🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <67ab52c2.0301071558.7e44fc36@posting.google.com>,
UKComplaint <ukcomplaint@lycos.com> wrote:
>Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that the
>components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
>probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a multitude of
>possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
>
>Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
>quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?

A neuron, the fundamental unit of the brain, is large enough that it is a
thermodynamic system.  It will fire deterministically when the
concentration versus space and time of stimulating minus inhibiting
neurotransmitters is high enough.

>
>N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference on
>Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
>University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence suggests
>quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
>function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology are
>becoming more and more apparent."

Maybe they know something I don't.  And maybe the only reason CSICOP isn't 
going nuts debunking them is because it's the sort of materialist view 
they like to see.  I don't really know.


-- 
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena.  This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.

On 7 Jan 2003 15:58:32 -0800, ukcomplaint@lycos.com (UKComplaint)
wrote:

>Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that the
>components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
>probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a multitude of
>possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
>
>Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
>quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?
>
>N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference on
>Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
>University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence suggests
>quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
>function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology are
>becoming more and more apparent."

Physicists do like to theorize quantum events as being responsible for
mysterious neural events.  Certainly quantum theory is necessary to
understand chemical bonding, electron excitation, etc.  However,
membrane proteins are rather massive objects and the energy of binding
of ligand to receptor or to the movement of a single ion across the
membrane are rather large compared with quantal fluctuations.

Planck's constant is 7 x 10 ^^-34 J s.  That corresponds to
about 10^^-13 kcal sec/mol (compare with reactions measured
in kcal/mol) or to 4 x 10^^-15 eV s (compare with one ion moving
across the membrane at 0.1 eV).  Of course you have to account for
event duration or frequency to make the units comparable, but still
most neural activity really does occur at the macroscopic, classical
level.

There is no need to search for quantal activity to understand what we
really do observe in the brain.  Yes, there are still a lot of things
we don't understand about brain activity, but most neurobiologists
seem to think that this does not seem to be a fruitful direction to
look, Penrose and microtubules notwithstanding.

"Richard S. Norman" wrote:

> On 7 Jan 2003 15:58:32 -0800, ukcomplaint@lycos.com (UKComplaint)
> wrote:
>
> >Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that the
> >components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
> >probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a multitude of
> >possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
> >
> >Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
> >quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?
> >
> >N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference on
> >Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
> >University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence suggests
> >quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
> >function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology are
> >becoming more and more apparent."

[snip, had to try and snip something and its still too long]

> Planck's constant is 7 x 10 ^^-34 J s.  That corresponds to
> about 10^^-13 kcal sec/mol (compare with reactions measured
> in kcal/mol) or to 4 x 10^^-15 eV s (compare with one ion moving
> across the membrane at 0.1 eV).  Of course you have to account for
> event duration or frequency to make the units comparable, but still
> most neural activity really does occur at the macroscopic, classical
> level.

Dale Trynor wrote:
I hope I am forgiven here for making up terminology as needed. I am also
probably out of date and risk having re inventing the weal. Assuming that
such a field as soul mechanics becomes a reality, how could one explain a
phenomenon with no energy of its own also having the ability to influence
the working of a mind that requires energy for decision making. Its also
to be remembered that much of the mind works fine perfectly deterministic,
after all we prefer that our vision reflects what we see and not what we
dream up. However anything that requires a free choice is quite a
different mater and must have cells that have this random property to
them.

I have long come to the conclusion that chaos may be essential,  For
example if one has 3 outputs randomly selected then no energy becomes
required in making it become selective. In this way any soul quanta could
become a chaotic attractor and so influence outcomes without the
requirement for an energy source. This is the very thing that computers
are not good at.
I risk sounding even more stooped than I am, but what are the chances that
the same chaotic flapping of the wings of a chicken when its head is
chopped off might also be based on a similar type of chaos as is also
essential to the function of a mind.

>
>
> There is no need to search for quantal activity to understand what we
> really do observe in the brain.  Yes, there are still a lot of things
> we don't understand about brain activity, but most neurobiologists
> seem to think that this does not seem to be a fruitful direction to
> look, Penrose and microtubules notwithstanding.

I believe that in time, what I have taken liberty to call soul mechanics
will be shown to have similarities to quantum mechanics but that
similarities do not necessarily require them to be the same thing. Some
time ago I did some posts looking at the idea of a stereo lithographic
method of recreating a mind as it would allow one to recreate one while
only being required to understand how the individual cells worked.
Potentially a big subject, especially if one dares to consider wanting to
examine many of the possibilities on how to do this, so I will restrain
myself here. Such a method would eliminate the requirement of
understanding how it was wired. One of the possible outcomes of such
research would be where one could recreate a mind with a vastly larger
scale that's also better for study and is easier to re create. Obviously
if the mind is dependent on quantum theory as believed then such changes
in scale would render it unable to operate while ones that were done to
scale would work.

I would not be surprised if soul quanta's are used by the brain as a
communications medium of its own. I would also not be surprised if such
peculiar possibilities as one being able to measure its volume but not its
center and or its center but not its volume as in a similar related
Heisenberg uncertainty type of thing yet to be discovered.

