con-
junctions", a new "idea" is
Created. This TD E/I-minimiza-
tion focuses the brain's "atten-
tion" upon it [the brain literally
'moves toward' it, cognitively,
and 'looks at it', "sliding" its
"components" amongst each
other, "looking for" more TD
E/I-minimization, and cross-
checking it against both prior
experience and, if the problem
has physical correlates within
the external environment, op-
erating upon those external
The net thing constitutes "pre-
frontal constellation" stuff [AoK,
The NL-P "signatures" are con-
figured via "loop circuits" ["Super-
system configuration", AoK, Ap5],
that are stochastically-excited, and
TD E/I-minimized within "dynamic
subordinate coupling" [AoK, Ap5].
All of this occurs sans-"language".
"Language", which, itself, reduces
to analogous dynamics [in dedicated
neural Topology], is 'just' a com-
munications-interface that is
configured both with respect to
prior "language" experience and
with respect to the stuff, above,
when TD E/I-minimization with
respect to the stuff above has oc-
But "language" is only "configured"
into the overall dynamics when
there's an external reason to com-
municate the TD E/I-minimized
Folks who don't spend much
'time' alone will have to Trust me
on this, because it will seem, to
them, that "language" is "always
active". But, when I'm deep-into
a Problem, I go for 'days' without
resort to "language", instead, lit-
erally Seeing the internal stuff
that I discussed above. When TD
E/I-minimization occurs robustly,
I might take a "reminder" note --
kind of like an Experimenter tak-
ing a note during an experimental
trial, but I usually just say a little
Prayer of Thanks, and that's it
as far as "language" goes, until
I come online to share stuff with
folks. [My most-common use
of "language" is in check-out
lines, and, in 'fawning' over In-
fants, and, every once in a while,
I visit a Friend, and talk, pretty-
Calling "language" "everything"
is a =Huge= False-finitization.
"Language" is =just= a commun-
folks commonly give themselves
over to it -- "conversation" is a
Primary "pastime" [AoK, Ap5],
which takes a toll on quantity of
Anyway, "information" is [extreme-
ly-robustly] 'encoded' as Direction-
ality that's embedded within global
TD E/I -- which is why the rigorous-
mapping of the "special topolog-
ical homeomorphism" is so Im-
portant, and why everything re-
duces to 1. 'moving toward' and
2. 'moving away from'.
'Course, there's a lot of internal
"abstraction" -- the nervous sys-
tem can do some =really= fancy
Directionality stuff. For instance,
any "thought" is just so much Dir-
ectionality within on-going TD E/I,
and, yet, that "thought" can be
'moved toward' and/or 'moved
away from', and can, itself, be
'moved', 'joined', 'separated-from',
etc., with respect to other
"thoughts" and their sub-parts,
all without limit [but within an
individual nervous system's
'speed-of-thought' limit, which is
determined by the "volitional dim-
inishing-returns decision" threshold
Nervous systems can 'consider'
[operate-upon] =any-thing= in
=any= "light", at will [in accord
with the stuff discussed in AoK,
Ap1; "the infinite-scope of prob-
lems confronting nervous systems"].
One more thing -- the "special top-
ological homeomorphism" embod-
ies a =single= 'surface. The inter-
mapped "Mobius"-strip-like stuff
is tuned in 3-D from the global
scale all the way down to sub-ion-
ic scale, which is what "loop-circuit-
It's =DIRECTIONALITY= that
'contains' "meaning" [that con-
tains "information"], and which
couples internal and external en-
vironments. It's 'blindly'-auto-
mated TD E/I-minimization that
The "automation of knowing" is
'knowing' how to 'move'.
"Language" 'reports-on' this 'know-
ing', conveying Directionality to
other nervous systems, and receiv-
ing it from them [reciprocally ["of
course"]]. But "language" is =just=
an inter-nervous-system interface.
I'd like to go over this stuff with
folks, in-person, if there's any-
one who'd like it to be discussed
in more detail. I'm sure I'll Learn
as much as anyone present, be-
cause I've not read in Neurosci-
ence for more than a 'decade'
[except for here in b.n and stuff
to which folks here in b.n have
referred me, and several trips
to the Library, looking for articles
to discuss [which I've never dis-
ken [k. p. collins]
More information about the Neur-sci