The Neural 4-Space [was Re: Consciousness]

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Mon Jan 5 06:11:45 EST 2004


Hi Wolf.

"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hqveqb7.pminews at news1.sympatico.ca...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:35:07 GMT, k p  Collins wrote:
>
> >Get it?
>
> Yeah, and what I see is an alternative explanation or model of existing
> results - but no predictions of as yet unobserved results, nor any
indication
> of where or how to look for them. IOW, I don't see anything in your
> explanation that takes us any further than we've already been.
> [...]

Tapered Harmony's predictive capacities are massive - because,
in TH, there's no 'randomness'.

As these Predictions are, in fact, Tested, the results observed
will point to 'new' technological opportunities.

I have no lab. I only work at the 'level' of very-fundamental
principles.

But, you see, the fundamental principles of Tapered Harmony
delineate a Deterministic continuity. So, pick anything, and its
energydynamics can be analyzed from the perspective of that
Deterministic continuity.

Which is a Testable Prediction with respect to all possible
phenomena [but is =not=, BTW, the Prediction that I referred
to in another recent post in this thread. I'm going to discuss
that generalized-Prediction in a few 'days', after folks've
had a chance to see if they can find it in what I posted earlier.]

The traditional view 'sees' 'randomness' in stuff like "radioactive
decay", but TH explains all such stuff without resort to 'randomness'.
[Which has resulted from the fact that the traditional approach to
'atoms' didn't see the compression<->expansion harmonics.
In the maximally-compressed and maximally-expanded 'states',
energy is confined within very-small volumes ['point'-like, and
empty-ball-like]. The traditional approach has viewed the former
as 'the nucleus', and the latter as 'the electrons', but [in TH]
they are just more, albeit, interesting, portions of the overall
continuity. The traditional approach, not seeing the continuity,
misinterpreted the fleetingness of the maximally-compressed
and maximally-expanded 'states' as 'being correlated with
randomness', when they are just fleetingly-existing portions
of the overall continuity. Get it? Because these two 'states'
are so fleeting, it's hard to use them in experiments, and this
difficulty has been interpreted as 'indicating that there is
randomness' in there, when all there is in there is Determin-
istic continuity that has nonlinearly-varying fleetingness. [All
of this stuff is rendered-visible in the QBASIC programs I've
posted.]

So, what this means is that, wherever the traditional approach
invokes 'randomness', TH makes Testable predictions with
respect to phenomena that are =not= random. [The nonlinear
fleetingness turns out to only be 'difficult' when one presumes
'sub-atomic particles' are involved. When one sees the
SSW<->UES harmonics, one sees that there are better ways
to design experimental apparatus - basically, that monster
energies actually work against observation, and that broad-
based, =gentle= probing will yield much more observable
stuff - because it sees more of the continuity than just the
max-'portions'.]

Other matter: In my prior reply to you, I stated that I was going
to re-post another thing from my archives. Unless someone
'buzzes' me, I'd rather not spend the energy looking up a
discussion that, I believe, is still on the board here in
bionet.neuroscience. I'd rather just keep 'moving ahead' - unless
someone 'buzzes' me.

k. p. collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list