🚀 go-pugleaf

"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d0muh3dg7vq155s7vcg4e7io7qhqaoa5or@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:10:41 -0700, Scott H <zinites_page@yahoo.com>
| wrote:
|
| >On Oct 23, 11:50 am, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
| >> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:36:39 -0700, Scott H <zinites_p...@yahoo.com>
| >> wrote:
| >> >That's definitely how it looks from the outside.
| >>
| >> >I recently brought up the internal asymmetry of the human body on
| >> >sci.physics, when I asked if it ultimately depended on the laws of
| >> >magnetism, or on some other law of nature that distinguishes between
| >> >right and left, as by a cross product. The answer I received was "no,"
| >> >but without a convincing explanation.
| >>
| >> >I've heard that while the left hemisphere can process both affirmative
| >> >and negative judgments, the right hemisphere can only process
| >> >affirmative ones.
| >>
| >> >I've also read that while the left medial prefrontal cortex "processes
| >> >a personal network related to the self"
(www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
| >> >2003/11/031111064658.htm), the right medial prefrontal cortex
| >> >facilitates our theory of others' minds. In other words, if these
| >> >articles are true, then the left medial prefrontal cortex processes
| >> >*subjective* information (about ourselves) and the right medial
| >> >prefrontal cortex processes *objective* information (about others'
| >> >mental states). This is a little ironic considering that many consider
| >> >the right hemisphere to be involved in the more subjective aspects of
| >> >our thinking. That's why I want a book based on fact and not
| >> >speculation.
| >>
| >> You do have an awful lot of speculation in your thinking.
| >
| >[snip]
| >
| >> You don't look for "left-hand rules" or "right-hand rules" in physics
| >> for the answers that are more reflected in simple developmental
| >> processes.
| >
| >How do you know that these simple developmental processes aren't in
| >turn dependent on properties of the laws of physics? (See below.)
| >
| >> During embryonic development, there are genes that
| >> determine body axes. Developmental process easily differentiate
| >> between anterior and posterior, between dorsal and ventral.  Why would
| >> you suspect that they can't also differential between left and right
| >> even though most animals have body structures that are largely
| >> bilaterally symmetric?
| >
| >On the contrary, I admit that developmental processes differentiate
| >between right and left.
| >
| >More clearly stated, if
| >
| >1. A is the property of the laws of physics by which they distinguish
| >between left and right (as of, say, the law of magnetism),
| >2. B is the ability of the embryo to differentiate between left and
| >right, and
| >3. C is the chirality of the fully-grown human body,
| >
| >then you are telling me that B contributes to C, and that "we don't
| >look for A as the answer to C." To this, I respond that A may still
| >contribute to B and thereby ultimately contribute to C.
|
| There are people who suggest that physical laws regarding
| parity-violation may relate to the fact that biological amino acids
| tend to be in l- form while sugars in d- form but even those are
| highly suspect and must be regarded as speculative.  Most people think
| it to be merely a historical accident.  However suggesting that the
| developmental processes of a whole organism to be controlled by such
| physical laws is, simply put, ridiculous.  If you want to make such a
| suggestion, it is up to you to describe a mechanism by which it could
| happen and give some evidence to indicate that your mechanism is,
| indeed, at work to the exclusion of alternatives.

Hi, Dr. Norman,

I've read the OP in this thread, and
the post quoted above.

=ALL= of this stuff has been Resolved
in AoK, in particular, in Ap6, all along,
there being reduced to TD E/I-minimiz-
ation 'within' the "special topological
homeomorphism of central nervous
systems" [AoK, "Short Paper"], includ-
ing the information-processing ration-
ales of stuff like "cortical stripes", "cort-
ical columns", the union of symmetry
and asymmetry amongst the various
cortical areas, and how and why every-
thing is Simply-Ordered in TD E/I-min-
imization.

The 'presumption' that "left" and "right"
hemispheres 'are functionally-differen-
tiated is Unsustainable because the
corpus callosum connects the hemi-
spehres massively, which is =in= the
special topological homeomorphism.

When folks sever the corpus callosum
[and the other commissures], the re-
sult is not a "nervous system" but an
artificially-instantiated entity that is no
longer a nervous system.

Then, folks 'presume' what the latter
does is what "nervous systems" do,
which is False. When the corpus cal-
losum is severed, the result is anal-
ogous to taking a knife to some of
the "bus" circuits in a computer -- af-
ter doing so, the thing is no longer a
"computer", and, if any 'functionality'
remains, that 'functionality' can only
be interpreted with respect to the
formerly-globally-integrated circuitry.

There exists no "purpose" -- no ac-
tual functionality -- in what remains
of the artificially-altered circuitry.

Folks who interpret "split brains" ex-
periments as 'disclosing-function-
ality' are just looking at artificially-al-
tered stuff without remembering that,
since it's artificially-altered, no matter
where they look in "the brain", they're
only seeing subsets of 'normal' func-
tionality. Not comprehending global-
ly-integrated-TD E/I-minimization,
they 'presume' that the =partial= stuff
'is what normally occurs' in nervous
systems. It isn't. It's a =deficit= cond-
ition, no matter where one looks in
artificially-altered 'brain'.

The "left-right" stuff is 'just' a subset
of the how and why the special topol-
ogical homeomorphism instantiates
on-the-inside-looking-out-ness with
respect to consciousness, cognition,
behavior, affect, etc., as has been dis-
cussed in AoK all along.

The 'differences' between the hemi-
spheres correlate with stuff like the
differences between a "right-arm's"
and a "left-arm's" coordinated behav-
ioral necessities -- it'd be completely
[and absurdly] -dysfunctional if the
same-stuff [the same neural dynam-
ics] occurred in, say, left and right
primary motor cortices that activate
"arm" musculature.

=All= of the so-called ~"hemispher-
ical functional biases" are exactly
like this with respect to globally-in-
tegrated TD E/I-minimization.

'normal' nervous systems are 'wired-
up' in minimal-distance ways with re-
spect to the =one=, globally-integrated
purpose of achieving TD E/I-minimiz-
ation [AoK, Ap9.]

This minimization of circuit lengths
that's in TD E/I-minimization distrib-
utes functionality, and, hence, guides
neural plasticity, and 'local'-functional-
ity-differentiation in ways that derives
solely in experience.

The Genome is optimized to do =that=,
not the other way around.

[I discussed how and why the genome
is activated and driven by experience-
determined 3D-E ["3D-Energydynamics"]
during my last online 'life', doing so all
the way down to just-energy.]

Anyway, it's all been in AoK [and the
Refs cited in AoK], all along.

Cheers, Dr. Norman,

k. p. collins