While trying to organize my thoughts about the title of this blog entry, it becomes apparent to me that the potential of neurological transposition of electrical pulses is part of the function of the physical system in order to operate, while I am thinking something much different.
It is the idea of our being receptive too something more then a signal transfer within the physical system of pathways established through repetitive use, but also the finding of that location, to receive.It is one where we can accept something into ourselves as information from another. As accepting information from around us. Information is energy?
|Structure of a typical chemical synapse|
In the nervous system, a synapse is a junction that permits a neuron to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another cell. The word “synapse” comes from “synaptein”, which Sir Charles Scott Sherrington and colleagues coined from the Greek “syn-” (“together”) and “haptein” (“to clasp”).
Synapses are essential to neuronal function: neurons are cells that are specialized to pass signals to individual target cells, and synapses are the means by which they do so. At a synapse, the plasma membrane of the signal-passing neuron (the presynaptic neuron) comes into close apposition with the membrane of the target (postsynaptic) cell. Both the presynaptic and postsynaptic sites contain extensive arrays of molecular machinery that link the two membranes together and carry out the signaling process. In many synapses, the presynaptic part is located on an axon, but some presynaptic sites are located on a dendrite or soma.
There are two fundamentally different types of synapse:
- In a chemical synapse, the presynaptic neuron releases a chemical called a neurotransmitter that binds to receptors located in the postsynaptic cell, usually embedded in the plasma membrane. Binding of the neurotransmitter to a receptor can affect the postsynaptic cell in a wide variety of ways.
- In an electrical synapse, the presynaptic and postsynaptic cell membranes are connected by channels that are capable of passing electrical current, causing voltage changes in the presynaptic cell to induce voltage changes in the postsynaptic cell.
In the May 15, 1935 issue of Physical Review Albert Einstein co-authored a paper with his two postdoctoral research associates at the Institute for Advanced Study, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. The article was entitled “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” (Einstein et al. 1935). Generally referred to as “EPR”, this paper quickly became a centerpiece in the debate over the interpretation of the quantum theory, a debate that continues today. The paper features a striking case where two quantum systems interact in such a way as to link both their spatial coordinates in a certain direction and also their linear momenta (in the same direction). As a result of this “entanglement”, determining either position or momentum for one system would fix (respectively) the position or the momentum of the other. EPR use this case to argue that one cannot maintain both an intuitive condition of local action and the completeness of the quantum description by means of the wave function. This entry describes the argument of that 1935 paper, considers several different versions and reactions, and explores the ongoing significance of the issues they raise. See Also:Historical Figures Lead Us to the Topic of Entanglement
Science and TA by Chris Boyd
Do we selectively ignore other models from artificial intelligence such as Zadeh’s Fuzzy Logic? This is a logic used to model perception and used in newly designed “smart” cameras. Where standard logic must give a true or false value to every proposition, fuzzy logic assigns a certainty value between zero and one to each of the propositions, so that we say a statement is .7 true and .3 false. Is this theory selectively ignored to support our theories?
Here fuzzy logic and TA had served in principal to show orders between “O and 1” as potentials of connection between the source of exchange between those two individuals. I see “cryptography” as an example of this determination as a defined state of reductionism through that exchange.
Stuart Kauffman raises his own philosophical ideas in “Beyond Einstein and Schrodinger? The Quantum Mechanics of Closed Quantum Systems” about such things, that lead to further ideas on his topic, has blocked my comments there, so I see no use in further participating and offering ideas for his efforts toward “data mining” with regard to his biological methods to determination.
I can say it has sparked further interest in my own assessment of “seeking to understand color of gravity” as a method to determination, as a state of deduction orientation, that we might get from a self evidential result from exchange, as a “cause of determination” as to our futures.
While I have listed here between two individuals these thoughts also act as “an antennae” toward a universal question of “what one asks shall in some form be answered.”
Not just a “blank slate” but one with something written on it. What design then predates physical expression, as if one could now define the human spirit and character, as the soul in constant expression through materiality? An “evolution of spirit” then making manifest our progressions, as leading from one position to another.