But the nervous system is a massivrly-parallel information-processor,
and =can= make short-work of the 'deception' within synchrony
problem.
The route has been in AoK all along, has been discussed repeatedly
here in bionet.neuroscience, and is pointed-to below.
Still doesn't solve the problem of being-'alone', though.
"Holding open the 'door'" is the best one can do with respect to
such.
k. p. collins
Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>There's an interesting article, "The Odds of That", By LISA BELKIN,
>in today's New York Times Magazine.
>>The Author correctly [in my view] recognizes that extreme positions
>with respect to 'coincidence' are equally untennable.
>>So, what gives?
>>When can it be said that 'coincidence' correlates with meaningful
>synchrony?
>>My approach to answering this Q entails databasing over the
>long-term, then analyzing the data with respect to long-term
>coincidence.
>>The longer the term within which coincidence holds, to the degree
>that coincidence does clearly [not having to be 'debated'] hold, the
>greater is the cross-correlation inherent in the 'coincidental'
>synchrony.
>>This's exactly what NDT holds is the case with respect to the
>development of the "prefrontal force" [AoK, Ap7], although, in the
>mechanism of volition, there is active driving involved ["meta
>motor-dominant" and "meta sensory-dominant" information-processing
>"phases", AoK, Ap7].
>>The biggest 'caveat', inherent, is that 'coincidence' can be
>'engineered' so that there is an appearance of there being
>'meaningful' synchrony.
>>Such calculated 'deception' exists throughout nature. Moths and
>birds, for instance, rely on 'protective coloration' through which
>they 'synchronize' their appearances with elements in the
>environments in which they exist. Chamelion [sp :-] are champions at
>such 'engineered' synchrony.
>>Humans do the analogous thing within the realm of routine
experience,
>in order to 'gain advantage' within the 'social' millieux.
>>So, even though long-term repetitive 'coincidence' constitutes
>'valid' synchrony, such does not, necessarily, coincide with Truth.
>>To ascertain Truth, requires long-term databasing with respect to
>individual correlates with respect to 'coincidence'.
>>This last thing is so energy-consuming that it tends to make the
>problem Hard, in terms of rendering the work inherent
non-polynimial.
>>Which is why I 'just' go with Truth.
>>Avoids much, if not all, the Waste that's inherent in 'engineered'
>synchrony.
>>Also tends to leave one 'alone' because one's non-participation in
>routine 'deception' is experienced as 'unusual' within the 'social'
>milieux, which induces folks who're familiar with 'deception' to
>'move away from'.
>>All of the basic [Maths] stuff inherent in the above applies within
>the nervous system, itself, and to the question of neural-synchrony
>that's being discussed on the board.
>>So, although the question of there being synchrony, or not, is easy,
>questions with respect to the meaning inherent in such neural
>synchrony remain Hard.
>>Which, again, is why, long-ago, I decided to go with Truth -
>eliminates the waste inherent in problem-solving.
>>Doesn't solve the problem of being-alone, though :-]
>>k. p. collins
>>
