Pivotal Ideas on Neuroscience and Willpower
Biological Will, as Personally Experienced — a Position Postulate on Neuroscience Notions on the science, of our personal inclinations, and second-to-second personal aims.
Each reader might better undertake the time-consuming and deep-thought provoking reading of this essay, when you possess at your leverage: ample time, energy, sharpness, and patience at the ready — such as when fresh returned from medium durations of lowered-states of mental activity. Caffeine sources might improve reader brain plasticity.
Introducing a Complete-Neuron Analytical Orientation
This orientation is alternative to, and counterpoised in contrast to, anatomical wording/terms overly demarking of inseparable (while living ‘as intact cells,’) biological cells, such as are neurons.
This analysis views prime factors to hinge on a ‘whole-neuron oriented’ assessment approach to the neurosciences. That’s instead of hinging either only (or mostly) on the neurotransmitter transfers of minuscule molecules between next-in-chain neurons, at their input and output dendrites. Neurotransmitters are honored, but are viewed as belonging to, managed by, and exuding from, neurons and thus mostly of interest by being viewed as being of the scale and integration of miniscule molecular fabric of the neurons, which each neuron has in its interior before exuding. In an earlier edition of this position paper, I termed this view a ‘soma-centric orientation’ but later I considered that terms which divide up alive cells into fictional separate portions did not suit for comprehensive understanding, so the term ‘whole-neuron-oriented’ has replaced ‘soma-centric.’ The main features of a ‘whole-neuron oriented’ assessment include, but are not limited to: (1) viewing the activity interior to the outermost edges of each neuron, end-to-end, to be of far greater import to neuroscientific brain operation than are the meager minority of activities of neurotransmitter inertial transfer at synaptic gaps between neurons; (2) viewing the gap span size of alive and ‘neuron-electrically’ co-pulling synaptic gaps to be much smaller in gap than would be observable upon dissection of a deceased post-mortem brain, which in every case only provides observation of gap-span distances at a time after ‘neuron-electric current-reduction to zero’ of all neuron-electric operations, having happened during the short but gradual process of human animal dying, after which neurons do no longer have an ‘electric affinity co-pull-together effect’ only existent while being alive; (3) viewing observations to be invalid and misleading, of these true synaptic gap span distances (plus other state and operations factors), if observation is performed while a subject human is alive, and before becoming deceased for later dissection, with brain scanning machinery results being skewed significantly, and full of inaccuracies (assumed to be accurate) as to detail and state detection capabilities, the inaccuracies and misleading potential of which are truly based on very invalid and untrue scan data post-processing assumptions; (4) viewing radio-frequency scanning equipment utilized by placing in close proximity to alive human heads to not have the capability to discern such detailed factors such as these ‘synaptic-gap-spans’ and having a very limited capability to use calculations to cross-compare radio reflections from differing angles, to the point that radio frequency graphic depictions from brain scans would be far less of integrity to true interior states and operation than often typically presumed, because radio-reflectance/radio-obscuring of/by intermediate scalp, bone, and other brain organelle tissue, plus beyond zone of interest radio-reflectance post-processing filtering with an invalid ‘see-through vision’ presumption is unwise though commonly done, such filtering being laden with poor decisions of processing guidance concerning radio reflected/obscured data, usually falsely implying far more surety and detail accuracy than is truly the case; (5) viewing the sizes of neurotransmitter molecules to be very much smaller than typically conceived and imagined, their being only one scale larger than atoms to the molecules, and actually much in surprisingly minuscule size, and in notion more like the visibly undetectable molecules we experience during sense of smell, which involves human nostril interior lining molecular contact with molecules — of similar size to neurotransmitters — such as the molecules of bathroom hygiene items after having been opened for molecules to have become diffused over air-distances into the air adjacently touching interiors of human nostrils; (6) viewing the misinterpretation of neurotransmitter size to be incorrectly assumed far larger than molecules truly are, with this problem being caused by and causal of when neurotransmitters are graphically indicated by a small dot on any illustration, the relative size of that screen or paper dot being possibly inaccurately large by a zoom factor of several thousand or more; (7) and viewing many factors to graphical illustrations concerning the brain, such as the misleading size factor and the summary function wording pointed out — typically overly-honed to only two-to-four words very sadly very memorable, to be very sure to have caused many persons to have possessed distorted and very invalid views of neuroscience, especially plenty of many persons having personal experience or vocational experience related to neuroscience, psychology, biology, and psychiatry.