Perhaps one of the more interesting arguments for the complexity of the
human mind being the most complex organ its to be noted the fantastically
meager amount of genetic code to create one puts this into question.
For example the human genome is about 3 billion base units but only 3% can
be clamed to do anything reducing to 90 million. Of this only I believe it
was 25% of this remainder is used to create the brain reduces this again
to 22.5 million. Converting the for base units so they can be expressed in
binary and you need 2 bits each that can be used to address the 4 base
units. Because a byte is 8 bits rather than just the 2 we can reduce the
22.5 million to equal about 6 megabytes when in its binary equivalent. Yes
that's right I have had printer drivers have been about that large.

If I have missed any new terminology's I am not surprised its been a few
years sense I have read up on this. Besides I will bet its been covered in
information theory and I simply was unaware of it all and in that case
please will someone help inform me. But if not, it seams appropriate to
differentiate such things as adapted complexity, fundamental complexity,
repetitive complexity and etceteras when describing the complexity of the
mind, as I have illustrated by the one example above. So has anything been
done along these lines?. It could prove that even a parrots brain may
match a humans in something I suppose you could call origin or DNA source
complexity. Any opinions or information on this.
www.alternatescience.com

Richard S. Norman wrote in message ...
|On 7 Jan 2003 15:58:32 -0800, ukcomplaint@lycos.com (UKComplaint)
|wrote:
|
|>Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that
the
|>components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
|>probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a multitude
of
|>possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
|>
|>Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
|>quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?
|>
|>N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference on
|>Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
|>University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence suggests
|>quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
|>function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology are
|>becoming more and more apparent."
|
|Physicists do like to theorize quantum events as being responsible
for
|mysterious neural events.  Certainly quantum theory is necessary to
|understand chemical bonding, electron excitation, etc.  However,
|membrane proteins are rather massive objects and the energy of
binding
|of ligand to receptor or to the movement of a single ion across the
|membrane are rather large compared with quantal fluctuations.
|
|Planck's constant is 7 x 10 ^^-34 J s.  That corresponds to
|about 10^^-13 kcal sec/mol (compare with reactions measured
|in kcal/mol) or to 4 x 10^^-15 eV s (compare with one ion moving
|across the membrane at 0.1 eV).  Of course you have to account for
|event duration or frequency to make the units comparable, but still
|most neural activity really does occur at the macroscopic, classical
|level.
|
|There is no need to search for quantal activity to understand what
we
|really do observe in the brain.  Yes, there are still a lot of
things
|we don't understand about brain activity, but most neurobiologists
|seem to think that this does not seem to be a fruitful direction to
|look, Penrose and microtubules notwithstanding.

I agree with you Dr. Norman.

While developing Tapered Harmony, I realized 'qm' is so in such a
tortuously-twisted interpretation of experimental results - that I,
came to view what underpins its existence as a deliberate effort to
obfuscate physical reality - 'qm' 'had to be' established as an
effort to 'prevent' the proliferation of so-called 'nuclear' weapons.
'qm' makes no sense in any other way, and I've come to view efforts
to apply 'qm' to Neuroscience in the same way. It's so far from Truth
that it can only become 'rationalized' as an effort to prevent folks
from comprehending nervous system function [on the parts of folks
who're 'afraid' of folks in general comprehending nervous system
function.

It's hard for me to attribute intelligence to 'qm' in any other way,
and I'm thoroughly-determined to not allow applications of 'qm' in
Neuroscience to gain any credibility - Humanity is 'finished' if
so-called 'uncertainty' and the rest of 'quantum weirdness' ever gain
a toehold in Neuroscience.

I've asked to be allowed to address folks in AZ, but have never heard
back.

But I've [last fall] finally closed all doors to 'qm', and have begun
taking it to the community Physicists.

[If anyone 'wonders', it's why I'm so 'pissed-off' these days. Just
when I thought my travails because of NDT were winding down - that
I'd endured all of the hard stuff there was to endure - I realized I
had to hurry-up and go through the same stuff on behalf of Tapered
Harmony - and I've not yet been able to find any 'gracefulness'
within myself with respect to such - I =HATE= having to do it, yet
again, especially since I'd dared to think that there might be some
small hope of giving myself over to Love. [Please forgive this [and
all my other 'asides'] if I don't let the aching out I won't be able
to do what I have to do.]

ken [k. p. collins]

ukcomplaint@lycos.com (UKComplaint) wrote in message news:<67ab52c2.0301071558.7e44fc36@posting.google.com>...
> Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that the
> components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
> probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a multitude of
> possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
> 
> Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
> quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?
> 
> N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference on
> Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
> University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence suggests
> quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
> function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology are
> becoming more and more apparent."

Interesting news.

I look forward to reading your reports on the evidence supporting such
innovative speculation.

This is of course in total conflict with my personal theory of neural
cognition, which holds that the brain is an amorphous mass of tissue
that forms the host matrix for an ever growing and branching network
of neurons constituting what is conceptually a dynamic 4-D database
ROM having implicit fuzzy logic recall resolution capabilities. Hence,
I have no need to invoke quantum effects at all with my model.

My preliminary experimentation with bovine brains has, thus far, not
refuted my theoretical model.  I'd call that half-way to a proof,
wouldn't you?

My next step will be to electrically stimulate the brain, and observe
that the reponse correlates with by theoretical premise. Unfortunatly,
progress in this specific research has been problematic, since the
brain tissue has not responded as predicted.  I'm currently trying to
isolate the nature of this temporary roadblock, but in all honesty my
progress here has been discouragingly slow.

I believe that the problem is due to the extremely low temperature to
which the brain tissue has been exposed, but the butcher shop from
which I obtain my specimens has not been fully cooperative, insisting
that all unpreserved animal products must be refrigerated. Fools!

