IUBio

An Extremely-Important thing

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Fri Feb 25 02:57:13 EST 2005


"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message 
news:wqtTd.276180$w62.33300 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]

Most of the stuff that I've "marked" as
being correlated to 3-D E in my reading
of this Molecular Biology text needs ex-
tended discussion -- because it's in the
nature of 3-D E that there are energy-
dynamics that are =spread= over 3-D
extents ["of course"]. So, in order to
discuss such stuff, one has to discuss
=everything=, and =every= way in
which each thing maps into 3-D E.

It's this stuff to which I was referring
when, in the post linked-to above,
I said that it'd require me to copy the
one book, and write the second.

But there were some other things that
I marked for discrete discussion. I'll
discuss a few of them in this post.

They are 'Difficult' because they derive,
fundamentally, in the heart of the "Re-
structuring" that I've done in Biological
Science. But that 'Difficulty' exists, and
it'll never be overcome if the general
3-D E stuff is not communicated so
that, then, folks'll all least have the op-
portunity to become 'familiar' with it -- 
to achieve TD E/I-minimization with
respect to it.

It's =Hard= for me to do this because
I've long experience with the way that
folks 'move away from' stuff that's
merely-'unfamiliar' -- especially when
the stuff, itself, 'moves away from' the
stuff that underpins groupwise efforts,
which is what "traditional" Science is.
Folks gain their Sustenances through
their mastering that which is 'known'
within the "tradition" of Science. Which
is the =main= 'reason' that "tradition"
in Science is so strongly-defended.
Folks don't defend the "science". Folks
defend their abilities to gain-Susten-
ance through their co-operation with-
in the "tradition" of "science". It's a
groupwise-TD E/I-minimization that
has more to do with the "group" than
with the "wise" :-]

It's 'just' "prejudice toward the fam-
iliar" [PTOFA] as it's been discussed
in AoK all along.

Individuals 'move away from' exper-
iencing their "prejudices" being exposed,
so individuals 'move away from' any-
thing that exposes that they are behav-
ing "prejudicially" -- which induces
them to 'move toward' "defense" of
that against which new stuff stands.

So, in the early 'stages' of new stuff's
being brought-forward, the merits of
the new stuff, relative to the old stuff,
'do not matter'. The only stuff that
'matters' is 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-
minimization, and, with respect to such,
the old, long-'familiar' stuff, tends,
strongly, to be 'the winner' -- be-cause
the new stuff =always= induces great-
er TD E/I within the nervous systems
of folks who are 'familiar' with the old
stuff. Directionality mapped within
global 3-D E :-]

It's why, when I know I'm going to
begin to address some new stuff, I
usually "create a divide" -- so there's
no way in which I can "backslide"
under the "pressure" of the group-
wise-TD E/I-minimization-induced
'moving away from'.

It's never "pretty", but it's "necessary"
because I'm 'isolated' from 'normal'
interaction within the "Group". All
I can do is post my discussions here
in b.n, and hope that, through doing
so, my 'exile' will come to an End.

[I thought I should "explain" why I'm
being so "Testy". It's a "defense"
against the possibility of my 'moving
away from' doing what needs to be
done. I've seen the necessity of such
in my study of the History of Science.
It's always been the Same-Stuff. But
what's different, in the present case,
is that the work I've done explains
how and why it's been so during the
History of Science, so I've an extra
'Difficulty' to overcome -- that I must
address what has been the action of
prejudice within Science. So I get
"Testy" to make sure that there's no
way out for me except the one. I have
to do it because I understand the
'blindly'-automated "maelstrom" into
which I must "walk", and I have to
make sure I have to "stay-in-there".
If folks look, they'll see that there's no
actual "offense" in my doing so. If folks
look they'll see that I "walk into the
maelstrom" on their behalfs -- on be-
half of all Humans, everywhere.]

Anyway... Please try to "digest"
these other few things.

1. On p. 89 of the subject text, it
is said that, "[delta free energy] de-
pends not only on the energy stored
in each individual molecule, but also
on the concentration of the molecules
in the reaction mixture."

But it's =not= the "concentration",
per se, that matters. What matters
are the 3-D E that are established
within the cytoplasm.

"What?"

More below.

2. On p. 110 of the test, it is said
that, "Roughly10^9 molecules of
ATP are in solution in a typical cell
at any instant, and in many cells, all
of this ATP is turned over (that is
used up and replaced) every 1-2
minutes."

