🚀 go-pugleaf

there are a lot of 'loose-ends' in what, i agree, is a general approach that
needs to be explored.

the first thing that needs to be kept in mind is that simple
calorie-restriction doesn't prolong Life [Africa, North Korea], so, perhaps
what's happening is that calorie-reduction induces an organism to
range-more-widely with respect to what it will accept as 'food', and that
it's such wide-ranging-ness that results in bringing micronutrients into a
system that would've, otherwise, taken-the-easy-route with respect to
'food'... just eat what's there-in-abundance, missing the micronutrients
that're not-there, within the abundance.

lab subjects, for instance, might ingest wood-shavings stuff, for instance,
and there might be something in-there that is what makes the difference.

i'm not saying that the ingestion of wood-shafvings stuff =is= what's
happening.

i just wanted to point out all the loose-ends stuff that needs to be
controlled.

for instance, it's a virtual certainty that humans who choose to 'restrict'
calorie intake do not just restrict calorie intake. they simultaneously
choose better foods, containing a wider range of nutrients.

anyway, Cheers, Ian, ken [k. p. collins]

Ian Goddard wrote in message <3d1c1782.25504536@news.erols.com>...
>
>Br J Cancer  2002 May 20;86(10):1615-21
>
>Dietary restriction reduces angiogenesis and growth in an
>orthotopic mouse brain tumour model.
>
>Mukherjee P, El-Abbadi MM, Kasperzyk JL, Ranes MK, Seyfried TN.
>
>Biology Department, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts,
>MA 02467, USA.
>
>Diet and lifestyle produce major effects on tumour incidence,
>prevalence, and natural history. Moderate dietary restriction has
>long been recognised as a natural therapy that improves health,
>promotes longevity, and reduces both the incidence and growth of
>many tumour types. Dietary restriction differs from fasting or
>starvation by reducing total food and caloric intake without
>causing nutritional deficiencies. No prior studies have evaluated
>the responsiveness of malignant brain cancer to dietary
>restriction. We found that a moderate dietary restriction of
>30-40% significantly inhibited the intracerebral growth of the
>CT-2A syngeneic malignant mouse astrocytoma by almost 80%. The
>total dietary intake for the ad libitum control group (n=9) and
>the dietary restriction experimental group (n=10) was about 20
>and 13 Kcal day(-1), respectively. Overall health and vitality
>was better in the dietary restriction-fed mice than in the ad
>libitum-fed mice. Tumour microvessel density (Factor VIII
>immunostaining) was two-fold less in the dietary restriction
>mice than in the ad libitum mice, whereas the tumour apoptotic
>index (TUNEL assay) was three-fold greater in the dietary
>restriction mice than in the ad libitum mice. CT-2A tumour cell-
>induced vascularity was also less in the dietary restriction mice
>than in the ad libitum mice in the in vivo Matrigel plug assay.
>These findings indicate that dietary restriction inhibited CT-2A
>growth by reducing angiogenesis and by enhancing apoptosis.
>Dietary restriction may shift the tumour microenvironment from
>a proangiogenic to an antiangiogenic state through multiple
>effects on the tumour cells and the tumour-associated host cells.
>Our data suggest that moderate dietary restriction may be an
>effective antiangiogenic therapy for recurrent malignant brain
>cancers. DOI: 10.1038/sj/bjc/6600298 www.bjcancer.comCopyright
>2002 Cancer Research UK
>
>PMID: 12085212 [PubMed - in process]
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_u
ids=12085212&dopt=Abstract
>
>
>  http://IanGoddard.net
>
>  "To lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals." Ben Franklin
>
>  Caloric Restriction: http://IanGoddard.net/cr.htm
>
>

Kenneth Collins wrote:

> there are a lot of 'loose-ends' in what, i agree, is a general approach that
> needs to be explored.
> 
> the first thing that needs to be kept in mind is that simple
> calorie-restriction doesn't prolong Life [Africa, North Korea],


You are confusing calorie restriction (restriction of calories *only*) with 
dietary restriction (restriction of the end spectrum of dietary nutrients. 
Furthermore, the diets of some of the peoples in the regions that you mention 
are additionally restricted in many of the essential nutrients such as protein 
for example. So this confusion does not occur some people practicing calorie 
restriction call it CRAN (calorie restriction with adequate nutrition) and some 
even call it CRON (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition). However, I think 
the last is rather pretentious because no one currently even knows what is 
optimal nutrition much less is able to achieve it.
With respect to calorie restriction, there really are no "loose ends".


> so, perhaps
> what's happening is that calorie-reduction induces an organism to
> range-more-widely with respect to what it will accept as 'food', and that
> it's such wide-ranging-ness that results in bringing micronutrients into a
> system that would've, otherwise, taken-the-easy-route with respect to
> 'food'... just eat what's there-in-abundance, missing the micronutrients
> that're not-there, within the abundance.


No. All calorie restriction experiments are done under controlled conditions on 
laboratory fed animals. No "ranging more widely" is possible.


> lab subjects, for instance, might ingest wood-shavings stuff, for instance,
> and there might be something in-there that is what makes the difference.


Not likely, and they are not always housed with anything which is in any manner 
edible. The researchers are not so stupid not to have thought of such things.


> i'm not saying that the ingestion of wood-shafvings stuff =is= what's
> happening.
> 
> i just wanted to point out all the loose-ends stuff that needs to be
> controlled.


That they have been controlled is proven by multiple repeated experiments.

 
> for instance, it's a virtual certainty that humans who choose to 'restrict'
> calorie intake do not just restrict calorie intake. they simultaneously
> choose better foods, containing a wider range of nutrients.


