Biological compression

[archytas]

Oversimplifying, axons are the nervous system’s telegraph wires,
enabling neurons to form networks. When a neuron fires, it sends an
electrical signal down its axon, which then stimulates other neurons.
The signal travels down the axon by opening ion channels embedded in
the cellular membrane, letting ions pass through. When enough ions
cross a channel, they change the voltage across the membrane, which in
turn causes the nearby channels to open, propagating the signal in a
domino effect.

In principle, our brains could evolve to have thinner axons, which
would save space so that more neurons and more axons could pack in.
Thinner axons would also consume less energy.

Nature already seems to have made axons nearly as thin as they can be:
any thinner, and the random opening of the channels would make axons
too noisy, meaning that they would deliver too many signals when the
neuron was not supposed to fire.

The problem is that ion channels are not precisely controllable.
Instead, they open and close at random many times a second. Electrical
signals only change the likelihood that they will open. In a typical
axon the random opening of an ion channel does not have serious
consequences, because the channel closes again before letting in too
many ions.

If evolution made axons much thinner, however, the opening of a single
ion channel would often create a spurious signal which then would
travel down the axon. Too much of this noise would make the neuron
unreliable.

We talk a lot about information and I notably never grasp what it is.
There is information at work behind this limit and what interests me
is that we are addressing information and being addressed by it, and
developing ways to receive and transmit almost like scouts. Having
reached this biological limit which seems 'designed in', we are almost
operating as machines we might design for exploration and adaptation
to environments we are not sure of (sort of AI).

When my science is exhausted I go metaphor. Our brains are generally
concerned (consciously) with the utterly puny and we are barely aware
of most of what they are up to. Evolution looks to have subsumed many
forms into 'individuals' and I find myself wondering about a new
biological delimiting of collectivism (a bit like linking up a load of
PCs), rather than trying to 'make slimmer axions' in an individual.
This might mean a change from processing speed focus to limits in
environmental scanning and what can be scanned. Autopoesis is in my
head in its meaning of self-creation of environment. We are entirely
unaware of this as delimiting however much we talk of 'nurture'. Our
literature seems to have no grasp of it at all, centred on existential
heroes and soppy drivel, playing to the biological crass.

[Lonnie Clay]

Hmm, perhaps you are being hasty in your judgement on the value of entertainment versus technical talk. As mentioned in a previous post, I recently graduated to "Spirit" status. There was nothing magical about the threshold number or crossing the boundary itself, but it has yielded a different tonality to my ability to communicate with others. I have been aware for *many* years, dating back to adolescence that there is much more than is admitted going on in casual conversation. Technical and especially scientific discourse is dry as a bone in comparison to gossip and fiction in general.

Now that your neurons are alerted to the possibility that I may be subtly communicating through subtext much more information than is apparent to  casual view, let us proceed onwards. Leading you down a merry path decorated with primroses, could we first accept that souls exist? Given that, could we accept that souls have various levels of ability depending upon how many times they have previously incarnated? Given that, perhaps these so called souls are themselves merely facets or subdivided aspects of an all inclusive "all soul" whimsically name "GOD" in my various writings...

Hastily rappelling down from heights which approach metaphysical discussion, let us reach a less slippery slope by getting back to casual conversation. I have found that Theology is a third rail of discussion, often leading to people putting me into their kill-files on UseNet. This is a willful disregard of hot topic dissent, most people preferring to avoid such trollish behavior as slinging mud metaphors at each other. What does this stuff have to do with neurons?

It could be argued that the internet serves as a central nervous system for mankind, communicating information between cell persons in a topologically complex nonlinear heterogenous system. Google search engine and groups permits data retrieval and exchange between neuronal cells. The neuronal cells of mankind fire off on the internet as minds communicate with each other through computers. 

Different levels of internal efficiency make persons distinct from each other in their interactions. People's reputations are based upon such factors as whether their posts are relevant to the group's discussion focus. Specific threads within a group have posts which vary in their relevance to the original poster's leading discussion. It is quite common for the thread to drift away from the original post's focus into irrelevant subjects.

Within a post, there are different levels of verbosity and intuitive obviousness, depending upon the context of statements. Since a thousand post thread is quite large, it is easily understood that a subject is often wrung dry, in extreme cases there being only the original post, with no responses whatsoever. One service provided from a cell person author to another is web references to hypertext pages found outside of discussion groups, which would not normally be encountered by the reader. 