That's ~8.3  x 2 million reactions per
'second'.

Elsewhere in the text [see below],
it's asserted that it's "random thermal
energy" that is responsible for all of
these ATP molecules finding their
reaction sites.

3. On p. 87-8 of the text, it is said
that, "As the molecules in a liquid
collide and bounce off one another,
an individual molecule moves first one
way and then another, it's path con-
stituting a =random walk= [...]. In
such a walk, the average distance
that each molecule travels (as the
crow flies) from its starting point is
proportional to the square root of
the time involved: that is, if it takes
a molecule 1 second on average to
travel 1 [micrometer], it takes 4
seconds to travel 2 [micrometers],
100 seconds to travel 10 [micro-
meters], and so on.
   The inside of a cell is very crowd-
ed [...]. Nevertheless, experiments
in which fluorescent dyes and other
labeled molecules are injected into
cells show that small organic mol-
ecules diffuse through the watery
gell of the cytosol nearly as rapidly
as they do in water. A small organic
molecule, for example, takes only
about one-fifth of a second on av-
erage to diffuse a distance of 10
[micrometers]. Diffusion is there-
fore an efficient way for small mol-
ecules to move the limited distances
in the cell."

The 3-D E view that I'm discussing
contradicts the above.

Forst, remember my earlier discussion
with respect to "gell electrophoresis"?

That gell electrophoresis works dem-
onstrates that molecular stuff moves
with respect to energy-gradients

Next, if "random walks" were Possi-
ble within physical reality [they aren't,
but that's another "fight"], a =random=
walk would go nowhere, and, if it was
the case that "random" thermal motions
drove molecular motion, there'd be no
net movement, because, on average,
the "random" thermal motions would
cancel each other. Such nothingness
is what "randomness" is. "Randomness",
alone, can do no useful work. [As
is discussed in AoK, there is a sto-
chastic component in the neural
activation that underpins "creativity".
It is generated within the "reticular
system" [AoK, Ap3 and 5], and
its effectiveness derives in the fact
that it's merged with specifically-or-
dered activation, and the result trim-
med to TD E/I-minimized 'states'.
But the stochastic activation, itself,
remains disordered, and does no
work. All of the work [the tuning to-
ward TD E/I(min)] is done by mech-
anisms that explicitly eliminate disord-
er. Within nervous systems, disorder-
ed activation is the throw-away
stuff that's 'moved away from'. Or-
der is the functional stuff that's
'moved toward'.]

4. On p. 114, it's said that "The
overall [glycolysis] reaction releas-
es enough free energy to convert a
molecule of ADP to ATP and to
transfer two electrons from alde-
hyde to NAD+ and to form NADH,
while still releasing enough heat to
the environment to make the over-
all reaction energetically favorable..."

This "heat" is a Directed energy-flow
away from the reaction, it's gradient
being 'attractive' to 'movement toward'
the reaction site be-cause it's a relative-
order void -- this gradient is as a 3-D
E-"map" that reactants "follow" be-
cause there's an order gradient that
coincides inversely with the thermal
gradient.

With respect to this order-gradient,
reactants literally go with the flow
of order -- moving into the disorder,
which actively Directs them to the
reaction site, which is why "concen-
tration" matters -- there's a reactant
pressure gradient, which is an order-
gradient, that drives the reactants
toward the reaction site, and toward
the increased-order that is "Biosyn-
thesis". Which is what makes the 16.6
million ATP turn-overs per 'second'
possible.

It's a "climbing" of the energy-gradient
that is WDB2T.

I've only covered part of the 3-D E
involved in the one molecule's syn-
thesis. There's more than this heat-
gradient, but I hope what's here is
an adequate "introduction" to the
the way I'm working-through the
text. [Going beyond "heat" requires
Tapered Harmony, in-depth, which
restructures stuff like what's been
referred to as "charge" to continuous
energy-flows. It's all easy in Tapered
Harmony because the energy-flows
extend beyond that've been consid-
ered to "be atomic radii". So I'm work-
ing to "do TH" without explicitly
invoking TH :-]

Molecular dynamics =can= be describ-
ed "probabilistically", but it's all Determ-
inistic 3-D E, and understanding the how
and why of it =requires= seeing the 3-D E.

