On Usefulness

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Dec 20 23:34:37 EST 2004


"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in 
message 
news:N25xd.1119574$Gx4.179958 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
| Can you see it?
|
| "Information" =always= exists only
| =outside= of nervous systems. What
| exists =within= nervous systems is
| neural-topological "knowledge" with
| respect to how to 'move' with respect
| to external "information", and that
| "knowledge" functions by cross-cor-
| relating 'movement' with WDB2T.
| [...]

There's an =illusion= of "information
existing within nervous systems" be-
cause "language" has "subjects" and
"verbs", etc., and, since one can look
at this or that, say, a "clock" on the
wall, and vocalize, "clock", one 'thinks'
that there's "clock"-ness somewhere
"within" one's self.

But that's not it.

What actually happens is that, when
one's visual apparatus 'moves toward'
the "clock" on the wall, TD E/I-minimi-
zation occurs within one's nervous sys-
tem, and this TD E/I-minimization con-
verges upon a "supersystem configur-
ation" [AoK, Ap5] that sets the 'state'
of one's nervous system's neural Top-
ology in accord with one's prior exper-
ience.

All of this occurs at a 'level' that's much-
more-fundamental than is "language",
but, if there's any further TD E/I-min-
imization that can occur =between=
two or more nervous systems, the "lang-
uage-interface" is configured into the
'momentary' "supersystem configur-
ation", and ongoing TD E/I-minimiza-
tion drives the activation of motor-
speech dynamics so that "language"
behavior is manifested as is discussed
in AoK, Ap6..

Study "language", and you'll discover
that it is 100% 'movement' with re-
spect to external "information".

"Huh?"

Yeah, "subjects" in "language" behavior,
for instance, are =just= TD E/I-minimi-
zation literally 'moving toward' the TD
E/I(min) that's been converged upon
during prior experiencing of other "lang-
uage" behavior.

The goal of "language" behavior is =not=
"the exchange of information".

It is mutual-convergence upon shared-
TD E/I-minimization.

As is discussed in AoK, Ap1, "language"
can be =anything=, but, if there is to be
"communication" the one and only thing
that must occur [the =only= thing that
can actually occur] is mutual-convergence
upon shared-TD E/I-minimization.

To the degree that such shared-TD E/I-
minimization occurs, two or more nerv-
ous systems 'move toward' co-ordinated-
'movement' with respect to this or that
that constitutes "information" that exists
=only= within the =external= environ-
ment.

All "Knowledge" consists of 'knowing'
how to 'move' with respect to such
external "information".

The "information", itself, =never= ex-
ists "within" nervous systems. "Know-
ledge" with respect to how to 'move'
with respect to external "information"
exists within nervous systems.

Objector: "That doesn't make any
sense, Ken, because I can think
through a problem, as you say, 'in my
noggin' lab', and, in doing so, I don't
need any 'external information'."

Nope.

One can "imagine" this or that, but
if one has not had some degree of
TD E/I-minimization-experience
with the external "information" that's
being "operated-upon", one's "imag-
ining" 'just' goes off into "fantasy".

Get it?

The prior TD E/I-minimization-ex-
perience is a necessary prerequisite
to the "thought" that occurs during
"problem solving", and such "thought"
is 'just' more 'movement' with respect
to the 'movement' that was converged-
upon during prior TD E/I-minimiza-
tion experience with respect to the
previously-experienced =external=
"information".

The "information", itself, =never= ex-
ists "within" nervous systems.

"Biological mass" [AoK, Ap5] is ex-
actly what it's name implies with re-
spect to such TD E/I-minimization-
'movement'. "Biological mass" exerts
physical "inertia" within TD E/I-min-
imization, which literally occurs as
=movement= within the neural Top-
ology of nervous systems.

Get it?

All of this is why nervous system
function "flies off the handle" during
sensory-deprivation experiments,
which disclose the absence of "in-
formation" within nervous systems.
[Get it? If "information" existed
within nervous systems, "sensory-
deprivation" would have no big-
deal effect beyond intervening with-
in further "information gathering"
[AoK, Ap5 & Ap7]. One would
be able to sit-there, forever, 'chew-
ing'-upon 'information' that 'exists
within' one's nervous system. In-
stead, what happens is that the
"breaking" of "contact" with the
external environment renders TD
E/I-minimization increasingly-un-
tennable, and one's nervous system
drifts into the "zone of randomness"
[AoK, Ap4] -- =be-cause= TD E/I-
minimization is being "rendered use-
less" [is being rendered nonfunction-
al] by the absence-of-information
that's been artificially-imposed with-
in the experimental design.]

In what's been referred to as "thought",
what's happening is directed-'motion'
=within= formerly-achieved TD E/I-
minimization. There's =nothing= hap-
pening in-there that can be referred
to as "information" -- except, as I've
discussed in former [and long-former]
posts, the =DIRECTIONALITY=
that's inherent in TD E/I-minimization.

Get it?

No one will ever find "imformation
stored" anywhere within a nervous
system.

The 'only' stuff that can be so-found
is with respect to the way "direction-
ality" is encoded within nervous sys-
tems as a result of the neural activation
that has actually occurred within the
nervous system's prior neural activa-
tion experience.