Not all of them, but they mainly do so in order to *maintain* their intake of 
all nutrients *except* calories. To the extent that they select even better 
foods and nutrients they should get effects additive to simple CR.


--Tom Matthews

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for More Life in quantity & quality

admitting that i should've quoted what was said in the original post, which
is what you said in your reply to my post, i stand on what i've posted.

i've yet to see any experiment design that cannot be improved.

it could be that something like the requirement for minimal-feeding has the
'inadvertant' effect of diminishing contamination relative to the
all-you-can-eat subjects' food-in-abundance that just sits-there, absorbing
air-born pathogens, chemo and decay factors, etc. in the lab. anyone can
sense this possibility by just taking a wiff of the air in an animal lab.

supplying minimal food, always from a relatively-fresh supply, =might= have
an impact.

it could be that there're nutrients in the food, which in small
concentrations, is 'good', but in larger concentrations, is 'bad'. there're
many such substances. it could be that the minimal-feeding just 'hits the
mark' with respect to such substances.

and it's a =certainty= that the relative-ease of being in an all-you-can-eat
environment results in an artificially-imposed TD E/I-minimization 'state',
and that this 'reverberates' throughout correlated nervous systems,
impacting all manner of neurally-mediated processes.

artificially-imposed relative-ease 'dulls' everything else, including
immune-system function [which, itself constitutes a nervous-system-mediated
form of 'cognition']. could be that the all-you-can-eat rats just die from
'boredom'.

it goes =on-and-on= like this.

be-cause of any individual nervous system's inherent tight-integration,
=every= such problem is tightly-coupled to everything else that's going-on
in-there.

there're loose-ends aplenty.

it's the essence of Science to eliminate them, in all experiments [this,
too, is 'just' TD E/I-minimization].

Cheers, Tom, ken [k. p. collins]

Tom Matthews wrote in message <3D1DE589.3020802@morelife.org>...
>Kenneth Collins wrote:
>
>> there are a lot of 'loose-ends' in what, i agree, is a general approach
that
>> needs to be explored.
>>
>> the first thing that needs to be kept in mind is that simple
>> calorie-restriction doesn't prolong Life [Africa, North Korea],
>
>
>You are confusing calorie restriction (restriction of calories *only*) with
>dietary restriction (restriction of the end spectrum of dietary nutrients.
>Furthermore, the diets of some of the peoples in the regions that you
mention
>are additionally restricted in many of the essential nutrients such as
protein
>for example. So this confusion does not occur some people practicing
calorie
>restriction call it CRAN (calorie restriction with adequate nutrition) and
some
>even call it CRON (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition). However, I
think
>the last is rather pretentious because no one currently even knows what is
>optimal nutrition much less is able to achieve it.
>With respect to calorie restriction, there really are no "loose ends".
>
>
>> so, perhaps
>> what's happening is that calorie-reduction induces an organism to
>> range-more-widely with respect to what it will accept as 'food', and that
>> it's such wide-ranging-ness that results in bringing micronutrients into
a
>> system that would've, otherwise, taken-the-easy-route with respect to
>> 'food'... just eat what's there-in-abundance, missing the micronutrients
>> that're not-there, within the abundance.
>
>
>No. All calorie restriction experiments are done under controlled
conditions on
>laboratory fed animals. No "ranging more widely" is possible.
>
>
>> lab subjects, for instance, might ingest wood-shavings stuff, for
instance,
>> and there might be something in-there that is what makes the difference.
>
>
>Not likely, and they are not always housed with anything which is in any
manner
>edible. The researchers are not so stupid not to have thought of such
things.
>
>
>> i'm not saying that the ingestion of wood-shafvings stuff =is= what's
>> happening.
>>
>> i just wanted to point out all the loose-ends stuff that needs to be
>> controlled.
>
>
>That they have been controlled is proven by multiple repeated experiments.
>
>
>> for instance, it's a virtual certainty that humans who choose to
'restrict'
>> calorie intake do not just restrict calorie intake. they simultaneously
>> choose better foods, containing a wider range of nutrients.
>
>
>Not all of them, but they mainly do so in order to *maintain* their intake
of
>all nutrients *except* calories. To the extent that they select even better
>foods and nutrients they should get effects additive to simple CR.
>
>
>--Tom Matthews
>
>MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
>Reality based tools for More Life in quantity & quality
>

Please learn to respond "inline". That method is preferable because one can 
clearly see to what each of your responses is related, and is it also less 
possible for you to skip past some part of the previous response without 
addressing important points. Sometimes this may be unintentional and innocent, 
but often it is deceitfully used as means of "escaping" a point that cannot 
effectively be answered.

Kenneth Collins wrote:

> admitting that i should've quoted what was said in the original post, which
> is what you said in your reply to my post, i stand on what i've posted.
> 
> i've yet to see any experiment design that cannot be improved.


Granted. But CR experiments have been done and redesigned for several decades 
now. Many improvements have taken place during that time and many deficiencies 
have been corrected.


> it could be that something like the requirement for minimal-feeding has the
> 'inadvertant' effect of diminishing contamination relative to the
> all-you-can-eat subjects' food-in-abundance that just sits-there, absorbing
> air-born pathogens, chemo and decay factors, etc. in the lab. anyone can
> sense this possibility by just taking a wiff of the air in an animal lab.
> 
> supplying minimal food, always from a relatively-fresh supply, =might= have
> an impact.
> 
> it could be that there're nutrients in the food, which in small
> concentrations, is 'good', but in larger concentrations, is 'bad'. there're
> many such substances. it could be that the minimal-feeding just 'hits the
> mark' with respect to such substances.
> 
> and it's a =certainty= that the relative-ease of being in an all-you-can-eat
> environment results in an artificially-imposed TD E/I-minimization 'state',


It would help if you defined "TD E/I-minimization".


