"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:22ej209bn4988sli4i1dj348ij4kh3f7lh at 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:52:09 GMT, "k p Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>> } OK, show me a "current" in the absence of
> } a "conductance".
>> Current is ion flow. Conductance is the ability to, the inverse of the
> resitance to, carrying it. Of course that means they're related. But
> current is still current, and it is the measurement in question.
I stand on what I've posted.
I've discussed it sufficiently. All
you're 'doing' is ignoring what I've
discussed - 'demoting' it to 'syman-
tics', and ignoring the 3-D energy-
dynamics that literally embody
information within nervous sys-
I prefer the to use "conductance"
because I want, always, to see the
active-imposition of directionality -
which is =everything= with respect
to information-content within nervous
You, obviously, prefer "current", be-
cause, just as obviously, you've swal-
lowed 'dogma', hook, line, and sinker.
But, using only "I", show me the inform-
You cannot, unless you describe the
=active= dynamics that determine
ionic-flow directionalities. And that's
much more than "I".
It's =necessary= to describe direction-
alities be-cause it's the resultant place-
ments of individual ions that set the
'Coulomb forces' that actively, and
selectively, tune the genetic material,
and, hence, protein synthesis.
It's much-more than "I".
"I", alone, says =nothing= about dir-
And directionalities are =everything=
with respect to information-content
within nervous systems.
It's why I use "conductance". It's
evocative of the fact that directionality
is everything with respect to informa-
> Your inability to answer the question
> at hand,
Your refusal to try to understand what
> and instead insert your own imaginary
and your imagining that my answers are
> is already well documented.
is already well-documented.
> Your apparent inability to understand
> the terms in question as having a
> relationship, not identity, should indicate
> to you as well as others who read your
> answers, that they should ignore you.
Aw, what are you 'afraid' of?
Do you 'think' that folks can't reach
their own conclusions?
You have to do everyone else's Thinking
> } In nervous systems, "current" is embodied
> } in ion's motions - "conductances".
>> Current is embodied in ions' motions -- "current".
No, no, no. "I" says =nothing= about directionality.
One has to add directionality to "I" with a lot of
I do all of that by using "conductances".
> The permiability of the medium is proportional
> to the current at a given voltage.
Show me the directionalities [using only "I"].
So, you can't show me the information
So, since you can't show me anything,
how is it that you or others "should ignore"
my =giving= you and them the means to
see the information-content?
> That's a relationship, a difference if you
Ah, "a difference".
Show me directionality.
Show me information-content.
Using only "I".
> They are not the same thing.
"permiability of the medium" and "currant"
are not the same thing.
"Conductance" and "permiability of the medium"
are not the same thing.
When I use "conductances" I'm explicitly
referring to directed-energy-flow.
What did you do, look up "conductance"
in a dictionary?
What good is a dictionary definition if
it 'blinds' one to everything that matters
with respect to information-content?
And don't 'buzz' me for 'being disrespectful
of standard syntax and connotation".
I've been discussing "ionic conductances"
here in bionet.neuroscience for more than
a decade - with the Purpose of giving folks
the means to see both "directionality" and
I've not been working, here, to sustain
I've been working, here, to present a Gift
of understanding - one that matters.
So, kindly, if you want to 'argue' about
words, then go find a NG where the Purpose
is to 'argue' about words.
In bionet.neuroscience, the topic is Neuro-
Science, and my preference is to work out
at the edges, where the words are hauled in
out of the nothingness.
It's 'hilarious' - like it or not, in the future,
you'll be using "conductances" exactly as
I'm using "conductances" - 'cause I'm
=writing= the Science.
Even though tou term it "imaginary" :-]
> This is a very basic point, and you're
> laboring mightily to make yourself out to
> be what many already do, and all should,
I understand your 'point'. For reasons that
were not of my choosing, I've worked in
But I worked, and did some Worthy stuff.
And I used the words that were meaningful
I'm working-through 'translating'.
But folks'll have to grasp the connotations
of the words I use because I've Solved
nervous systems to a degree commensurate
with SR & GR in Physics.
Funny thing was that, when I dragged this
or that in from the nothingness, whatever
it was always needed a "word", and be-
cause, through no choosing of my own,
I was 'alone', I had complete say with re-
spect to the "words" I chose to assign to
everything that I dragged in from the nothing-
The concepts had no Existences before I
gave them Existence.
So don't 'buzz' me on 'terminology'. If you
presume there's nothing in the terminology I
use, then you lose with respect to all the
stuff that I dragged-in from the nothingness.
> } Forgive me, please, it seems that, these 'days'
> } I'm thrust-into work that entails eliminating
> } redundant usage in symbolic representations.
>> These days you should be thrust into some
> dictionaries and see how definitions stay with
> the words assigned to, and don't drift around
> at your whim.
Well, it's just that actually Solving the Problem
was what mattered to me.
[All of this is sorted-out in AoK, Ap1, BTW.
Anything can be said in Infinite ways, so, if
one wants to actually get anywhere, one will
not get 'hung-up' on "words".]
And I'm not being facetious. I've been aware
of the 'translation' 'difficulties'. It's why I routinely
reiterate everything I discuss, and why I routinely
use simple analogies.
But why in the world should I 'bow-down' to
'words' when that which the words connote was
> IF, and that's a mighty big if, you have some
> real answers,
> save them for the relevant questions, and stop
> spewing out things to questions you clearly don't
It's genuinely-Hilarious :-]
K. P. Collins