IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

The Neural 4-Space [was Re: Consciousness]

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Sat Jan 3 01:45:58 EST 2004

Hi Wolf,

"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hqveqb7.pminews at news1.sympatico.ca...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:35:07 GMT, k p  Collins wrote:
> >Get it?
> Yeah, and what I see is an alternative explanation
> or model of existing results


> - but no predictions of as yet unobserved results,
> nor any indication of where or how to look for them.
> IOW, I don't see anything in your explanation that
> takes us any further than we've already been.

I've posted another reply in this thread [in reply to my
own reply to your prior reply]. It gives more background,
mostly, just in an explanatory way [as you say], but it also
states the general case for all of the observables that
Tapered Harmony predicts, and which are not predicted
by currently-accepted Theory.

And it provides a Generalized Proof of Tapered Harmony's
position, with respect to all replicable experimental results
that are possible within physical reality.

I've left the Proof 'implicit' because I want folks to have the
'stimulation' of working to discern it on their own [a 'carrot' :-],
but will discuss it in a few 'days', if no one finds it.

I've also posted several other discussions in the recent past
that explicitly state Testable Predictions. I'm still going through
my archives to recover these posts, and will re-post at least
one of them in addition to the thing I re-posted earlier this night.

> Recall that Ptolemy's epicyclic model of planetary motion
> was a) self consistent; and b) a good predictor of what
> would be seen within the experimental abilities of the time.


> Kepler provided a simpler, more elegant model, but its
> key advantage was that it indicated where observations
> would deviate from Ptolemy's model, _if_ the observations
> were refined enough. However, it took astronomy a while
> to refine its techniques to the point where those observations
> were conclusively in favour of Kepler's model.
> You need an experimental program before you will be
> taken seriously. IOW, you need to predict what will be
> seen that can't now be seen. O'wise your model is no
> better than the existing one. The fact that it explains
> things in a way that avoids entities you don't to accept
> as existing doesn't matter one way or the other, BTW.

I Agree. My Spirit 'groaned' when I realized that I'd
have to contradict the existence of 'sub-atomic particles',
because I understood that 'particles' are virtually the
cruxt of calculation within modern Physics. I wouldn't
have done it if the experimental results hadn't disclosed
that it was necessary.

The first usefulness of Tapered Harmony's position
[where it first exceeded the capabilities of existing Theory]
was with respect to the ionic conductances that determine
everything within nervous systems. More recently, I've
worked-backward from the ionic conductances, in order
to develop a solution to the "binding problem" - how
experience tunes nervous systems' 3-D energydynamics, in
a way that couples them to external 3-D energydynamics
all the way down to sub-molecular 'levels'.

All of this stuff [which I've already discussed in former
posts here in b.n] constitutes Testable Prediction. [I'm dis-
cussing Tapered Harmony, these 'days', in order to let
Physicists know that there are important applications of
their robustly-developed experimental methodologies
within Neuroscience - in the hope of enlisting their expert-
ise in Testing Tapered Harmony's position within these
neural dynamics.]

Beyond that, I've also made Testable Predictions with
respect to traditional accelerator experimental method-

As I briefly discussed in my earlier post this night, all of
these Testable Predictions 'hinge" upon one thing -
Tapered Harmony's position with respect to the
"UES-flow" and it's Deterministic-coupling to universal

All of the accelerator-accessible observables that Tapered
Harmony Predicts derive in the fact [in TH's position]
that energy is released when "SSW<->UES
compression<->expansion" dis-integrate.

Be-cause it's so, as it flows back into the UES "extreme-
fluid", the released energy fleetingly alters the the 'sustaining'
action of the relatively-local UES with respect to any
SSW<->UES harmonics with which it interacts.

Thus, the observables will take the form of locally-augmented
UES-'sustaining' action, which is Testable because it constitutes
a fleeting 'hardening' of SSW<->UES harmonics that remain
'intact' [which do not dis-integrate]. These constitute "secondary
targets", and, if TH is Correct, everything that I've discussed,
here [and elsewhere], will be observable as an enhanced
'durability' of such secondary targets.

The necessary Tests require =continuous= data collection,
and, subsequent, detailed number-crunching with respect
that continuous data stream [because the observables are
so fleetingly-ephemeral].

If I were involved in working out the experimental design,
I'd also incorporate a 'gentle' probing of the secondary
targets, which would optimally disclose the fleetingly-
ephemeral observables. [They are fleeting and ephemeral
be-cause they consist of just energy, and energy just
coes where it's most free to go.]

I have to post this, now, because something's hammering
the electrical system in my trailer. I have an active detector
apparatus set-up. Sorry. I'll pick-up the discussion if, when
I reread what's here, there's opportunity to add worthwhile

Thank You for your reply.

ken [k. p. collins]

> The question of whether you predicted dark energy or
> not is one that I can't comment on.
> --
> Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
> "Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in
> (Robert Ingersoll)

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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