> and that this 'reverberates' throughout correlated nervous systems,
> impacting all manner of neurally-mediated processes.
> 
> artificially-imposed relative-ease 'dulls' everything else, including
> immune-system function [which, itself constitutes a nervous-system-mediated
> form of 'cognition']. could be that the all-you-can-eat rats just die from
> 'boredom'.


These are excellent points and are all possible. Whether some of them have been 
looked at I don't know. Perhaps Michael Rae who is much more thoroughly familiar 
with CR research could answer that question.
However, the CR animals have multiple mechanistic differences with the ad lib 
fed controls (of controls are *not* ad lib fed but are on 10% restriction just 
so that over-feeding is not a factor) which could all contribute to the 
longevity effect. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that a gene expression 
change takes place very quickly after CR is begun, long before some of the 
processes which you have mentioned above would be likely to have an effect.


> it goes =on-and-on= like this.
> 
> because of any individual nervous system's inherent tight-integration,
> =every= such problem is tightly-coupled to everything else that's going-on
> in-there.


Again, I agree. Unfortunately it is not possible to do fully "placebo" CR.
Still the effect has been so robust that it is unlikely, IMO, that any major 
extraneous factors are the reason for its existence.


> there're loose-ends aplenty.


 From my reading, I don't agree. There are very few of any likely significance, 
IMO. The major one, IMO, is the fact that all animals tested so far have rather 
short lifespans and the mechanisms of the effect may already be so much more 
optimized in a longer lived species such as humans, that CR will not accomplish 
much additional longevity, even though it will still be a highly beneficial 
anti-morbidity/mortality agent (ie. it will likely extend the years of robust 
health of those practicing it except for the ones who would have lived to a very 
old age anyway).


> it's the essence of Science to eliminate them, in all experiments [this,
> too, is 'just' TD E/I-minimization].


Again, I don't know what you mean by the last abbreviation.


--Tom



> Cheers, Tom, ken [k. p. collins]
> 
> Tom Matthews wrote in message <3D1DE589.3020802@morelife.org>...
> 
>>Kenneth Collins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>there are a lot of 'loose-ends' in what, i agree, is a general approach
>>> that needs to be explored.
>>>
>>>the first thing that needs to be kept in mind is that simple
>>>calorie-restriction doesn't prolong Life [Africa, North Korea],
>>>
>>
>>You are confusing calorie restriction (restriction of calories *only*) with
>>dietary restriction (restriction of the end spectrum of dietary nutrients.
>>Furthermore, the diets of some of the peoples in the regions that you
>>mention are additionally restricted in many of the essential nutrients such
>>as protein for example. So this confusion does not occur some people practicing
>>calorie restriction call it CRAN (calorie restriction with adequate nutrition)

>>and some even call it CRON (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition).

>>However, I think
>>the last is rather pretentious because no one currently even knows what is
>>optimal nutrition much less is able to achieve it.
>>With respect to calorie restriction, there really are no "loose ends".
>>
>>
>>>so, perhaps
>>>what's happening is that calorie-reduction induces an organism to
>>>range-more-widely with respect to what it will accept as 'food', and that
>>>it's such wide-ranging-ness that results in bringing micronutrients into
>>>a system that would've, otherwise, taken-the-easy-route with respect to
>>>'food'... just eat what's there-in-abundance, missing the micronutrients
>>>that're not-there, within the abundance.
>>>
>>
>>No. All calorie restriction experiments are done under controlled
>>conditions on
>>laboratory fed animals. No "ranging more widely" is possible.
>>
>>
>>>lab subjects, for instance, might ingest wood-shavings stuff, for
>>>instance,
>>>and there might be something in-there that is what makes the difference.
>>>
>>
>>Not likely, and they are not always housed with anything which is in any
>>manner
>>edible. The researchers are not so stupid not to have thought of such
>>things.
> 
>>
>>>i'm not saying that the ingestion of wood-shafvings stuff =is= what's
>>>happening.
>>>i just wanted to point out all the loose-ends stuff that needs to be
>>>controlled.
>>>
>>
>>That they have been controlled is proven by multiple repeated experiments.
>>
>>
>>>for instance, it's a virtual certainty that humans who choose to
>>>'restrict'
>>>calorie intake do not just restrict calorie intake. they simultaneously
>>>choose better foods, containing a wider range of nutrients.
>>>
>>
>>Not all of them, but they mainly do so in order to *maintain* their intake
>>of
>>all nutrients *except* calories. To the extent that they select even better
>>foods and nutrients they should get effects additive to simple CR.
>>
>>
>>--Tom Matthews
>>
>>MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
>>Reality based tools for More Life in quantity & quality
>>

