Fluff-er-Nutters

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sun Dec 5 02:15:07 EST 2004


"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
news:ZSwsd.1033080$Gx4.947092 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
| One more thing -- the "special top-
| ological homeomorphism" embod-
| ies a =single= 'surface.

This's why "Consciousness" is 'norm-
ally' experienced as a unified-whole.

| The inter-mapped "Mobius"-strip-
| like stuff is tuned in 3-D from the
| global scale all the way down to
| sub-ionic scale, which is what
| "loop-circuit-tuning" is.
| [...]

This's how [and why] "aspects"
of "Consciousness" can be, and are,
variable -- various subsystems are
either being included-within, or ex-
cluded-from' 'momentary' "Con-
sciousness", and/or their sub-sys-
tem configurations are being in-
ternally configured and tuned -- 
as is discussed throughout AoK
[an easy example is the discussion
of the amygdala's low-'level'
"sypersystem configuration" dyn-
amics in Ap5 with respect to
a nervous system's "novelty"
threshold].

This is analogous to dynamically
adding or subtracting, and/or set-
ting the dimensions of, individual
"Mobius strips", which results in
modifications to the one-surface
unified-whole's Topology, which
results in some things becoming
relatively-well-optimized ["ob-
vious" within "cognition"] and other
things being relatively-less-optim-
ized [being "configured"-out of
on-going cognition, relatively - for
instance, gating "Joy", while block-
ing Sorrow, or configuring walking
behavior, or "language", or "active"
or "passive" information-processing
phases [AoK, Ap5 and 7].

As is discussed in AoK, Ap9,
the various pharmacological sub-
stances exist =solely= for the
purpose of simplifying the stuff
I discussed above. That is, the
various pharmacological sub-
stances literally have =nothing=
to do with information-content,
or knowing, within nervous sys-
tems. They are analogous to
"good engineering" of a system
that can be designed in many
different ways, or a computer
algorithm that can be written
in many different ways, but
only 'one' way that approaches
an Optimal condition.

Of course one can manipulate
pharmacological aspects of
this "engineering-design", and
because doing so can modify
the neural Topology, doing so
can modify nervous-system
function -- in the same way
that one can alter any engin-
eering design or the code im-
plementing a computer algor-
ithm.

When considering nervous sys-
tems, it's =necessary= to keep-
straight the difference between
such engineering-optimization
stuff and the =net= functionality,
which is unified-consciousness,
which derives =solely= in the
neural Topology and TD E/I-
minimization within it.

The specificities of the various
pharmacological substances
are superfluous. Except as is
discussed in AoK, Ap9, =any=
substances that maintained the
same neural Topology would
work just as well.

For instance a 'brain' could be
engineered using only two trans-
mitters, but it would be huge,
slow, and energy-inefficient.

Neuropharmacology is =100%=
engineering-efficiency.

It has exactly-Zero relevance
to information-content and 'know-
ing'.

Nervous systems are Topolog-
ically-embodies systems, not
'chemically-embodied systems'.

The latter view, which has, of
course, been the long-prevailing
view, is =just= a 'modern' form
of 'alchemy' that is Erroneous
AoK, Ap4: "False finitization"].

K. P. COLLINS







More information about the Neur-sci mailing list