Standing-Wave Genetics [was: Substances triggering brain tumors (Parkinson)]

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at
Wed Mar 16 04:47:11 EST 2005

Sorry about all of the typos.


"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at> wrote in message 
news:K%DZd.392979$w62.156379 at
| "JF Baure" <nano_brain at> wrote in message news:bic611hfn2lm6a4csv4n1le75c619u6m6h at
|| Le Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:13:01 GMT, "kenneth collins"
|| <kenneth.p.collins at> a écrit :
|| [...]

|| 1) Do you say that the neural structures can induce forms and states
|| (*) given a specific environment (a set of stimulis in the general
|| sense)  in the very same way that the DNA+associated molecular
|| apparatus can induces proteinic forms or shapes given a specific
|| environment ?
|| (*) forms & states refer (in my views) to ideas, thoughts, processes,
|| memories, and more generally to (performed) mental tasks or mental
|| states. i am not sure whether these things are linked to clearly
|| defined neurology/cognition concepts...
| No [I've read your *]. What I was
| discussing is the need for "the genome",
| as it enters into neuronal function, to be
| activated in accord with the neural ac-
| tivation that actually occurs within nerv-
| ous systems -- [...]

In my prior reply, I didn't adequately state
why I said "no".

I was, then, focusing upon "in the very same
way", and my position is that the way that
"the DNA+associated molecular apparatus
[...] induces proteinic forms or shapes" had
not been adequately worked-out, because
the prevailing view had not been "connected"
to experience.

I'm not "discarding" any of the stuff that's
been worked-out by Molecular Biologists.

I'm just showing folks what was "overlooked"
in the view that had prevailed.

What I was actually doing, in my prior reply
to Jean-François' query,  was, as I've discussed
in former posts, explaining that, without the
3-D Energydynamics [3-D E] that drive it's
functioning, the "DNA" is 'just' a Big, elegantly-
formed, non-functional "molecule".

It only becomes Functional when, and to the
degree that, 3-D E =activate= it, and that
such necessary 3-D E are continuous, and the
same-stuff, from conception to death.

Which is why I responded, "no", but I thing
we don't actually "disagree", Jean-François?

My position is in general-agreement with your
query, but it is "different" because it actually
changes everything within the view that had
come to prevail -- because it couples "the
genome" to the 3-D E that are coupled to

The difference is subtle, but Huge.

I've fixed a particularly-unfortunate misspelling-
typo in the sentence below.

| Your English is Splendid, Jean-François.

Better than mine :-]

[My 'native language' is 'unfamiliar' to others,
and I 'translate' on-the-fly, my typos reflect-
ing the fact that I'm more interested in the
stuff I'm 'translating' than the 'translation',
probably because it's not made any differ-
ence, one way or the other. :-]

k. p. collins 

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list