Tom Matthews wrote in message <3D1E1329.5020502@morelife.org>...
>Please learn to respond "inline". That method is preferable because one can
>clearly see to what each of your responses is related, and is it also less
>possible for you to skip past some part of the previous response without
>addressing important points. Sometimes this may be unintentional and
innocent,
>but often it is deceitfully used as means of "escaping" a point that cannot
>effectively be answered.
>
>Kenneth Collins wrote:
>
>> admitting that i should've quoted what was said in the original post,
which
>> is what you said in your reply to my post, i stand on what i've posted.
>>
>> i've yet to see any experiment design that cannot be improved.
>
>
>Granted. But CR experiments have been done and redesigned for several
decades
>now. Many improvements have taken place during that time and many
deficiencies
>have been corrected.
>
>
>> it could be that something like the requirement for minimal-feeding has
the
>> 'inadvertant' effect of diminishing contamination relative to the
>> all-you-can-eat subjects' food-in-abundance that just sits-there,
absorbing
>> air-born pathogens, chemo and decay factors, etc. in the lab. anyone can
>> sense this possibility by just taking a wiff of the air in an animal lab.
>>
>> supplying minimal food, always from a relatively-fresh supply, =might=
have
>> an impact.
>>
>> it could be that there're nutrients in the food, which in small
>> concentrations, is 'good', but in larger concentrations, is 'bad'.
there're
>> many such substances. it could be that the minimal-feeding just 'hits the
>> mark' with respect to such substances.
>>
>> and it's a =certainty= that the relative-ease of being in an
all-you-can-eat
>> environment results in an artificially-imposed TD E/I-minimization
'state',
>
>
>It would help if you defined "TD E/I-minimization".

it's a long story. "TD E/I-minimization" is shorthand for "the minimizarion
of the topologically-distributed [relative] ratios of excitation to
inhibition. keying upon such allows nervous-system dynamics to be rigorously
correlated rigorously ]'mapped'] with respect to correlates in the external
environment, and simultaneously cross-correlated within the nervous system.
the underpinning rationale for such derives in the
physical-reality-permeating existence of the one-way flow of energy from
order to disorder that is what's described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T].

i've been discussing this stuff online going back 14 years, and usually
write for folks who've been following the discussion all along ['cringing'
on behalf of others as i write. i've got an old hypertext doc that outlines
the fundamentals, and which i send to folks who want it.. runs under
Windows. about 354k. expands to about a meg. about 114 singled-spaced 8.5 x
11 pages @ 10pt.]

>
>
>> and that this 'reverberates' throughout correlated nervous systems,
>> impacting all manner of neurally-mediated processes.
>>
>> artificially-imposed relative-ease 'dulls' everything else, including
>> immune-system function [which, itself constitutes a
nervous-system-mediated
>> form of 'cognition']. could be that the all-you-can-eat rats just die
from
>> 'boredom'.
>
>
>These are excellent points and are all possible. Whether some of them have
been
>looked at I don't know. Perhaps Michael Rae who is much more thoroughly
familiar
>with CR research could answer that question.
>However, the CR animals have multiple mechanistic differences with the ad
lib
>fed controls (of controls are *not* ad lib fed but are on 10% restriction
just
>so that over-feeding is not a factor) which could all contribute to the
>longevity effect. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that a gene
expression
>change takes place very quickly after CR is begun, long before some of the
>processes which you have mentioned above would be likely to have an effect.
>
>
>> it goes =on-and-on= like this.
>>
>> because of any individual nervous system's inherent tight-integration,
>> =every= such problem is tightly-coupled to everything else that's
going-on
>> in-there.
>
>
>Again, I agree. Unfortunately it is not possible to do fully "placebo" CR.
>Still the effect has been so robust that it is unlikely, IMO, that any
major
>extraneous factors are the reason for its existence.
>
>
>> there're loose-ends aplenty.
>
>
> From my reading, I don't agree. There are very few of any likely
significance,
>IMO. The major one, IMO, is the fact that all animals tested so far have
rather
>short lifespans and the mechanisms of the effect may already be so much
more
>optimized in a longer lived species such as humans, that CR will not
accomplish
>much additional longevity, even though it will still be a highly beneficial
>anti-morbidity/mortality agent (ie. it will likely extend the years of
robust
>health of those practicing it except for the ones who would have lived to a
very
>old age anyway).

from my perspective, it's just that i've not yet 'found the bottom', and
want to 'campaign' on behalf of the work that remains to be accomplished.

Cheers, Tom. over and out.

ken [k. p. collins]

>
>
>> it's the essence of Science to eliminate them, in all experiments [this,
>> too, is 'just' TD E/I-minimization].
>
>
>Again, I don't know what you mean by the last abbreviation.
>
>
>--Tom
>
>
>
>> Cheers, Tom, ken [k. p. collins]
>>
>> Tom Matthews wrote in message <3D1DE589.3020802@morelife.org>...
>>
>>>Kenneth Collins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>there are a lot of 'loose-ends' in what, i agree, is a general approach
>>>> that needs to be explored.
>>>>
>>>>the first thing that needs to be kept in mind is that simple
>>>>calorie-restriction doesn't prolong Life [Africa, North Korea],
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are confusing calorie restriction (restriction of calories *only*)
with
>>>dietary restriction (restriction of the end spectrum of dietary
nutrients.
>>>Furthermore, the diets of some of the peoples in the regions that you
>>>mention are additionally restricted in many of the essential nutrients
such
>>>as protein for example. So this confusion does not occur some people
practicing
>>>calorie restriction call it CRAN (calorie restriction with adequate
nutrition)
>
>>>and some even call it CRON (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition).
>
>>>However, I think
>>>the last is rather pretentious because no one currently even knows what
is
>>>optimal nutrition much less is able to achieve it.
>>>With respect to calorie restriction, there really are no "loose ends".
>>>
>>>
>>>>so, perhaps
>>>>what's happening is that calorie-reduction induces an organism to
>>>>range-more-widely with respect to what it will accept as 'food', and
that
>>>>it's such wide-ranging-ness that results in bringing micronutrients into
>>>>a system that would've, otherwise, taken-the-easy-route with respect to
>>>>'food'... just eat what's there-in-abundance, missing the micronutrients
>>>>that're not-there, within the abundance.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No. All calorie restriction experiments are done under controlled
>>>conditions on
>>>laboratory fed animals. No "ranging more widely" is possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>>lab subjects, for instance, might ingest wood-shavings stuff, for
>>>>instance,
>>>>and there might be something in-there that is what makes the difference.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not likely, and they are not always housed with anything which is in any
>>>manner
>>>edible. The researchers are not so stupid not to have thought of such
>>>things.
>>
>>>
>>>>i'm not saying that the ingestion of wood-shafvings stuff =is= what's
>>>>happening.
>>>>i just wanted to point out all the loose-ends stuff that needs to be
>>>>controlled.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That they have been controlled is proven by multiple repeated
experiments.
>>>
>>>
>>>>for instance, it's a virtual certainty that humans who choose to
>>>>'restrict'
>>>>calorie intake do not just restrict calorie intake. they simultaneously
>>>>choose better foods, containing a wider range of nutrients.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not all of them, but they mainly do so in order to *maintain* their
intake
>>>of
>>>all nutrients *except* calories. To the extent that they select even
better
>>>foods and nutrients they should get effects additive to simple CR.
>>>
>>>
>>>--Tom Matthews
>>>
>>>MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
>>>Reality based tools for More Life in quantity & quality
>>>
>