Position Paper Abstract
An interpretation of the neuroscientific roots and causes to the optionality to human partially free will, which possesses haphazard latitude but also possesses natural constraints as to what could happen at any tiny sliver of time. The constraints are better termed as such, constraints, and are better not termed as predictable factors, as they do not predetermine action and state, but only limit its bounds of possibility. Natural constraints include the relative placements and states of everything exterior to the body, plus states of interior to the body health, fitness and vitality, and also realities to the irreversibility of the immediately preceding time. This interpretation of the optionality to human partially free will concludes the causal existent factor resulting in human partially free will to lie in the nature of the haphazard factors pertaining to the unpredictable-type subcellular (within and including the outer edge of animal brain cells) life interactions to each neuron cell of the brain, rather than the manner in which these neurons are arranged and interconnected within a brain. The conclusion is that these subcellular interactions result in the much larger-in-scale overall human person possessing, while conscious or dreaming, to possess the human will not predeterminable, which is somewhat haphazard and unpredictable in its aspects contributing to human thinking and actions, and which is somewhat more interlaced with some fixed aspects to the mix which warmly constrain from excessive chaotic freeing, and which also warmly constrain from excessive chaotic stasis intrinsic to the term ‘predict’ [pre-dictate]. The theory is proposed with confidence in its potential merit and possible correctness. Aggregate brain ‘partial free will’ is, to this theory, caused by internal cellular functions causing unique and often changing distributions of electric current semi-resistive/semi-facilitative, through the progressive flow-direction cross sections of the somas-to-dendrites, of all differing 86+ billion neurons. Thus, the theory proposes that a crossover between functional-worlds — between the lives within brain cells and the life of the aggregate brain organ — is what allows humans and other animals to feature partial free will and haphazard behavior, plus defiance of prediction and prophecy in precise detail, and also defiance of prediction beyond approximately 500 microseconds of entropic interval. This unpredictable partially free will fully governs the actions of a person. That’s noticeable for anyone without external imposition (such as by weather threat or others applying pressure), allowing for willed self-initiated reactions and thoughts to predominate, differing by way of greater unpredictability being existent, than would be any externally rigged and set into motion ingoing impacts or effects on the brain of an individual.
Other related potential features of brains and neurons are discussed with much less confidence in their likely truth or accuracy and are presented as being much more unknown and tentative and potentially erroneous, to the reader. Some of my ideas meet the standard of feasibility, while other ideas, might be so incorrect as to suggest that feasibility proposal would be better abstained from. These more explorative wonderings do not detract from what I believe, in my opinion, to be an excellent candidate explanation for biological will in non-botanical living beings, with a host of factors responsible for our capability for self-guidance plus self-sufficiency, in humans and in other animals. This “Neuron-Thrum Biological Will” theory is stated in a structured manner, isolated from many other features and factors of neuroscience, and so stays generic to many different detailed research data challenges in its possible future ahead, possibly proofing true and valid, upon peer review and test against it, if gladly and fortunately resulting in mostly failures to replace, grossly correct, or discredit the theory.
Disclaimer
The opinions in this essay are solely mine in personal capacity, and only reflect on myself personally, and on my solo publishing company, Talon 38 FileMedia Ltd.
Readers may select monetary value to “Pay-after-reading”, to match with differentiation of: [1] reader financial leverage availing, and [2] reader's assessment of value to the reader of that which was recently read. This is optional. If you’ve previously read this edition of this article, and considered the reading of it enjoyable and/or useful, then Pay-after-reading is your option presently. Pay-after-reading is also selectable at the end of this article.