This's a relatively-easy problem to
resolve =IFF= one does not forsake
the =GLOBAL= neural Topology. If
one does that, the problem goes from
"easy" to "impossible" -- be-cause, re-
member, the "special topological hom-
eomorphism of [...] nervous systems
[the "multi-Mobius-ed Klein bottle"
stuff] includes g'zillions of locally-rel-
evant "twists and turns" [at =all=
scales]. So, when one forsakes the
global neural Topology, one looks at
these locally-relevant "twists and turns"
and can't connect what he observes
with anything else.

Get it?

Everything you need with respect to
getting a handle on the global neural
Topology has been in AoK, and the
Refs cited in AoK, all along.

See? Nervous systems are 'engineered'
in =Awesomely= Concise ways to do
this 'movement' stuff.

Part of that Elegant-'engineering'-
Parsimony is that, since the "inform-
ation" with which nervous systems
must cope exists external to nervous
systems, and, if no such "information"
has such external existence, then there's
no Usefulness in creating it internally,
nervous systems are 'engineered' to
leave the "information" where it phys-
ically exists. [It'd be a total Waste to
recreate it internally, wouldn't it?
Yup. This's why "computers" are so
dumb. They only stumble-around,
doing "mail-slot-sorting" stuff with
"information" that they store intern-
ally, never "seeing" external informa-
tion, and, so, only thrashing-about
with respect to the "information" that
they store internally. Don't get me
wrong. I Love "computers", but all
they are is pretty-good "calculators".]

Instead, the Evolutionary-'Engineer'
designed nervous systems to enable
them to "Know" how to 'move' with
respect to externally-existing "inform-
ation".

Returning to discuss "language" dis-
closes more, but I'll leave that as an
"Exercise" for the Reader :-]

What nervous systems do is acquire
"Usefulness" with respect to "Know-
ing" how to 'move' with respect to
external "information".

Such "Usefulness" is "Useful" be-
cause, to the degree to which "Use-
fulness" exists within a nervous sys-
tem, it Enables Survival.

Work on it in your own Good noggin'
labs. Look at =anything= within your
external experiential environments, and
See the Importance of Knowing how
to 'move' with respect to it.

"Food"?

If you're "hungry", 'move toward' it
by 'moving' your legs and torso, 'move'
your arms, hands and fingers to 'move'
it to your mouth. 'move' the muscules
that animate your jaw. "Taste and eat."

Anything you can consider is Same-Old,
Same-Old stuff -- all Knowledge with
respect to 'movememt', and such "Know-
ledge" exists, as above, within the neur-
al Topology of your nervous aystem
=AND= TD E/I-minimization.

Maths problems?

Same-Old, Same-Old, only Maths as
it's been done is extremely-feeble be-
cause it forces 'movement' between
and amongst 'boxed' stuff that, itself,
'moves away from' "information" as
much as it 'moves toward' it. [It's
"sensory-deprived", and "flies-off-
the-handle" into wild-imagining be-
cause of that. [It doesn't "know" how
to 'move' with respect to "information",
but, instead, 'moves' with respect to
it's own 'motion'. That is, it routinely
'dictates' "what it is" that, supposedly,
'can be seen', rather than just Seeing
what Is :-]

Anyway, my building-up to emphasis
upon "Usefulness" is an Homage to
an M. D. Writer, Lewis Thomas. In
my experience, it was his writing that
"invited" me to 'move toward' under-
standing "Usefulness". [I believe it was
his =The Medusa and the Snail=.] Dr.
Thomas died a few 'years' back, one
more of my Heroes that I've been un-
able to Celebrate! in-person.

Thank you, Dr. Thomas, my Teacher.

[The stuff I've reiterated in this post
goes on forever. Rich and Beautiful.

Folks who've been reading all along
know how I work, going over stuff,
reiteratively, as I sense that folks've
accumulated sufficient "biological
mass" with respect to what's been
discussed in the past.

Don't be 'troubled' if it's not yet com-
prehensible, but I encourage folks
to work-with what's here. Explore
the "language"-interface -- explore
everything that exists within your
experience -- and you'll See how it's
all 'just' 'movement' and TD E/I-min-
imization.

It's Important to do so because folks
Kill one another be-cause folks don't
comprehend what's here.

See the discussion of "rendering use-
less" in AoK, Ap8, and ponder the
way that "Usefulness" Enables Sur-
vival, and you'll be on your way to
understanding the Killing [and how
nonsensical it's been, and how to
'move' with respect to it].

There's someone else who I want
to Thank -- Beth Nielsen Chapman.

Your Music holds me in its 'heart'.

It's a long story, but Ms. Chapman's
Music, and my 'movement' with re-
spect to it, Taught me that I had to
reiterate this stuff -- because I 'thought'
I'd communicated it, but had only
"danced around it". It's the one-way-
ness of this, the only way that I've
been able to share the work I've
done with others. You know -- I'm
"sensory-deprived" with respect to
what would be folks' 'movement'
during in-person interaction -- so I
'thought' I'd "done enough".

Ms. Chapman's Music lifted me out
of that Error.

Thank you, Ms. Chapman, my Teacher.

k. p. collins 





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list