"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:tTATd.278414$w62.231074 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
The need for 3-D energydynamics [3-D E]
shows up all over the place within routine
experience.
When one plays "Freecell", for instance, it
doesn't do to just "click" on willy-nilly.
The "cards" in the "deck" are distributed in
their columns, but in a 'state' that's that has
"depth" with respect to the overall order in
which one can rearrange the cards if one is
to successfuly "solve" each instance of the
game.
To solve this problem, one must develop an
=overall= strategy that Directs the movements
of the "cards" into the "free cells", while un-
covering other "cards" so that they can be
sent to the "home" cells -- without blocking
the next "move".
In "Freecell", that overal strategy is an analogue
of 3-D E.
And the need for such an overall strategy is
exactly analogous to the need for 3-D E.
The way I understand what I've read so far
in the Molecular Biology text is that the pre-
vailing view is that the molecular dynamics
proceed without an overall problem-solving
strategy -- in a way that "overwhelms" the
problem with numbers.
Like writing a "Freecell"-solving algorithm
that tests all possible moves before each
actual move.
It's a "strategy", but it's extremely inefficient,
and any strategy that's more efficient [in terms
of the number of possible moves that must be
pre-searched] will solve the problem faster.
Such efficiency-maximization benefits are an-
other way of seeing the worth of 3-D E.
Running a number of errands, same-old, same-
old, and the need for efficiency is made obvious
because the "errands" are as "nodes" in a "trav-
eling salesman problem", and, when the number
of errands exceeds 11, it becomes Hard to
find the shortest path, by pre-searching each
possible path, via which to run all the errands.
Now, consider the molecular problem in light
of the above.
G'zillions of "cards" or "nodes", so a "strategy"
that just "sends everything everywhere", search-
ing for "the" best way to order molecular dyn-
amics is Impossible -- it'll never "get-there".
How about a "massively-parallel" strategy, in
which all of the g'zillions of molecules are "gen-
eral-purpose things? Just flood a neuron with
these, and they 'know' how to do what they
need to do when they get to whereever they're
going?
Generalized "building-blocks" don't work be-
cause they'd all end up trying to get to the
same place, wanting to do the same thing.
But what if the activation that occurs in a
neuron sets up, say, via the ionic conduct-
ances signals elements in such a massively-
parallel "flooding" strategy how to "park"
themselves in the neuronal Topology?
That's do it, but the "signal" is 3-D E.
Why I'm "hot-around-the-collar" with respect
to extending 3-D E into "the genome" is be-
cause of my experiencing of folks saying "it's
this or that gene being expressed".
But folks just leave it at that.
I read in the text that there'r 4^10,000 pos-
sibilities for "expression" in "the genome",
and I like that number because it makes me
feel "complex" :-]
But, "gees, 'louise'!", how does "the genome"
'know' which of those 4^10,000 possibilities
to "express"?
It can't be "folooding" a neuron with g'zillions
of each of the 4^10,000 possibilities.
So there =has to be= 3-D E that instantiates
an overall "strategy" with respect to "expres-
sion" within "the genome".
And it's easy to see that it's so -- because
different subsets of the 4^10,000 possibilities
are "expressed" in different cell types.
So why is just doing 3-D E, more, "outlawed"?
Why not just see that, yes, there is an overall
"strategy" through which the functioning of
"the genome" is optimized, and that that overall
problem-solving "strategy" =is= 3-D E?
And, once that's accepted, and it must be, why
not just do 3-D E, more.
Until the "Viola Function plays it's sweet harmony".
I understand that "thought" does not make
the physical reality of molecular dynamics
what it's "thought" to be.
It's just that "thought" can, obviously, tell the
molecular dynamics what to do with how
they do stuff.
And that's another way to see the Need for
3-D E, plain as day.
"Thought" is an "ohchestration".
"Orchestrations" =need= overal strategies.
"Randomness" and "just-so stories" are not
workable "strategies".
There has to be a way for neurons to "schedule"
what they need in the 4^10,000 possibilities that
are in "the genome's" Treasure Chest.
There has to be "selectivity" and that selectivity
has to be actively co-ordinated with neurons'
Topological "destinations".
No 'poof'-ing allowed.
The "energy pathways" that I've read about,
thus far, are Wonderous, but they cannot be
'just running' -- just responding to "random
events". They need "strategic-depth" -- just
like when one plays "Freecell", else the neur-
onal Topology just won't happen in a functional
way.
And all of this isn't some "whimsy" on my part.
As I've already discussed, breakdowns in such
an overall "strategy" are prime candidates with
respect to the instantiation of degenerative dis-
eases. We need to see the 3-D E if we want
to treat those diseases.
So why not see the 3-D E?
'Course, I might be "embarassed" tomorrow,
or some day after that, as I read further in the
text :-]
[Actually, at this point, I hope it's so. I'm
'tired'. And I'm sure folks're 'tired' of 'me'.]
Some things, only a 'dead' man can do :-]
k. p. collins