In an attempt to change my experimental protocol in midstream, bad
scientific practice I know, I'm now attempting to obtain fresh,
unrefrigerated human brain tissue, however, I've found that every
pathologist and mortician that I've contacted so far is unsympathetic
to my needs.  The bastards!

Given that my work requires fresh brains, it appears that my only
option is to become a criminal, obtaining them in situ.  What else can
a reasonable person do?   :-)

                                                    Harry C.



 

 

  

                                                     Harry C.

UKComplaint wrote:

> Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that the
> components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
> probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a multitude of
> possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
>
> Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
> quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?
>
> N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference on
> Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
> University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence suggests
> quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
> function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology are
> becoming more and more apparent."

Quantum mechanics is a theory to define the physics of
the observed world. And it has not been tested as a
theory applying to the brain and minds of the human.

A conjecture of its capacity to define the human brain
functions is certainly possible, except a method to
prove the postulate must also be given.

I like to think that at least the optic nerve can be
studied in a quantum mechaincal theory, but I have
no hope for testing the theory, on my cause to be
a living being.

The aspect of the conciousness often identified
with quantum mechanics is another subject.
The topic of applied forms of thinking and logics
representing knowledges is likey to explain
a necessary QM theory logic similair to a knowledge's
logic.

And then the last question would be in a philosophy sense,
the ability for the thinking mind to define itself. And
things like religious necessity and the cause for any discovery
of a knowledge, indicate no capacity to observe
a thinkers cause to exist  with the same truth used in
ordinary discovery.

Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA

"Harry Conover" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.0301072051.63a0c5e7@posting.google.com...
> ukcomplaint@lycos.com (UKComplaint) wrote in message

[...]

>
> Given that my work requires fresh brains, it appears that my only
> option is to become a criminal, obtaining them in situ.  What else
can
> a reasonable person do?   :-)


Buy it at the butcher and eat it.  It makes a truly delicious toasted
sandwich.
{:-))

Franz Heymann

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote in message ...
|
|Richard S. Norman wrote in message ...
||On 7 Jan 2003 15:58:32 -0800, ukcomplaint@lycos.com (UKComplaint)
||wrote:
||
||>Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that
|the
||>components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
||>probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a multitude
|of
||>possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
||>
||>Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
||>quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?
||>
||>N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference on
||>Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
||>University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence
suggests
||>quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
||>function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology
are
||>becoming more and more apparent."
||
||Physicists do like to theorize quantum events as being responsible
|for
||mysterious neural events.  Certainly quantum theory is necessary to
||understand chemical bonding, electron excitation, etc.  However,
||membrane proteins are rather massive objects and the energy of
|binding
||of ligand to receptor or to the movement of a single ion across the
||membrane are rather large compared with quantal fluctuations.
||
||Planck's constant is 7 x 10 ^^-34 J s.  That corresponds to
||about 10^^-13 kcal sec/mol (compare with reactions measured
||in kcal/mol) or to 4 x 10^^-15 eV s (compare with one ion moving
||across the membrane at 0.1 eV).  Of course you have to account for
||event duration or frequency to make the units comparable, but still
||most neural activity really does occur at the macroscopic,
classical
||level.
||
||There is no need to search for quantal activity to understand what
|we
||really do observe in the brain.  Yes, there are still a lot of
|things
||we don't understand about brain activity, but most neurobiologists
||seem to think that this does not seem to be a fruitful direction to
||look, Penrose and microtubules notwithstanding.
|
|I agree with you Dr. Norman.
|
|While developing Tapered Harmony, I realized 'qm' is so in such a
|tortuously-twisted interpretation of experimental results - that I,
|came to view what underpins its existence as a deliberate effort to
|obfuscate physical reality - 'qm' 'had to be' established as an
|effort to 'prevent' the proliferation of so-called 'nuclear'
weapons.
|'qm' makes no sense in any other way, and I've come to view efforts
|to apply 'qm' to Neuroscience in the same way. It's so far from
Truth
|that it can only become 'rationalized' as an effort to prevent folks
|from comprehending nervous system function [on the parts of folks
|who're 'afraid' of folks in general comprehending nervous system
|function.
|
|It's hard for me to attribute intelligence to 'qm' in any other way,
|and I'm thoroughly-determined to not allow applications of 'qm' in
|Neuroscience to gain any credibility - Humanity is 'finished' if
|so-called 'uncertainty' and the rest of 'quantum weirdness' ever
gain
|a toehold in Neuroscience.

Note well: I'm =not= saying that there are not cumulative
'atomic-level' effects. If folks see my recent discussion of Tapered
Harmony, folks'll see that it is not only my position that there are
such cumulative 'atomic-level' effects, but that these 'atomic-level'
effects are tunable.

If folks look thye'll see that I discussed the same stuff in long
former msgs with respect to ionic-flow, ionic conductances, and the
continuous, cumulative effects of dynamic [ionic] 'charge'
distribution.

It's 'just' that there's absolutely zero so-called 'probabilistic'
stuff in-there.

Yes, of course, resort to a statistics is often a usefully-practical
course through which to approach discussion, and through which to
converge upon understanding. I'm not saying that there exists no such
usefulness.

I'm saying that a stitistical discussion does not, somehow, imbue the
underlying physical dynamics with a 'probabilistic' nature.