Kenneth Collins wrote:

> Tom Matthews wrote in message <3D1E1329.5020502@morelife.org>...
[snip]


>>It would help if you defined "TD E/I-minimization".
>>
> 
> it's a long story. "TD E/I-minimization" is shorthand for "the minimizarion
> of the topologically-distributed [relative] ratios of excitation to
> inhibition. keying upon such allows nervous-system dynamics to be rigorously
> correlated rigorously ]'mapped'] with respect to correlates in the external
> environment, and simultaneously cross-correlated within the nervous system.
> the underpinning rationale for such derives in the
> physical-reality-permeating existence of the one-way flow of energy from
> order to disorder that is what's described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T].
> 
> i've been discussing this stuff online going back 14 years, and usually
> write for folks who've been following the discussion all along ['cringing'
> on behalf of others as i write. i've got an old hypertext doc that outlines
> the fundamentals, and which i send to folks who want it.. runs under
> Windows. about 354k. expands to about a meg. about 114 singled-spaced 8.5 x
> 11 pages @ 10pt.]


Ok, I get the general concept. However, as an ex-math professor I take exception 
to your use of the word "topologically". Topological refers purely to 
connectedness and all that can be said of humans is that they are topologically 
equivalent to three wholled donuts.


[snip]



>>>there're loose-ends aplenty.
>>>
>>
>>From my reading, I don't agree. There are very few of any likely
>>significance, IMO. The major one, IMO, is the fact that all animals

>>tested so far have rather
>>short lifespans and the mechanisms of the effect may already be so much
>>more optimized in a longer lived species such as humans, that CR will not
>>accomplish
>>much additional longevity, even though it will still be a highly beneficial
>>anti-morbidity/mortality agent (ie. it will likely extend the years of
>>robust health of those practicing it except for the ones who would have

>>lived to a very old age anyway).
>>
> 
> from my perspective, it's just that i've not yet 'found the bottom', and
> want to 'campaign' on behalf of the work that remains to be accomplished.


Again to me, it is not clear what you mean by the above.


Are you saying that you think there is still plenty of longevity yet to be 
accomplished by life style changes currently available? And that is why you do 
not personally want to push for more (high tech) methods to become available?


--Tom Matthews

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for More Life in quantity & quality

Tom Matthews wrote in message <3D1EFCF7.2050105@morelife.org>...
>Kenneth Collins wrote:
>
>> Tom Matthews wrote in message <3D1E1329.5020502@morelife.org>...
>[snip]
>
>
>>>It would help if you defined "TD E/I-minimization".
>>>
>>
>> it's a long story. "TD E/I-minimization" is shorthand for "the
minimizarion
>> of the topologically-distributed [relative] ratios of excitation to
>> inhibition. keying upon such allows nervous-system dynamics to be
rigorously
>> correlated rigorously ]'mapped'] with respect to correlates in the
external
>> environment, and simultaneously cross-correlated within the nervous
system.
>> the underpinning rationale for such derives in the
>> physical-reality-permeating existence of the one-way flow of energy from
>> order to disorder that is what's described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T].
>>
>> i've been discussing this stuff online going back 14 years, and usually
>> write for folks who've been following the discussion all along
['cringing'
>> on behalf of others as i write. i've got an old hypertext doc that
outlines
>> the fundamentals, and which i send to folks who want it.. runs under
>> Windows. about 354k. expands to about a meg. about 114 singled-spaced 8.5
x
>> 11 pages @ 10pt.]
>
>
>Ok, I get the general concept. However, as an ex-math professor I take
exception
>to your use of the word "topologically". Topological refers purely to
>connectedness and all that can be said of humans is that they are
topologically
>equivalent to three wholled donuts.

nervous systems are all about the Topology [fancy Geometry] of
connectedness. it's this Topology that Determines energy-flow within nervous
systems. the Topology is initialized via evolutionary dynamics, and
continually modified vai experience. the neural Topology aligns energy-flow
within the 'internal enfironment' so that it occurs 'in-register' with
energy-flow within the experiential-external-environment.

it's because of this [neural] Toploogy that we are able to 'know' how and
why to behave with respect to this or that environmental circumstance.

it is Topology, in an awesomely-pure, extraordinarily-functional, form. it's
power derives in it's dynamic-integration of energy-flow gradients, all
while maintaining [ideally] rigorous 'mapping' with respect to
external-environment correlates. all other Maths is 'only' a
interface-facilitation transformation of the neural Topology.

nervous systems are Topologists' Playgrounds.

all Maths is Topology :-)

the fundamentals of how it's so are what's discussed in the hypertext doc
[AoK]. the main thing i'm doing is teaching this Topology in order to work
toward the elimination of a 'flaw' that's been imposed upon the functioning
of the neural Topology during the course of the haphazard accumulation of
'knowledge' that is what's been referred to as "human nature".

why? because what's been referred to as "human nature" is not Human Nature,
but a bastardization of Human Nature in which Ignorance comingles within the
neural Topology.

