On 'Language' - Clarification

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 08:15:36 EST 2004

"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:lQPxd.1133323$Gx4.583931 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]

| What's "stored" within nervous systems'
| neural Topologies are =directions=
| with respect to 'moving' with respect
| to =external= "information", and this
| "storage" occurs, simply, in the form
| of "microscopic trophic modifications"
| ["micro-mods"] within the neural Top-
| ology as a =simple= result of the oc-
| currence of the neural activation that
| actually occurs within a nervous sys-
| tem.

Do folks See why this's Important?

It flat-out imposes-Order upon
=everything= about neurons' func-
tioning, "all the way down".

They're =not= "little computers".

What they do is grow toward the
"light-of-Order", which "light" literally
radiates within nervous systems in the
form of TD E/I-minimization.

Do you See this?

Within any 'momentary activation 'state',
TD E/I(min) literally maps greatest-en-
ergy -- neurons 'just' grow toward this
greatest-energy distribution that's rig-
orously-mapped within the "special
topological homeomorphism".

And it's flat-out =easy= to See that
TD E/I-minimizations dynamic map-
ping of greatest-energy is what drives
the growth of neurons, giving it, you
got it, =Directionality=.

This internal-"light" radiates very-
dynamically, and it's this dynamicism
that literally gives-Direction to neur-
ons' growth -- completely-determin-
ing the 3-D-Topologies of "micro-
scopic trophic modifications".

Again, it's Important be-cause it elim-
inates all 'wondering' with respect to
"how neurons compute". They "com-
pute" via =Directionality= that's literal-
ly embodied in their TD E/I-minimiz-
ation-governed growth.

It's not at all "mysterious".

It's Important be-cause it flat-out
discloses the  the Nature of neurons'
individual-"intelligence", delimiting it's
full extent.

It's Important be-cause it discloses
how and why what's been referred
to as "intelligence" is embodied in the
=global= "growing-toward-the-light-
that is driven by TD E/I-minimization-

All neurons do is grow toward the

More added, below.


| What's been referred to as "intelli-
| gence" is 'just' the accumulation of
| "Knowing" how to 'move' with re-
| spect to "information" that exists
| =external= to one's nervous system,
| the result being one's "experiential
| total" [AoK, Ap8].

The 'state' of neurons' growth, =and=
it's Directionally-driven 'momentary'
"supersystem onfiguration", liter-
ally is the physical embodiment of
"Knowledge", and, as above, this
growth is =easy= to understand in-
Fullness. [For a discussion of "sup-
ersystem configuration", see AoK,

| Nervous systems =do not= "re-
| create information" within them-
| selves.
| Nervous systems create "Knowledge"
| with respect to how-to'move' with
| respect to =external= "information".
| Such "Knowledge" is literally embod-
| ied in =Directionality" with respect
| to a nervous system's neural Topology.
| Let's see... how else can I say it?
| The "action potentials" that occur
| within nervous systems are =literally=
| the physical embodiements of =Direc-
| tionality". They have absolutely-nothing
| to do with "encoding information".
| [...]

They embody =Directionality= with re-
spect to external "information".

Such embodiment-of-Directionality is
what "Knowledge" Is.

Convergence within "Knowledge" is
achieved via TD E/I-minimization,
which literally connects "Knowledge"
with external "information".

"Knowledge" enables nervous systems'
host organisms to 'move'-with-Effect
with respect to external "information",
and, so, "operate" upon their external
experiential enviornments in ways that
tend, strongly, to "climb" the external
energy-gradient, which is WDB2T,
'moving', overall, toward increased-
energy [which is, for instance, what
"eating" is].

| :-]
| It's Hard to convey this stuff be-cause
| I've got only relatively-little "biological
| mass" to "touch" within other folks'
| nervous systems.

The above comment is what I wanted
to Clarify.

=Of course= other folks' "biological
mass" is "massive" with respect to the
neural activation that's occurred with-
in =their= nervous systems, as a re-
sult of =their= individually-unique ex-

I was talking about "biological mass"
that derives-in experiencing of NDT's
stuff, and which exists within others'
nervous systems because neural act-
ivation that occurred within others'
nervous systems as a result of their
having read the discussions I've post-

It's Hard to convey the stuff I'm dis-
cussing with respect to "Directionality"
because, within others' nervous sys-
tems, "biological mass" with respect
to NDT's stuff is relatively-less-mass-
ive than is the "biological mass" that
pertains to the vast majority of others'

So I've got little that I can "touch"
within others' nervous systems.