In my experience, any and all of that which has the appearance of
'being probabilistic' within nervous system function derives in
macroscopic-'level' knowledge insufficiency. When knowledge is
insufficient, to the degree of such insufficiency, nervous system
dynamics converge in commensurately-generalized ways - ways in which
the individual energydynamic 'impacts' of 'scraps' of experience are
'summed', and acted upon by the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms
[that're outlined in AoK], to yield 'momentary' least-TD E/I
activation 'state' in which the various contributions of the
'individual' experiential 'scraps' are represented in ways that're
commensurate with the TD E/I that became correlated to them when they
were, themselves, each in their own 'time', the object of supersystem
TD E/I minimization. [As is discussed in AoK, Ap5 & Ap7, such
'typically' occurs at the prodding of the reward 'servo' mechanisms,
in dynamics where the nervous system attends to that which is
relatively-novel [experiences relatively-small TD E/I(up)] in order
to garner the correlated 'reward', with the result being that TD
E/I-minimization comes to be tuned with specific respect to the
relatively-novel stuff, until, as is discussed in AoK, Ap5, the stuff
becomes so TD E/I-minimized that it has been 'learned' [what has been
referred to as 'learning' is 'just' a correlate of supersystem TD
E/I-minimization - a generalized, experientially-relevant, way of
addressing the dynamics of TD E/I-minimization during common
language-interface information exchange [during 'conversation' :-]

But the only 'chance' stuff that's in-there derives in the fact [also
discussed in AoK] that experience is individually-unique. This's
where the discussion of the "zone of randomness" in AoK, Ap4 gains
its whole nervous system functional significance. When individuals
having differing experience interact, their nervous systems
[primarily their brains, but it's actually a whole-nervous system
energydynamic, in which stuff like 'body language' [tenseness,
physical rigidity, or lack thereof, facial expressions, etc., =all=
enters into convergence upon mutual TD E/I-minimization] seek TD
E/I-minimization 'on the fly' - within the 'time'-frame of their
ongoing interactive dynamics.

It's only in these macroscopic-'level' dynamics that there arises
anything that has the appearance of being 'probabilistic', and this,
further, derives in 1. relative experiential 'dissonance' [how
different are the experiential environments in which the individuals
have 'learned'], and 2. the fact that nervous systems configure
themselves dynamically with respect to relatively-contemporaneous
experience [as I've recently discussed with respect to my own neural
dynamics with respect to both Neuroscience and Physics].

When an individual nervous system is configured with particular
respect to a particular 'portion' of its experiential realm, such
supersystem configuration is 'carried-into' the individual's
'momentary' interactive dynamics, and the same is True for the other
individual[s] that enter into the interactive dynamics, and it's
=here= where the macroscopic dynamics can be said to contain an
element of 'chance' - the alternative being having to say that, even
though individuals experience relatively-dissimilar
external-environmental stuff, within varying degrees of physical
[experiential] separation, their nervous systems' information
processing dynamics are, nevertheless, rigorously-coupled, which,
although, not 'impossible, would be beyond the realm of NDT's current
applicability.

It's precisely with respect to such 'chance' macroscopic experiential
'dissonance' that NDT's stuff becomes most useful because NDT's
understanding allows individual interactors to comprehend that the
'blindly'-automated 'passion' that arises when they interact is
'just' more servo-mechanism-type stuff that evolutionary dynamics
have 'engineered' into nervous systems in its attempt to 'guess' with
respect to 'momentary' experiential dynamics.

There is one circumstance in which the energydynamics that I'm
addressing have, to date, become Tragically-biased, most often with
Life-Ravaging Consequences. It is when one individual goes into the
midst of a 'group' of individuals whose experience is 'the same',
relative to that of the 'outsider' who has come into their midst.

In this instance, the 'chance' that anything that the 'outsider' does
that's. merely unafmiliar to the 'group' members, will be
behaviroally-acceptable to the group members decreases as a function
of their number, and as a function of their mutual experience, and as
a function of the interactive dissonance explicitly with respect to
the behavior of the 'foreign' individual.

That is, in such Tragic interactive dynamics, Reason tends =not= to
enter into the interactive energydynamics that will arise, the whole
of the interactive energydynamics tending to derive in group-wise
relative-familiarities [all of which reduces to group-wise
experiential summations, but which 'takes on a 'life' of its own
because of the intra-group 'amplification' that derives in
mutual-feedback with respect to groupwise TD E/I-minimization.

Such becomes particularly Tragic relative to this or that group's
degree of experiential isolation - it's what killed the followers of
Jim Jones, in Jonestown [what induced them to drink their cyanide
stuff], and, as I've resently discussed here in bionet.neuroscience,
also the same experientially-inbred stuff that virtually always
precipitates War.

I Apologize, what's here should be exceedingly-more. I'm $-broke, and
therefore, dealing with the TD E/I(up) 'distractability' of
nutrient-deficits ['hunger'] that're discussed in AoK, Ap5, and going
through forced nicotine withdrawal that're discussed in AoK, Ap4 &
8 - and just plain 'tired'.

Still, this stuff is just too important not to address, so I have,
trusting that folks who've followed the discussion of NDT's stuff
over the years will be able to build the thing completely within
their own good noggin' labs.

That's it for this update to my prior discussion.