Human Nature is the neural Topology sans Ignorance.

it's the Ignorance that Kills, etc., not anything Innate within the neural
Topology [Human Nature].

remove the Ignorance, stop the Killing, etc.

worth doing, right?

yes.

makes more sence than trying to eliminate the Killing through more-Killing,
no?

yes.

that's why i do what i do :-)

it's all very straight-forward at a chaulkboard. but, every time i ask to
borrow folks' chaulkboards, folks take their chaulk, and won't play with me.

so, i go on and on, online, 'painting the Topology' via this sort of
needlessly cumbersom verbal-interface transformation, Hoping to make a Gift
of it's stuff, even to those who won't share their chaulk.

[and i write like this because doing so allows me to cope with how much it
all 'hurts'. you know, "smile though your heart is breaking" stuff.]

>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>>>>there're loose-ends aplenty.
>>>>
>>>
>>>From my reading, I don't agree. There are very few of any likely
>>>significance, IMO. The major one, IMO, is the fact that all animals
>
>>>tested so far have rather
>>>short lifespans and the mechanisms of the effect may already be so much
>>>more optimized in a longer lived species such as humans, that CR will not
>>>accomplish
>>>much additional longevity, even though it will still be a highly
beneficial
>>>anti-morbidity/mortality agent (ie. it will likely extend the years of
>>>robust health of those practicing it except for the ones who would have
>
>>>lived to a very old age anyway).
>>>
>>
>> from my perspective, it's just that i've not yet 'found the bottom', and
>> want to 'campaign' on behalf of the work that remains to be accomplished.
>
>
>Again to me, it is not clear what you mean by the above.
>
>
>Are you saying that you think there is still plenty of longevity yet to be
>accomplished by life style changes currently available? And that is why you
do
>not personally want to push for more (high tech) methods to become
available?

in the statement to which you refer, i wasn't addressing anything in
particular. i was just reiterating the fact that i've never encountered any
experimental design that cannot be improved, and adding that i've never come
across anything that there's an end to such possible improvement [except, as
far as i can see, WDB2T.]

cheers, Tom, ken [k. p. collins]

>[...]

Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>[...]
>nervous systems are all about the Topology [fancy Geometry] of
>connectedness. it's this Topology that Determines energy-flow within
nervous
>systems. the Topology is initialized via evolutionary dynamics, and
>continually modified vai experience. the neural Topology aligns energy-flow
>within the 'internal enfironment' so that it occurs 'in-register' with
>energy-flow within the experiential-external-environment.
>
>it's because of this [neural] Toploogy that we are able to 'know' how and
>why to behave with respect to this or that environmental circumstance.
>
>it is Topology, in an awesomely-pure, extraordinarily-functional, form.
it's
>power derives in it's dynamic-integration of energy-flow gradients, all
>while maintaining [ideally] rigorous 'mapping' with respect to
>external-environment correlates. all other Maths is 'only' a
>interface-facilitation transformation of the neural Topology.
>
>nervous systems are Topologists' Playgrounds.
>
>all Maths is Topology :-)

this's the Why underpinning the oft-repeated observation that physical
reality seems to be inherently 'Mathematical'.

but this speculation is False.

physical reality is inherently all energy-flowing-ness.

the 'Maths' comes into it because energy-flowing-ness lends itself to
Mathematical description and Analysis.

but physical reality isn't the 'Maths'.

the 'Maths' is 'just' interface-facilitation stuff that 'bridges', during
this or that attempted communication, between the internal environment's
energy-flow dynamics and the experiential external environment's energy-flow
dynamics.

it's the existence of the neural Topology that that makes all of this
possible, but it, too, reduces to energy-flowing-ness.

energy-flowing-ness is the Stuff of physical reality.

the neural Topology is 'just' more energy-flowing-ness.

physical reality is not the 'Maths', and especially not the
interface-facilitation kind of 'Maths'.

getting such straight is Important because, failing that, the 'Maths' is one
of the things that imbues the 'blind'-automation with its physically-real
existence. some of the stuff comprising 'the beast', Abstract Ignorance [the
absence of understanding of how and why nervous systems process information
via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization within nervous systems that,
nevertheless, process information via 'blindly'-automated TD
E/I-minimization.]

more 'Difficult' stuff.

i mean no 'offense'.

i mean just-the-opposite Stuff.

k. p. collins

>[...]

Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>>[...]
>but physical reality isn't the 'Maths'.

boy, i =was= 'tired' :-)

what i was talking about has to do with the way that this or that Maths
description seems, now or then, to 'coincide' with physical reality. but,
when additional information is gathered, it's seen that some other Maths,
'coincides' with physical reality.

example: Ptolemaic Earth-centered planetary view-->Copernican Sun-centered
planetary view.

when one looks, one usually can discern a convergence within succeeding
generations of Maths that 'coincide' with physical reality.

the 'point' that i was discussing in the prior msg is that this convergence
in the Maths 'worldview' is heading right for WDB2T which is what
evolutionary dynamics 'figured-out' eons ago, and constructed nervous
systems around.

nervous systems do =all= Calculation relative to WDB2T [obtain 'values' in
terms of relative coincidence with WDB2T]. all of the neural Topology is
[ideally] minimally-aligned with WDB2T. to the degree that there're False
Finitizatons in the mix, the neural Topology remains aligned with WDB2T, but
non-minimally. degree of alignment with WDB2T determines the
information-processing 'power' of a nervous system.

non-minimal alignment with WDB2T is a TD E/I(up) condition, and requires
more information-processing Work than is required in the minamally-aligned
case, which lengthens problem-solving 'time'-courses, has less 'waggle-room'
relative to the volitional diminishing-returns decision threshold [AoK,
Ap7], more of the work done goes to waste.

can 'you' see, in the above, why it is that experience matters?

a nervous system can do X information-processing work, but, if a nervous
system is relatively-misaligned with WDB2T, commensurately-more of that
nervous system's work goes to waste.

WDB2T 'maps' Truth within physical reality.

this's why nervous systems are 'engineered' around WDB2T.

to the degree that it converges-upon such, interface-facilitation Maths
coincides with physical reality.

to the degree that it diverges from such, relative to physical reality, the
interface-facilitation Maths is 'just' an arbitrary descriptive 'language'
that has usefulness to the degree that both the 'language' and its
correlated experience are simultaneously shared'.

Big-Difference.

Maths applied to physical reality can be Verified through its coincidence
with WDB2T.

this's Tapered Harmony's position 'in a nutshell'.

this's =all= of Science.

using the WDB2T approach requires 'back-tracking' within 'traditional'
approaches to physical reality, fixing Errors, and rewriting, but, then,
allows progress that was, formerly. 'Impossible'.

does this make things clearer [easier to comprehend]?

if not, why not try to 'break' these few simple 'rules' by trying to state
any 'contradiction' from within all of physical reality?

Formal-Challenge.

k. p. collins

Happy Independence Day, 2002, America!

k. p. collins

Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>>Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>>>[...]
>>but physical reality isn't the 'Maths'.
>
>boy, i =was= 'tired' :-)
>
>what i was talking about has to do with the way that this or that Maths
>description seems, now or then, to 'coincide' with physical reality. but,
>when additional information is gathered, it's seen that some other Maths,
>'coincides' with physical reality.
>
>example: Ptolemaic Earth-centered planetary view-->Copernican Sun-centered
>planetary view.
>
>when one looks, one usually can discern a convergence within succeeding
>generations of Maths that 'coincide' with physical reality.
>
>the 'point' that i was discussing in the prior msg is that this convergence
>in the Maths 'worldview' is heading right for WDB2T which is what
>evolutionary dynamics 'figured-out' eons ago, and constructed nervous
>systems around.
>
>nervous systems do =all= Calculation relative to WDB2T [obtain 'values' in
>terms of relative coincidence with WDB2T]. all of the neural Topology is
>[ideally] minimally-aligned with WDB2T. to the degree that there're False
>Finitizatons in the mix, the neural Topology remains aligned with WDB2T,
but
>non-minimally. degree of alignment with WDB2T determines the
>information-processing 'power' of a nervous system.
>
>non-minimal alignment with WDB2T is a TD E/I(up) condition, and requires
>more information-processing Work than is required in the minamally-aligned
>case, which lengthens problem-solving 'time'-courses, has less
'waggle-room'
>relative to the volitional diminishing-returns decision threshold [AoK,
>Ap7], more of the work done goes to waste.
>
>can 'you' see, in the above, why it is that experience matters?
>
>a nervous system can do X information-processing work, but, if a nervous
>system is relatively-misaligned with WDB2T, commensurately-more of that
>nervous system's work goes to waste.
>
>WDB2T 'maps' Truth within physical reality.
>
>this's why nervous systems are 'engineered' around WDB2T.
>
>to the degree that it converges-upon such, interface-facilitation Maths
>coincides with physical reality.
>
>to the degree that it diverges from such, relative to physical reality, the
>interface-facilitation Maths is 'just' an arbitrary descriptive 'language'
>that has usefulness to the degree that both the 'language' and its
>correlated experience are simultaneously shared'.
>
>Big-Difference.
>
>Maths applied to physical reality can be Verified through its coincidence
>with WDB2T.
>
>this's Tapered Harmony's position 'in a nutshell'.
>
>this's =all= of Science.
>
>using the WDB2T approach requires 'back-tracking' within 'traditional'
>approaches to physical reality, fixing Errors, and rewriting, but, then,
>allows progress that was, formerly. 'Impossible'.
>
>does this make things clearer [easier to comprehend]?
>
>if not, why not try to 'break' these few simple 'rules' by trying to state
>any 'contradiction' from within all of physical reality?
>
>Formal-Challenge.
>
>k. p. collins
>
>

further comments below.

Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>>Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>>>[...]
>>but physical reality isn't the 'Maths'.
>
>boy, i =was= 'tired' :-)
>
>what i was talking about has to do with the way that this or that Maths
>description seems, now or then, to 'coincide' with physical reality. but,
>when additional information is gathered, it's seen that some other Maths,
>'coincides' with physical reality.
>
>example: Ptolemaic Earth-centered planetary view-->Copernican Sun-centered
>planetary view.
>
>when one looks, one usually can discern a convergence within succeeding
>generations of Maths that 'coincide' with physical reality.
>
>the 'point' that i was discussing in the prior msg is that this convergence
>in the Maths 'worldview' is heading right for WDB2T which is what
>evolutionary dynamics 'figured-out' eons ago, and constructed nervous
>systems around.
>
>nervous systems do =all= Calculation relative to WDB2T [obtain 'values' in
>terms of relative coincidence with WDB2T]. all of the neural Topology is
>[ideally] minimally-aligned with WDB2T. to the degree that there're False
>Finitizatons in the mix, the neural Topology remains aligned with WDB2T,
but
>non-minimally. degree of alignment with WDB2T determines the
>information-processing 'power' of a nervous system.
>
>non-minimal alignment with WDB2T is a TD E/I(up) condition, and requires
>more information-processing Work than is required in the minamally-aligned
>case, which lengthens problem-solving 'time'-courses, has less
'waggle-room'
>relative to the volitional diminishing-returns decision threshold [AoK,
>Ap7], more of the work done goes to waste.
>
>can 'you' see, in the above, why it is that experience matters?
>
>a nervous system can do X information-processing work, but, if a nervous
>system is relatively-misaligned with WDB2T, commensurately-more of that
>nervous system's work goes to waste.
>
>WDB2T 'maps' Truth within physical reality.
>
>this's why nervous systems are 'engineered' around WDB2T.
>
>to the degree that it converges-upon such, interface-facilitation Maths
>coincides with physical reality.

look and see, this's exactly what's in numerical implementations of the
Calculus. when the 'slices' into which the problem-stuff is divided are
relatively-large, the technique yields commensurately-inaccurate results.
there's 'waste' in-there. but as the 'slices' of the problem-stuff become
smaller and smaller, the 'waste' becomes commensurately-smaller, and the
solution approaches exactness more and more.

this's 'just' a 'climbing' of the WDB2T gradient toward 'zero-waste'; toward
exactness.

it's be-cause of this 'co-incidence' with WDB2T that the Calculus works so
well with respect to physical reality. [of course, "garbage in, garbage out"
applies. the data that're operated-upon within the Calculus must, itself,
accurately reflect physical reality. this's the 'point' at which traditional
applications of the Calculus have broken-down... erroneous assumptions force
the data to diverge from WDB2T, so the Calculus cannot co-incide with WDB2T,
and yield, commensurately-inaccurate 'results'.

>
>to the degree that it diverges from such, relative to physical reality, the
>interface-facilitation Maths is 'just' an arbitrary descriptive 'language'
>that has usefulness to the degree that both the 'language' and its
>correlated experience are simultaneously shared'.
>
>Big-Difference.
>
>Maths applied to physical reality can be Verified through its coincidence
>with WDB2T.

and mis-takes in 'organizing' data operated-upon via this or that Maths can
be Recognized in their correlated divergence from WDB2T.

which is what Information Calculus [AoK, Ap6] does [or, at least, =can= do.
whether or not it does depends upon the scope of the data operated upon
within the Information Calculus technique. [i. e., artificially-delimited
data [from within artificially-'narrow' 'boundaries'] yield divergent
'solutions.], which is what's discussed in AoK, Ap7. raising the "volitional
diminishing-returns decision" threshold corresponds to a 'broadening' of the
data that're operated-upon via Information Calculus. [all of AoK can be read
as a strictly-Maths paper [in a way analogous to this example]].

k. p. collins

>
>this's Tapered Harmony's position 'in a nutshell'.
>
>this's =all= of Science.
>
>using the WDB2T approach requires 'back-tracking' within 'traditional'
>approaches to physical reality, fixing Errors, and rewriting, but, then,
>allows progress that was, formerly. 'Impossible'.
>
>does this make things clearer [easier to comprehend]?
>
>if not, why not try to 'break' these few simple 'rules' by trying to state
>any 'contradiction' from within all of physical reality?
>
>Formal-Challenge.
>
>k. p. collins
>
>

I realise that you take any kind of criticism of your posts as
evidence of a government or other conspiracy against you revealing the
true nature of reality and the self but I would like to know if you
have any evidence at all for your ideas.  You seem to broadly put
every aspect of human behviour under the scope of "TD E/I
minimization" without actually explaining what that is (properly
explaining, your oft used definition does not actually make sense e.g.
relative ratios (what other type is there?)).  At the limit of
minimizing excitation, surely there would be no activity at all?  what
happens then?  how is "topologically distributed" any different from
just "distributed"?

Furthermore, your affected writing style  (hyphenating (e.g. be-cause,
you are not the first to realise how some words are derived),
capitalising mid-sentence and enclosing every other word in
apostrophies) is rather grating, as is your melodramatic tone:- you
may well recieve more replies if you wrote like everyone else.

want a copy of the hypertext doc?

all your Qs are answered in it [and the refs. cited in AoK].

as for the way i write, it keeps me alive, so i do-it. [but there's also a
bit more than is immediately-apparent in-it.]

k. p. collins

mat wrote in message <43525ce3.0207050306.296bde03@posting.google.com>...
>I realise that you take any kind of criticism of your posts as
>evidence of a government or other conspiracy against you revealing the
>true nature of reality and the self but I would like to know if you
>have any evidence at all for your ideas.  You seem to broadly put
>every aspect of human behviour under the scope of "TD E/I
>minimization" without actually explaining what that is (properly
>explaining, your oft used definition does not actually make sense e.g.
>relative ratios (what other type is there?)).  At the limit of
>minimizing excitation, surely there would be no activity at all?  what
>happens then?  how is "topologically distributed" any different from
>just "distributed"?
>
>Furthermore, your affected writing style  (hyphenating (e.g. be-cause,
>you are not the first to realise how some words are derived),
>capitalising mid-sentence and enclosing every other word in
>apostrophies) is rather grating, as is your melodramatic tone:- you
>may well recieve more replies if you wrote like everyone else.