Yesterday I composed a page upon my Google site as the third in a series of jokes which are plainly labeled "Blarney" Before opening the link, let me warn you that you may find the material offensive, so if you are sensitive rather than thick skinned, the perhaps you should not click upon the link at :

https://sites.google.com/site/lonniecourtneyclay/home/blarney-part-3---beginning

Lonnie Courtney Clay

[Serenity Smiles]

I suppose you could say the existential heroes are the super antibiotics
that are cleaning the system first. Without the clean system there is
every possibility of rogue viruses defeating the objectives of nurture

-----Original Message-----
From: archytas
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 3:40 AM
To: Epistemology
Subject: [epistemology 12164] Biological compression

Oversimplifying, axons are the nervous system�s telegraph wires,

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.

[Serenity Smiles]

Traditionally “souls” have been sold in the bible as an “I” or an independent  total entity, like a total unit.  Spirit differentiates that there is not one thing but that the spirit is inter-dependent upon Karma.  Cause and effect, actions etc, etc, down to the infinite.  Also uniformity in Spirit is so much more beneficial for the purposes of “other” cultures.

 

What I dislike about corporations such as “apple” and others, is the very fact that a sensible and problem solving solution has not traditionally been the companies ethics.  We all have different ways we find our equipment suits us best.  But the mindless ways they keep communicating or communications “elitist” detracts from a sustained ability for global use equally through non-compatability.  This, of course,  is ultimaely “holding” civilisation back, if you get my drift.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/mUL3oUwfKWcJ.

[einseele]

Hello Neil

Excellent post here! As you use to give us BTW,
Even if it is not the right thing to do I wanted to extract the line
below

> We talk a lot about information and I notably never grasp what it is.
> There is information at work behind this limit and what interests me
> is that we are addressing information and being addressed by it, and
> developing ways to receive and transmit almost like scouts. Having
> reached this biological limit which seems 'designed in', we are almost
> operating as machines we might design for exploration and adaptation
> to environments we are not sure of (sort of AI).

I wanted to add if possible about the title you gave to this, I
believe you on purpose referred to the biological compression, as a
different thing of for instance "information compression"
Biological and other physical objects can be compressed.

Indeed information is a component which we can only address and be
addressed by, there is no way to grasp what it is as well, because
IMHO has no mass, therefore is not compressible, in other words, and
also going into metaphor, we can burn Aquiles' body (even if he just
lives in a poem), but we cannot limit/fence/compress/grasp the idea of
Homero's most famous character.

Autopoesis, (self creation?), oh yes, what else if not. We share this
space (Internet is a full valid concept of space), which did not exist
50 years ago. Where is it, where was it before, even if the entire
physical network dissapears we can "address" its objects.
Thus space also can be created. also has no mass, and also cannot be
compressed, may be space and information are one and the same, I don
know

rgds

Carlos

[Serenity Smiles]

Additional comment:  when I say “souls” have been sold as an “I” this implies “self” as in oneself, which is ego.  That souls or self exist independently is ultimately not truth.

We talk a lot about information and I notably never grasp what it is.
There is information at work behind this limit and what interests me
is that we are addressing information and being addressed by it, and
developing ways to receive and transmit almost like scouts.  Having
reached this biological limit which seems 'designed in', we are almost
operating as machines we might design for exploration and adaptation
to environments we are not sure of (sort of AI).

When my science is exhausted I go metaphor.  Our brains are generally
concerned (consciously) with the utterly puny and we are barely aware
of most of what they are up to.  Evolution looks to have subsumed many
forms into 'individuals' and I find myself wondering about a new
biological delimiting of collectivism (a bit like linking up a load of
PCs), rather than trying to 'make slimmer axions' in an individual.
This might mean a change from processing speed focus to limits in
environmental scanning and what can be scanned.  Autopoesis is in my
head in its meaning of self-creation of environment.  We are entirely
unaware of this as delimiting however much we talk of 'nurture'.  Our
literature seems to have no grasp of it at all, centred on existential
heroes and soppy drivel, playing to the biological crass.

[Lonnie Clay]

"One service provided from a cell person author to another is web references to hypertext pages found outside of discussion groups, which would not normally be encountered by the reader."

I was feeling glum from something that happened long ago, and needed a laugh, so :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgxxAwue7Fs

Boom Chicka Wah Wah - Funny Axe Commercial

Is there *anyone* who watched and did *not* laugh?

Lonnie Courtney Clay

[Serenity Smiles]

Hey after cosmic events of this weekend, what is the chance that it WAS JFK’s “Pop” (father) a Catholic with one huge ego that was doing “deals” with Hitler.  If you are unaware Pope Pious XVI ordered the German Zentrum party to vote the casting vote required to elect Hitler into power in the first place and to adhere to all off HItler’s policies.   Without the Zentrum’s party’s vote there would have been no Hitler.  I am lead to believe we need to “crack the Hoover Dam” to obtain evidence,

 

From: Lonnie Clay

Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 3:27 AM

To: episte...@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/r3J_hqxP2T4J.