K. P. Collins

|I've asked to be allowed to address folks in AZ, but have never
heard
|back.
|
|But I've [last fall] finally closed all doors to 'qm', and have
begun
|taking it to the community Physicists.
|
|[If anyone 'wonders', it's why I'm so 'pissed-off' these days. Just
|when I thought my travails because of NDT were winding down - that
|I'd endured all of the hard stuff there was to endure - I realized I
|had to hurry-up and go through the same stuff on behalf of Tapered
|Harmony - and I've not yet been able to find any 'gracefulness'
|within myself with respect to such - I =HATE= having to do it, yet
|again, especially since I'd dared to think that there might be some
|small hope of giving myself over to Love. [Please forgive this [and
|all my other 'asides'] if I don't let the aching out I won't be able
|to do what I have to do.]
|
|ken [k. p. collins]
|
|

Franz Heymann wrote in message ...
|
|"Harry Conover" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
|news:7ce4e226.0301072051.63a0c5e7@posting.google.com...
|> ukcomplaint@lycos.com (UKComplaint) wrote in message
|
|[...]
|
|>
|> Given that my work requires fresh brains, it appears that my only
|> option is to become a criminal, obtaining them in situ.  What else
|can
|> a reasonable person do?   :-)
|
|
|Buy it at the butcher and eat it.  It makes a truly delicious
toasted
|sandwich.
|{:-))

"headcheese" - I've never tried it, but after attending a talk on
prions, at a long ago AAAS annual meeting, I'd not eat brain tissue.
Period.

ken

In "The Emperor's New Mind", Roger Penrose argues that parts of the
brain exist simultaneously in multiple states due to quantum effects but
that once the maximum difference between any two of these states
reaches a certain threshold the wave function collapses.  I always thought
the need for conscious to collapse the wave function was silly.

Todd

"UKComplaint" <ukcomplaint@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:67ab52c2.0301071558.7e44fc36@posting.google.com...
> Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that the
> components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
> probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a multitude of
> possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
>
> Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
> quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?
>
> N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference on
> Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
> University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence suggests
> quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
> function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology are
> becoming more and more apparent."

Why do you always respond to your own posts?

