🚀 go-pugleaf

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:Ynj5i.10499$aj.6283@trndny06...
| [...]

| Anyway, that's the 'difference' between
| "biological mass" and physical "mass".
|
| They're pretty-much the same-stuff, but
| biological mass requires, and happens
| in, nervous systems.
|
| To see the 'same'-ness, one has to work
| at the 'level' of the 3D-E to which I referred
| above.
|
| There's real usefulness in doing so.

It's =just= a 3D-E Maths transformation.

I've been able to do the calcs in the ol'
noggin lab since a young Child -- because
my Dad was a strict-disciplinarian, but I
liked being-with-him in his cellar work-
shop where there were very-many sharp
things routinely-in-motion operating-on
raw materials.

Dad wouldn't tolerate being interrupted
while working on his "projects", but I
could tell that he liked having me there,
with him, if I didn't interrupt his work. I
was sort of like his "witness" -- his "aud-
ience" [to his creation of stuff :-]

So, wanting to See what he was making,
I'd put the pieces of his projects, which
were, typically, scattered in holding-places
all around his workshop, together in my
'mind'.

"It's an eight-drawer toolbox with a hinged
lid on an upper 'big-tools' compartment" :-]

Later, as I continued to learn, quietly, at
my Dad's side, I came to be able to See
stuff like what the tap of a mallet on the
handle of a chisel would cause to happen
in the wood, and why. And so forth with re-
spect to all of Dad's hundreds of tools.

So I learned how to mentally-transform
the cast-off wood that Dad worked [old
skids and boxes that he'd salvage from
the scrap heaps at the Mill where he
was Employed] into virtually anything.

And, as I matured, I just kept on doing
the same-stuff, through which I reduced
it all to the 3D-E of 'just'-energy, learning
how to do that while taking Maths courses
in 'normal' ways, but always doing the
Maths in the way that I'd learned at my
Dad's side, in his cellar workshop.

I had the benefit of learning this Maths
while very young. I don't know if anyone
else'll be able to do it. My own capabilities
in-it have accrued, via very-small learning
-'steps', over the course of more than 50
'years'.

I can just look at anything, and immed-
iately literally See its 3D-E [I've studied
a =lot= in Physics, reducing everything
in it to the same-stuff.]

It's not-so-easy to Communicate the
essence of the 3D-E because I See
them in the massively-parallel neural
dynamics of my nervous system, but,
in this post-words-in-a-NG way, can
only 'communicate' what I so see via
the sequentially-ordered 'spiggot' of
'language'-interface dynamics, which
is =many= orders of magnitude less-
capable than are the massively-para-
llel cognitive dynamics where the "See-
ing" happens.

I've been working to Communicate the
Maths [in bionet.neuroscience] over
the course of more than 17 'years'.

It's been a "slog" [that could be handled
in 4-5 'hours' at a chaulk-board.]

[In case anyone cares to know about the
Maths that underpins the reification of
"biological mass" in the 3D-E.]

It consists of transforming arbitrarily-small
bits of action into 3D-E that interact with
other 3D-E of which "matter" is comprised.

Anyway, "biological mass" is just a trans-
formation of physical "mass", both of them
reducing to the 'same' 3D-E in their respec-
tive frames of reference. With respect to
this "frame-of-reference" stuff, there's only
one 'Difficulty' -- Seeing the frame of ref-
erence in which "biological mass" operates
requires one to know Neuroscience [es-
pecially the neural Topology], which is not
a commonly-held body of understanding -- 
which is how and why Communication of
the Maths of 3D-E is 'Difficult' -- "connota-
tions" of "words" are defined 'within' the
individually-unique experiences of Persons -- 
no experiences-->no "biological mass"-->
no 3D-E 'within' Individual nervous systems->
no shared-"connotation"-->"words" 'fly-right-
through' nervous systems, undetected.

With respect to this last stuff, since the or-
iginal post was offered, I've thought about
renaming "biological mass" to "cognitive
mass" -- in order to distance it from the
'familiar' notion of attributing "weight" to
"mass" being "weighed on a balance."

Substituting "cognitive" for "biological"
would, at least, give folks reason to think -- 
"How is 'cognition' weighed?" :-]

Which would simultaneously enable
folks to discern at least the fact that
different frames of reference are involved.

In future versions of AoK [if there ever
is another], I'll probably do this. So I'm
Grateful to the OP.

k. p. collins