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

[kenneth collins]

<fbonsignore at beethoven.com> wrote in message news:1108400481.382868.186460 at g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| kenneth collins wrote:
| > <fbonsignore at beethoven.com> wrote in message
| news:1108270669.512609.275490 at c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > | [...]

| > It's not so simple. [The rest of what I'll say,
| > here, is from my own studies, and has not
| > yet been accepted by others. So don't re-
| > ceive it as if it is.]
| >
| > The "genetic material" is, itself, "multi-
| > plexed". Nothing in it is as a simple
| > "on/off" switch. Rather, everything in
| > "the genome" is configured in a way
| > that is further "configured" by the 3-D
| > energydynamics that occur within a
| > cell's extremely-dynamic environment
| > [in NDT, "standing-wave genetics"].
| >
| > So, again, one cannot just add or re-
| > move stuff from "the genome", because
| > doing so always adds or removes whole
| > complexes of of "the genome's" 3-D en-
| > ergydynamics' tuning capabilities.
|
| But conceivably erasing a codon will lead
| to some chain reaction that would eventually
| stop of its own accord. So even if DNA code
| is highly self-referential, the dynamic of
| deleting codons one by one can be eventually
| self stabilizing. Since we don`t have a DNA
| expression simulator (do we?), only by doing
| it we can learn `what happens`. It may be that
| the key is one modification apart. Maybe we can
| do this in parallel way, experimenting with cells
| deleting codons one by one, letting the system
| restabilize, see what happens... One such test
| might lead to what we look for.
| [...]

Most of your comments hover around
the same point, so I'll reply in-genreal.

It's an extremely-Difficult Problem.

"The geonme" is not linearly-coded. It's
not a one-to-one mapping. What becomes
"expressed" 'within' it depends upon the
3-D energydynamics that impinge upon
it. This's why, for instance, neurons "know"
how to grow in order to maintain relatively-
functional, relatively-integrated, nervous sys-
tems and relatively-integrated nervous-sys-
tem functionality, even though the 3-D en-
ergydynamics that occur within nervous sys-
tems are so ephemeral. This constitutes
what I refer to in my work as "standing-
wave genetics", in which "the genome" =in-
cludes= the full spectrum of 'normal' 3-D
energydynamics that can impinge upon
"the genome" as it's 'recognized' outside
of the work I've done.

Get it?

Neurons have to grow -- send out axon
collaterals, dendritic-tree "branches",
"spines", "synapses", etc., and they have
to achieve all of these "microscopic troph-
ic modifications" ["micro mods", AoK,
Ap5] while maintaining more or less rig-
orous cross-correlation of nervous systems'
internal 3-D energydynamics with the 3-D
energydynamics that occur within nervous
systems' host organisms' external experien-
tial environments. This Failing, nervous sys-
tems Fail to Direct the effector activations
of their host organisms in ways that enable
the host organisms to Survive.

Get it?

One cannot just "poke and prod" "the gen-
ome" and expect his doing so to result in
anything that's functional. The only way to
"address" "the genome" is via the 3-D en-
ergydynamics through which it's innately
"addressed".

Altering "the genome" always alters mult-
iple genome-encoded functionalities, and
these can occur at multiple 'levels', or
'stages', of functionality.

Looking at it in an analogical way, it's
like a "puzzle" whose 'solution' alters
in ways that're dependent upon choices
that the "puzzle-solver" makes as he
works his way through the "puzzle", and
there's no way of knowing whether or
not such choice-driven alterations are
"valid" until the "puzzle" is "solved" in
its =entirety= -- because an Erroroneous
choice early-on can establish a condition
in which all Possible further choices lead
to "dead-ends" with respect to multiple
genome-encoded functionalities, break-
ing that "down-the-road" stuff..

The difference between the way this
Problem has been approached in Labs,
and the way evolutionary dynamics do it
is that evolutionary dynamics do it in the
midst of the =whole= "genome's" being
actively "primed" by an organism's exist-
ence within it's external experiential reality,
which =simultaneously= tests 'all' of the
multiplexed functionalities that're encoded
in "the genome".

In the Lab, Researchers isolate portions
of "the genome" artificially -- without the
benefit of experiential external environ-
ments "priming" of "the genome's" multi-
plexed functionalities, which dynamically
configure "the genome's" "express"-ivenss.

So Researchers alter one thing which
simultaneously breaks other functionalities
that're multiplexed within "the genome".

I've not Verified it, yet, but my view is
that "the genome" is not like a "book of
instructions". It's more like a "hologram",
and it's activation is always unitary, across
the =whole= "genome". This's the only
way genetic material can "know" how
and why to "express" one set of things
if it's in, say, a neuron, and another set
of things if its in a red blood cell. In other
words, "the genome" is "addressed" and
"activated" by the internal environments
in which cells physically exist, and this
surely extends within whole "neighbor-
hoods" of cells, including stuff like whole-
organism hormonal "action at a distance".

And, on top of what I've discussed above,
=each= genome does all of this in its unique
way -- which is why, for =simple= instance,
"fingerprints" are unique, and which is why
evolutionary dynamics converged upon
sexual reproductive dynamics which in-
clude a lot of "fitness"-prerequisite-testing,
through which prospective mates evaluate
the "wholeness" of each other's "genomes"
[which is a =huge= topic in itself].

The Problem isn't "impossible".

It's just that existing strategies have Erred
in having gone at it simultaneously presum-
ing too-much and not-enough.

This has occurred, mostly, because folks
"jump on the bandwagon" with respect
to any "new" molecular technique -- be-
cause doing so tends to facilitate their
own Research efforts being "funded" -- 
and "the big picture" comes to be "neg-
lected" be-cause it's much more difficult
to win funding with respect to it. [This
hasn't been an Error that's been restricted
to "genetic" Research. It's been 'the same'
within -- with respect to -- =all= Research
efforts. Dealing with "the big picture" is
reacted to as if "there's nothing new" in-
there, and those who pursue "the big pic-
ture" are "ostracized" -- like Dr. Einstein
was in Physics, 'because' he routinely
Honored "the pig picture" [which is 'pret-
ty'-funny, especially this 'year'].

If "the genome" is to be 'Solved', folks
need to "back-up" and develop Research
strategies that recognize the "functional
multiplexing" of "the genome" from "step-
one", emphasizing the need to maintain
firm-contact with "the big picture".

All Science -- same-old, same-old.

I'll gladly discuss more, in-person.

© 1988-2005, by k. p. collins