"Kenneth 'pawl' Collins" <k.p.collins@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:jYYS9.101467$hK4.8231021@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote in message ...
> |
> |Richard S. Norman wrote in message ...
> ||On 7 Jan 2003 15:58:32 -0800, ukcomplaint@lycos.com (UKComplaint)
> ||wrote:
> ||
> ||>Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that
> |the
> ||>components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
> ||>probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a multitude
> |of
> ||>possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
> ||>
> ||>Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
> ||>quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?
> ||>
> ||>N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference on
> ||>Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
> ||>University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence
> suggests
> ||>quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
> ||>function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology
> are
> ||>becoming more and more apparent."
> ||
> ||Physicists do like to theorize quantum events as being responsible
> |for
> ||mysterious neural events.  Certainly quantum theory is necessary to
> ||understand chemical bonding, electron excitation, etc.  However,
> ||membrane proteins are rather massive objects and the energy of
> |binding
> ||of ligand to receptor or to the movement of a single ion across the
> ||membrane are rather large compared with quantal fluctuations.
> ||
> ||Planck's constant is 7 x 10 ^^-34 J s.  That corresponds to
> ||about 10^^-13 kcal sec/mol (compare with reactions measured
> ||in kcal/mol) or to 4 x 10^^-15 eV s (compare with one ion moving
> ||across the membrane at 0.1 eV).  Of course you have to account for
> ||event duration or frequency to make the units comparable, but still
> ||most neural activity really does occur at the macroscopic,
> classical
> ||level.
> ||
> ||There is no need to search for quantal activity to understand what
> |we
> ||really do observe in the brain.  Yes, there are still a lot of
> |things
> ||we don't understand about brain activity, but most neurobiologists
> ||seem to think that this does not seem to be a fruitful direction to
> ||look, Penrose and microtubules notwithstanding.
> |
> |I agree with you Dr. Norman.
> |
> |While developing Tapered Harmony, I realized 'qm' is so in such a
> |tortuously-twisted interpretation of experimental results - that I,
> |came to view what underpins its existence as a deliberate effort to
> |obfuscate physical reality - 'qm' 'had to be' established as an
> |effort to 'prevent' the proliferation of so-called 'nuclear'
> weapons.
> |'qm' makes no sense in any other way, and I've come to view efforts
> |to apply 'qm' to Neuroscience in the same way. It's so far from
> Truth
> |that it can only become 'rationalized' as an effort to prevent folks
> |from comprehending nervous system function [on the parts of folks
> |who're 'afraid' of folks in general comprehending nervous system
> |function.
> |
> |It's hard for me to attribute intelligence to 'qm' in any other way,
> |and I'm thoroughly-determined to not allow applications of 'qm' in
> |Neuroscience to gain any credibility - Humanity is 'finished' if
> |so-called 'uncertainty' and the rest of 'quantum weirdness' ever
> gain
> |a toehold in Neuroscience.
>
> Note well: I'm =not= saying that there are not cumulative
> 'atomic-level' effects. If folks see my recent discussion of Tapered
> Harmony, folks'll see that it is not only my position that there are
> such cumulative 'atomic-level' effects, but that these 'atomic-level'
> effects are tunable.
>
> If folks look thye'll see that I discussed the same stuff in long
> former msgs with respect to ionic-flow, ionic conductances, and the
> continuous, cumulative effects of dynamic [ionic] 'charge'
> distribution.
>
> It's 'just' that there's absolutely zero so-called 'probabilistic'
> stuff in-there.
>
> Yes, of course, resort to a statistics is often a usefully-practical
> course through which to approach discussion, and through which to
> converge upon understanding. I'm not saying that there exists no such
> usefulness.
>
> I'm saying that a stitistical discussion does not, somehow, imbue the
> underlying physical dynamics with a 'probabilistic' nature.
>
> In my experience, any and all of that which has the appearance of
> 'being probabilistic' within nervous system function derives in
> macroscopic-'level' knowledge insufficiency. When knowledge is
> insufficient, to the degree of such insufficiency, nervous system
> dynamics converge in commensurately-generalized ways - ways in which
> the individual energydynamic 'impacts' of 'scraps' of experience are
> 'summed', and acted upon by the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms
> [that're outlined in AoK], to yield 'momentary' least-TD E/I
> activation 'state' in which the various contributions of the
> 'individual' experiential 'scraps' are represented in ways that're
> commensurate with the TD E/I that became correlated to them when they
> were, themselves, each in their own 'time', the object of supersystem
> TD E/I minimization. [As is discussed in AoK, Ap5 & Ap7, such
> 'typically' occurs at the prodding of the reward 'servo' mechanisms,
> in dynamics where the nervous system attends to that which is
> relatively-novel [experiences relatively-small TD E/I(up)] in order
> to garner the correlated 'reward', with the result being that TD
> E/I-minimization comes to be tuned with specific respect to the
> relatively-novel stuff, until, as is discussed in AoK, Ap5, the stuff
> becomes so TD E/I-minimized that it has been 'learned' [what has been
> referred to as 'learning' is 'just' a correlate of supersystem TD
> E/I-minimization - a generalized, experientially-relevant, way of
> addressing the dynamics of TD E/I-minimization during common
> language-interface information exchange [during 'conversation' :-]
>
> But the only 'chance' stuff that's in-there derives in the fact [also
> discussed in AoK] that experience is individually-unique. This's
> where the discussion of the "zone of randomness" in AoK, Ap4 gains
> its whole nervous system functional significance. When individuals
> having differing experience interact, their nervous systems
> [primarily their brains, but it's actually a whole-nervous system
> energydynamic, in which stuff like 'body language' [tenseness,
> physical rigidity, or lack thereof, facial expressions, etc., =all=
> enters into convergence upon mutual TD E/I-minimization] seek TD
> E/I-minimization 'on the fly' - within the 'time'-frame of their
> ongoing interactive dynamics.
>
> It's only in these macroscopic-'level' dynamics that there arises
> anything that has the appearance of being 'probabilistic', and this,
> further, derives in 1. relative experiential 'dissonance' [how
> different are the experiential environments in which the individuals
> have 'learned'], and 2. the fact that nervous systems configure
> themselves dynamically with respect to relatively-contemporaneous
> experience [as I've recently discussed with respect to my own neural
> dynamics with respect to both Neuroscience and Physics].
>
> When an individual nervous system is configured with particular
> respect to a particular 'portion' of its experiential realm, such
> supersystem configuration is 'carried-into' the individual's
> 'momentary' interactive dynamics, and the same is True for the other
> individual[s] that enter into the interactive dynamics, and it's
> =here= where the macroscopic dynamics can be said to contain an
> element of 'chance' - the alternative being having to say that, even
> though individuals experience relatively-dissimilar
> external-environmental stuff, within varying degrees of physical
> [experiential] separation, their nervous systems' information
> processing dynamics are, nevertheless, rigorously-coupled, which,
> although, not 'impossible, would be beyond the realm of NDT's current
> applicability.
>
> It's precisely with respect to such 'chance' macroscopic experiential
> 'dissonance' that NDT's stuff becomes most useful because NDT's
> understanding allows individual interactors to comprehend that the
> 'blindly'-automated 'passion' that arises when they interact is
> 'just' more servo-mechanism-type stuff that evolutionary dynamics
> have 'engineered' into nervous systems in its attempt to 'guess' with
> respect to 'momentary' experiential dynamics.
>
> There is one circumstance in which the energydynamics that I'm
> addressing have, to date, become Tragically-biased, most often with
> Life-Ravaging Consequences. It is when one individual goes into the
> midst of a 'group' of individuals whose experience is 'the same',
> relative to that of the 'outsider' who has come into their midst.
>
> In this instance, the 'chance' that anything that the 'outsider' does
> that's. merely unafmiliar to the 'group' members, will be
> behaviroally-acceptable to the group members decreases as a function
> of their number, and as a function of their mutual experience, and as
> a function of the interactive dissonance explicitly with respect to
> the behavior of the 'foreign' individual.
>
> That is, in such Tragic interactive dynamics, Reason tends =not= to
> enter into the interactive energydynamics that will arise, the whole
> of the interactive energydynamics tending to derive in group-wise
> relative-familiarities [all of which reduces to group-wise
> experiential summations, but which 'takes on a 'life' of its own
> because of the intra-group 'amplification' that derives in
> mutual-feedback with respect to groupwise TD E/I-minimization.
>
> Such becomes particularly Tragic relative to this or that group's
> degree of experiential isolation - it's what killed the followers of
> Jim Jones, in Jonestown [what induced them to drink their cyanide
> stuff], and, as I've resently discussed here in bionet.neuroscience,
> also the same experientially-inbred stuff that virtually always
> precipitates War.
>
> I Apologize, what's here should be exceedingly-more. I'm $-broke, and
> therefore, dealing with the TD E/I(up) 'distractability' of
> nutrient-deficits ['hunger'] that're discussed in AoK, Ap5, and going
> through forced nicotine withdrawal that're discussed in AoK, Ap4 &
> 8 - and just plain 'tired'.
>
> Still, this stuff is just too important not to address, so I have,
> trusting that folks who've followed the discussion of NDT's stuff
> over the years will be able to build the thing completely within
> their own good noggin' labs.
>
> That's it for this update to my prior discussion.
>
> K. P. Collins
>
> |I've asked to be allowed to address folks in AZ, but have never
> heard
> |back.
> |
> |But I've [last fall] finally closed all doors to 'qm', and have
> begun
> |taking it to the community Physicists.
> |
> |[If anyone 'wonders', it's why I'm so 'pissed-off' these days. Just
> |when I thought my travails because of NDT were winding down - that
> |I'd endured all of the hard stuff there was to endure - I realized I
> |had to hurry-up and go through the same stuff on behalf of Tapered
> |Harmony - and I've not yet been able to find any 'gracefulness'
> |within myself with respect to such - I =HATE= having to do it, yet
> |again, especially since I'd dared to think that there might be some
> |small hope of giving myself over to Love. [Please forgive this [and
> |all my other 'asides'] if I don't let the aching out I won't be able
> |to do what I have to do.]
> |
> |ken [k. p. collins]
> |
> |
>
>

