"Alex Green" <dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42c8441.0312300239.65cc786 at posting.google.com...
> [Ken]
> > It's funny. =While I was responding= to Peter's post,
> > the term "bremsstrahlung" was repeatedly popping
> > into my consciousness [which is hilarious because
> > this sort of thing is just like the virtual particle' stuff
> > that Peter was addressing, only, within nervous sys-
> > tem 3-D energydynamics, it's flat-out easy to see
> > that the 'popping' is rigorously correlated to energy-
> > thresholding dynamics. This's easy to see because
> > it's simultaneously easy to see that the 'popping' of
> > a term into consciousness has to occur as a function
> > of relatively wide-spread 'Coulomb force' dynamics
> > that are geometrecally-conformed to the neural
> > Topology - it's easy to see, in this, that the 'popping'
> > of the word into consciousness =cannot= be as
> > some sort of 'particle', virtual or otherwise, 'pop-
> > ping into existence'. Whatever 'word' it is that 'pops'
> > into consciousness, it's 'popping'-into-consciousness
> > is always accompanied by at least a portion of the
> > complete representation of the verbal symbol's
> > connotations that have accumulated "biological mass"
> > [with respect to which "microscopic trophic modifica-
> > tions have been constructed] during the course of one's
> > activation-dependent experience [within one's "experi-
> > ential total"].
>> [Alex]
> But what saw what your mind's eye saw? Another mind's eye? Your neural
> field must be a self observing matrix that accomplishes this trick
> without recursion (recursion would just be an endless series of mind's
> eyes).
>> We all experience an extended, or "specious" present and this has been
> well known to psychologists for more than a century. We do not exist
> at a durationless instant. Just think of a word like "hello", how much
> of the word would you experience in no time at all? It is because
> experience is laid out in both time and space that there is no need
> for recursion.
>> See: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz.htm>> Best Wishes
>> Alex Green
First, in the section of my former post, quoted above, I was
discussing "continuity vs. `particles`", not 'time', and compre-
hension of my discussion is dependent upon a comprehension
of nervous system dynamics [functional Neuroanatomy].
And there's massive 'recursion' within the correlated nervous
system information processing dynamics.
But it was precisely the correlated nervous system dynamics
that allowed me to see that what's been referred to as "time"
has no physically-real existence - to see that all that's neces-
sary is 3-D energy-gradients - be-cause, within nervous
systems, each neuron experiences only the activation that
impinges upon it, as it iminges upon it.
That is, a neuron does not 'remember' that "five minutes ago,
it received this other activation", so it must do such and such
differently, 'now', than it would have if it hadn't received
such and such activation "five minutes ago".
The analogous information exists in a way that's relevant to
a neuron's functioning in the form of energy-gradients.
That is, when a neuron receives activation, the activation
alters the neuron's 3-D energydynamics, and subsequent
'remembering' occurs as a function of these altered 3-D
energydynamics, which occur as a function of the remnant
of the former 3-D energydynamics and any further 3-D
energydynamics that impinge upon the neuron.
There's no 'time' in any of this stuff, and there cannot be,
because, if the neuron's functioning were dependent upon
'time', then it wouldn't be able to invoke this or that 3-D
energy 'state' that it formerly acquired through its ex-
periencing of activation within some other information
set that's occurring in an otherwise-sequenced way.
It would not be able to treat information as being a
manipulable 'entity'.
It would be 'enslaved' to 'time' - unable to 'mix-and-match'
scraps of information, to achieve convergence in new
ways.
It would, instead, be a glorified 'tape-recorder' that
would only be able to 'play-back' sequences that it
had already experienced.
It's not a trivial problem because there are 'time'-like
3-D energydynamics correlates in-there, but it's just
that these are all 'just' energy-gradients.
For instance, a scrap of learning that remains non-
reinforced via subsequent activation tends to extinguish -
to be 'forgotten' - but that, itself, is just more of the
inherent 3-D energydynamics' 'going-down' the energy-
gradient that is WDB2T [from order to dis-order].
For a basic comprehension of what's here, it's use-
ful to read AoK. I'll send you a copy, gratis, if you
want it. [Runs under MSDOS[tm] or Windows[tm].]
ken [k. p. collins]