I expect that, in my reading re. protein
synthesis, 'tomorrow' [it's a long chap-
ter], I'll find molecularbound 3-D E that
enter into the maping of molecular dyn-
amics at close range.

And I'm Anxious to get to the guts of
the DNA expression stuff.

Ultimately, what I'm 'moving toward'
is a Deterministic coupling of neural
activation with "the genome" -- so
that the neuronal micro mods will
be Directionally-coupled to exper-
ience -- which will explain how and
why they are ordered to do what
they do.

In my past discussions, here in b.n,
I've dealt only with the 3-D E of the
"Coulomb forces" that are shaped by
the ionic conductances, which are
shaped by the neuronal cellular Topo-
logy. I've yet to find a way, without
using TH, to couple them to molecular
dynamics at a detailed 'level', but ex-
pect that these shaped "Coulomb
forces" Direct the motions of 'charged'
molecular constituents, in a way that's
analogous to the way that molecular
constituents move in electrophoresis,
only Directed with respect to neuronal
cellular Topology.

But all I'm doing in this thread is trying
to give folks reason to Think about
3-D E, in-general.

I've got  a week. I want to give up
my account by March 4th.

It'd be easier to go-for this 3-D E
stuff in-person -- the best way is
as I've discussed in the past -- via
course-related sequential discussions
that alternate between the "tradition-
al" view and the 3-D E view.I always
want to do this when I take a course,
but "tradition" 'moves away from' it,
and I end up sitting in the back of the
class, silent :-]

So I've jumped into the "maelstrom",
here.

I know, with Certainty, that it's 3-D E,
but I also understand that "it's a hard
row to hoe", and I'm just getting start-
ed at the molecular 'level'. Why I'm
Certain, despite that, is because there'd
have to be a Huge "discontinuity" be-
tween global nervous system function
and molecular dynamics if everything
were not Directed by 3-D E.

Is there no one who can see this?

The molecular stuff that comes to
constitute this or that neuronal topo-
logical feature =must= be actively
Directed into that Topology.

It =cannot= just "go" willy-nilly, and
'magically' end up exactly where it's
needed within that Topology. [I un-
derstand that there're "motor" proteins,
but how and why do =they= get stuff
to carry [how and why is the produc-
tion of the carried stuff "scheduled"]?
How and why do they 'know'
where carry and release stuff? You know -- 
so that the end result will be functional.
And, within such construction, how and
why does the neuron as a whole 'know'
how and why to tune it's Topology with
respect to 'momentary' TD E/I-minimi-
zation needs, so that it's contributions
to old "memories" will be optimized?]

"Poof" ... and neuronal growth occurs
as it must if nervous systems' host org-
anisms are, then, able to perform use-
ful work within, and with respect to,
their external experiential energy-sur-
round?

That's "Fairy Tale" stuff, not Science.

It all has to be Continuously =Directed=.
The molecular constituents have to spec-
ified by the need for the cellular growth
that will instantiate TD E/I-minimization.

Neurons must tune their Topologies so
that old "memories" will be "recalled".

And the only way that can happen is
via 3-D E that integrate neuronal func-
tion within global nervous system func-
tion.

Part of the 'Difficulty' derives in the
necessity of "fighting" the "fight"
against so-called "randomness", which
is strongly invoked within "tradition".

It's an old "fight" between me and
'physics' that 'sees particles' when
all there is is continuous energy-flow.

I'm just 'angry' that folks 'move away
from' behind-my-back, =never= ad-
dressing anything -- just 'denying' it,
without ever having to defend their
'blindly'-automated 'moving away
from' -- because they "love" 'blind-
ly'-automated TD E/I-minimization
more than Science -- more than Truth.

And, meanwhile, I can't even find em-
ployment -- so I've got to do a "brain-
dump", in case I don't-make-it :-]

It's Hilarious -- throughout my reading,
thus far, I've been continually drawing:

|<--->|

In their ending-only-at-death build-up<->
break-down energy-exchange period-
icities, all over the place, the molecular
dynamics "emulate" the SSW<->UES
harmonics' fundamental 3-D E -- "energy
pathways" that are literally macroscop-
ic 'atoms' -- and nobody else can see
that, in that, the fundamental energydyn-
amics are what empowers the molecular
dynamics?

If you've read this, Thank You.

k. p. collins 





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net