Why not?

I do it when I realize, after posting the first thing, that there's
more that needs to be said with respect to what I'd posted - needed
clarification.

Is there something 'wrong' with doing this?

I find it unacceptable to withhold info that I've realized is
pertinent, and, in the context of this or that that I've posted,
possibly not obvious.

Again, why not do so?

ken

Mark Zarella wrote in message ...
|Why do you always respond to your own posts?
|
|"Kenneth 'pawl' Collins" <k.p.collins@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
|news:jYYS9.101467$hK4.8231021@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|>
|> Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote in message ...
|> |
|> |Richard S. Norman wrote in message ...
|> ||On 7 Jan 2003 15:58:32 -0800, ukcomplaint@lycos.com
(UKComplaint)
|> ||wrote: [...]

"Todd A. Anderson" <drtodd@aaahawk.com> wrote in message
news:avihgb$i2f$1@news01.intel.com...
> In "The Emperor's New Mind", Roger Penrose argues that parts of the
> brain exist simultaneously in multiple states due to quantum effects
but
> that once the maximum difference between any two of these states
> reaches a certain threshold the wave function collapses.  I always
thought
> the need for conscious to collapse the wave function was silly.

Yes.  It is downright silly.

Don't top post

Franz Heymann

>
> Todd
>
> "UKComplaint" <ukcomplaint@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:67ab52c2.0301071558.7e44fc36@posting.google.com...
> > Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that
the
> > components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
> > probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a multitude
of
> > possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
> >
> > Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
> > quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?
> >
> > N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference on
> > Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
> > University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence
suggests
> > quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
> > function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology
are
> > becoming more and more apparent."
>
>

Just in case...

 In neither my current discussions, nor my prior comments re. 'qm'
and Neuroscience, have I 'discounted' the role of cytoskelleton
constituents.

All my comments were with respect to 'qm' being a non-starter in
Neuroscience - at =any= 'level'.

All along, I've been referring to Tapered Harmony which is a complete
sans-'q' replacement for 'qm'.

Physical reality, including physical reality within nervous systems
is continuous and deterministic - there's absolutely zero
'uncertainty' in-there.

All 'chance' stuff is as I've described in another post in this
thread - due to knowldege deficits, with respect to which, nervous
systems tend to 'guess' in an 'interpolative' fashion, with respect
to existing knowledge.

Such can be wildly off the mark, as is the case with respect to
choices being made in our 'time', all aroung the world, with respect
to the furture of Humanity.

Everyone's 'guessing', without sitting down to gather knowledge with
respect to one another.

The results of such is always interactive 'explosiveness'.

Anyway, there's nothing 'quantal' in nervous system function, at
=any= 'level'.

It doesn't matter what the textbooks say. While the textbooks do deal
with the experimental data, they are wrong because, as I've discussed
in my recent posts in bionet.neuroscience, they just unquestioningly
carry-forward the errors made in, and prior to, 1900.

This's the 'point' I was addressing in my prior comments with respect
to cytoskelletal constituent stuff [which enters into supersystem
configuration dynamics at the neuronal 'level']. I was addressing the
fact that it's not 'qm' in-there, not 'ignoring' the cytoskelletal
stuff itself.

Just in case folks were buzzing-me-in-the-background :-]

It's often like this in my discussions. I write without
fully-comprehending that what I'm focusing upon isn't just obvious to
everyone... and folks tend not to seek clarification, or challenge
anything I post - so I have to try to imagine stuff that needs
clarification... "whittle, whittle, whittle,..." [AoK, Ap5]

If folks 'wonder', I'm remain 'devastated' that the long ago
discussions of NDT's reification of the phenomenon of decussation did
not win a hearing for the rest of the work I've done - you know - win
me a place somewhere where I could do what I do for some small
sustaining remuneration.

NDT's reification of the phenomenon of decussation remains the single
most-significant 'event' within the history of science - and the one
who brought it forward can't even feed or shelter himself.
'neuroscience' is, apparently, just going to allow him to starve to
death?

It's 'hilarious'.