I wasn't implying that folks're "stupid".

I was just saying why it's Hard to
convey NDT's stuff to folks -- you
know, like in the "jump-button" in
AoK, Ap10.

I'm just discussing stuff that's been
in AoK all along, working at say-
ing it in ways that "range widely"
with respect to folks' experiences -- 
with respect to what's 'familiar' to
others -- with respect to what's
relatively-TD E/I-minimized with-
in =their= nervous systems.

I don't presume to know such,
so I've got to "range widely",
knowing that, as I do so, the one
thing that I'm discussing will grad-
ually stand-out, in relief, within
the TD E/I-minimization dynam-
ics that occur within folks' nerv-
ous systems [if they read the dis-
cussions I post].

"Ranging widely" is work, and
there's a 'danger' in-it, because
if, in my "ranging widely", I stray
too-far from that with which folks
are 'familiar', folks'll experience
that as super-amygdalar-"prim-
ing"-threshold TD E/I, and folks'll
'move away from' coming to un-
derstand NDT's stuff.

It's intrinsically-Hard be-cause,
since each Person's experiential
total is individually-unique, to
"touch" one Person, usually en-
tails 'moving away from' within
other nervous systems.

But it's just what needs to be

| [...]

| [There's much more that needs
| to be discussed with respect to
| this stuff, but, before I can con-
| tinue, I need some Stalwart to
| "step-up" and let me know that
| this stuff is actually being read.
| [...]

Note to David Longley:

If, in your recent post, you were
just doing the "Stalwart" stuff, then,
Thank You. At least I know that
someone's reading some of what I
post :-]

My "testiness" derives in the fact
that I take my relationship with
Truth extremely-seriously, and
the gist of your post was that I
'do not' do so.

I write the way I write be-cause
I want =not= to allow there to
be any way that I am "claiming"
work that's been done by others.

If folks want to know the work
that's been done by others, they
can study it in the Published Lit-
erature. Here in b.n is the only
place where folks can consider
NDT's stuff.

Anyone who looks at anything I
post can see that I =only= discuss
the work that I have done and
which, was =not= already in the
Literature=when I did the work=
[and I've maintained the Record
of the work that I've done, and
how I've done it, so anyone who
wants to Verify all of this can do

=Of course= it's easy to 'retrofit'
this or that that's was done in the
past into NDT's "framework", now
that the order that NDT imposed
upon Neuroscience is known.

And I do routinely demonstrate
how work done by others becomes
Newly-Reified in light of the Order
that NDT asserts.

But I always do that in effort to
=teach= NDT's stuff, and to =com-
municate= NDT's worth -- its unify-
ing-power [and I'm happy to be
able to use NDT's stuff to Correct
'mis-takes' that exist in the Literature,
but that's only using NDT to do Sci-
ence, isn't it?]

=Of course=.

But, in using NDT to correct 'mis-
takes' that exist in the Literature, I
only discuss the Fixes which are
completely my own work.

This giving everything fall-in-its-place-
ness was one of the goals that I had
in-mind while NDT was being de-
veloped [and this fact can be traced,
Robustly, all the way back to the first
'days' of the work I did in developing

=Of course=.

Give the Order, and the way that
everything fits-together just becomes

=Of course=.

And anyone who wants to can
Test anything that I assert in the
discussions I post. [I used to offer
to go to folks' Labs to give them
the experimental means to do such
Tests, but no one ever accepted
the offers, so I stopped offering to
do so. The offer still stands.]

And these Corrections? They're
all =Predictions= that are made by

I've no Lab. When I Correct 'mis-
takes' that exist in the Literature,
all I do is use NDT to Predict
what folks'll find if they look.

But none of this was Possible be-
fore NDT's stuff was communi-

=Of course=.

Why to I Care, David?

Be-cause the one thing that is all-
of-Life to me is Honoring Truth.

For whatever 'reason', you've
asserted that I Dishonor Truth.

So, I Honor Truth with respect to
the assertion inherent in your reply,
doing so =here= because I want to
believe that you were just doing
the "Stalwart" thing.

If it's so, Thank You [again].

k. p. collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list