I'm so 'disappointed' in that 'reaction' to the work I've done.

If folks done see the significance of NDT's reification of the
phenomenon of decussation, they need to just drop everything, and go
back to grad school until they do see it.

Forgive me, please, but what's happening to me is just unacceptable.
I wasn't allowed to become a member of the club. I either had to
leave grad school and do it on my own [of course working with the
proven experimental results that were hard-won through the efforts of
'club members'], or forsake the stuff that I saw needed doing.

I'm being 'punished' twice - once in not being allowed to attend grad
school, and again for doing what needed to be done without any
standard 'credentials' - without a valid 'membership' in the 'club'.

Wake up! It's the Science that matters, not the supposedly
'important', but in actuality, damnable if they preclude recognition
of the significance of stuff like NDT's reification of the phenomenon
of decussation.

Or is it because folks 'think' I'm remiss in not publishing NDT's
stuff in the 'normal' peer-reviewed way?

All I can say is that I tried that.

Look, I've been unemployed for going-on five years - just flat out
unable to find employment because I 'broke' my employment's
continuity [or for other reasons, including my being 'black-listed'
because I 'blew the whistle' on some corporate malfeasance [and then
they stole my earned severance pay]].

How does one write a paper when one cannot even afford an ink
cartridge for one's printer - or to go to the Library for that
matter.

You know?

Things'd be different if it'd not cost me ~$700,000 of my own
resources to drag NDT's stuff out of the 'jungle' where the answers
live, but that's what was required of me, and I gave such without
complaining - I only began to 'call folks to task' way, way, way,
after NDT was solidly verified and unified - hell, all via
Neuroscience's own experimental results.

That's what's left me 'devastated' - Neuroscience 'rejects' a tight
integration of everything that it's heaped upon its pile of
experimental results?

It's just 'hilarious'.

Folks in Neuroscience are really going to just allow me to starve to
death?

And it 'wonders' why a guy gets 'pissed-off'?

Look, nobody was doing what needed to be done.

Get over it.

Stop treating me like some lab animal.

NDT's reification of the phenomenon of decussation is the
most-significant 'event' in the entire history of science. It changes
=everything= Human, not just the Neuroscience.

And 'you' are going to just let me starve?

Forgive me, I've earned the right to eat - I know such with
Certainty.

I'm not in-Error in that expectation.

So why am I in-fact, on the verge of starvation?

Why?

I know my contributions to the field are sufficient.

Haven't I begged sufficiently?

Thousands of visits, thousands of letters, thousands of phone calls,
thousands of NG posts, conferences attended, papers handed out
gratis.

You know? There's sufficiency in-there. So, what gives, Neuroscience.

Tell me, plain, what is it that I must do in order not to perish at
the hands of 'your' neglect of one who's served Neuroscience well.

Don't be 'shy' - just tell me, plain.

And please do so either today or tomorrow, before the end of the day.

K. P. Collins

>[...]

I didn't criticize you for it.  I simply asked why, since it's pretty
unorthodox.

"Kenneth 'pawl' Collins" <k.p.collins@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:EQbT9.102548$hK4.8330868@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Why not?
>
> I do it when I realize, after posting the first thing, that there's
> more that needs to be said with respect to what I'd posted - needed
> clarification.
>
> Is there something 'wrong' with doing this?
>
> I find it unacceptable to withhold info that I've realized is
> pertinent, and, in the context of this or that that I've posted,
> possibly not obvious.
>
> Again, why not do so?
>
> ken
>
> Mark Zarella wrote in message ...
> |Why do you always respond to your own posts?
> |
> |"Kenneth 'pawl' Collins" <k.p.collins@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> message
> |news:jYYS9.101467$hK4.8231021@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> |>
> |> Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote in message ...
> |> |
> |> |Richard S. Norman wrote in message ...
> |> ||On 7 Jan 2003 15:58:32 -0800, ukcomplaint@lycos.com
> (UKComplaint)
> |> ||wrote: [...]
>
>

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote:

> Physical reality, including physical reality within nervous systems
> is continuous and deterministic - there's absolutely zero
> 'uncertainty' in-there.


Are you suggesting that all thought is predictable?


William J. Vajk
Techny,  Illinois

"Kenneth 'pawl' Collins" <k.p.collins@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
news:EQbT9.102548$hK4.8330868@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Why not?
>
> I do it when I realize, after posting the first thing, that there's
> more that needs to be said with respect to what I'd posted - needed
> clarification.
>
> Is there something 'wrong' with doing this?
>
> I find it unacceptable to withhold info that I've realized is
> pertinent, and, in the context of this or that that I've posted,
> possibly not obvious.
>
> Again, why not do so?
>

On the other hand, snce your posts are invariably meaningless drivel,
has it not occured to you that it might be easier not to post at all?

And if you find that impossible, desist from top posting.

[...]

Franz Heymann

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote:

> And 'you' are going to just let me starve?

> Forgive me, I've earned the right to eat - I know such with
> Certainty.

> I'm not in-Error in that expectation.

> So why am I in-fact, on the verge of starvation?

> Why?

> I know my contributions to the field are sufficient.

Fast food may be your answer, at the dumpster or in the
kitchen, your choice.

> Haven't I begged sufficiently?

Since you're into begging:

There's a fellow who stands on the median at an intersection
in San Diego with a large sign that says, I am homeless and
I have cancer."

Try variations of the pity sign.

The world owes you nothing.

William J. Vajk
Techny,  Illinois