Philosophy and Value
This essay, in addition to explaining the brains of ourselves to ourselves, either accurately or erroneously, does as a minimum bring to the readers’ attentions some factors that are key to animal brain operation, be I correct or incorrect in theory conclusions. Additionally, my work might benefit many persons merely by somewhat thwarting pitfall (yet published for contrasting reasons, such as exposure by negation) ideas like Determinism, Occam’s Razor, Reductionism, Nihilism, Fatalism, Solipsism, and Calvinism, in philosophy, in the sciences, and in society members’ judgements of us and our futures. Humanism and Indeterminism with very limited but powerfully essential ‘somewhat open frontiers,’ is what I favor philosophically and scientifically. Most of us, since adulthood, each drive some sort of automated mobility automobile and proceed through our lives, while intrinsically by way of negation-defending the limited yet valued medium-level nice realm of degree of personal liberty of will, by/for self and by/for others. For example, all behavior on the roads and highways can be cast in the broad light of multiple persons negation-defending each self-others’ (as entity centric) and each other-selves active interests (as dynamic centric), while driving and walking.
‘Biological will’ features limited liberty, gainfully precedingly intrinsic to most every person, in his or her living brain-path of living.
INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THEORY
Perspective on Size of the Human Brain
Signal power flow through most neurons in the human central nervous system, being the brain and spinal cord other than the peripheral nervous system, involves one or more power level excitation entrances to each of an estimated and rounded 86 billion neurons, or referenced near to quantity of 86,000,000,000 neurons.
Perspective on Lattice Connective Principles
For each one neuron at issue, it features at a given millisecond of time, only one power level excitation exit from its cellular body, along a sole axon it possesses, to just one, and limited to one, exit dendrite it possesses, that nearly-touches with a next downstream neuron exterior to the neuron of interest, with that downstream exterior other neuron possibly, and in many cases, also receiving entrance signal from other neurons than the neuron at issue originally contributes, by way of synaptic near-touch, depending on how many entrance dendrites that exterior downstream neuron possesses.
Perspective on Neuron Node-Density
4,414 nodes wide, by 4,414 nodes deep, by 4,414 nodes tall, would describe a set of 86 billion nodes, if kept lined up geometrically, and if arrayed like a cube. This gives some perspective that, with curvature subtractions requiring greater quantity of neuron nodes at lengthiest front-to-back deep, then from front-to-back of our human heads, there are between 4,000 and 7,000 rows of noncompliant not flat and not smooth planes of 2-D layout of neuron nodes, arrayed left-to-right, and top-to-bottom. These neuron nodes are haphazardly slippage-arranged in defiance of precise cross-sectional slices lined up anywhere near perfectly. Nevertheless, the 4,414 cube root of 86,000,000,000 does put some perspective as to how many neurons there are from end-to-end in various axes, within our human brains. That in one-dimension, is a neuron node density of approximately 290 neurons on fictitious overall average, per centimeter of one-dimensional spanning, if considering the total span of interest to be 6 inches or 15.24 centimeters, and is equivalent to 34.4 neuron nodes, on fictitious average, per millimeter of one-dimensional spanning, and is further equivalent to 29 microns (a millimeter divided by 1,000 being one micron) distance between neuron nodes, on overall notional and fictitious average, also indicating a gouge as to reference distance between neuron soma centroids.
Perspective on Brain Power Watts
Though the human brain weighs on the order of only 1.5% to 2.5% of the total gross weight of a range of adult human bodies, it is contemporarily taken to be most likely that the approximately, and on average generic and neutered power flow rate of bodily power, to include muscle contraction power, neuron signaling power, organ operation power, and organ control peripheral nervous power, plus more types of power, of total body power about 100 watts, the brain portion of this power flow, ranges between 10 watts and 25 watts, with a good gouge at seated intellectual pursuits, of 20 watts. Dividing 20 watts of power flow by 86 billion reference number of neurons, means that 0.000000002 watts flows through the average neuron cell, or what could be measured as .0002 microwatts, or 0.2 nanowatts / 200 picowatts of power flow through the average neutered and generic neuron cell with soma, dendrites, and axon.
Perspective on Neuron Typical Impulse Rates
It is published and contemporarily taken to be such that typical neuron impulse rates have gaps or delays between impulses in the range of 10 milliseconds lengthy, down to 1 millisecond at or near maximum impulse rate of about 1,000 Hertz. The lengthier time gaps between impulses average out to a somewhat variable but averagely 100 Hertz to 500–800 Hertz.
Perspective on Neuron ‘Confluence’ (such as layouts of creek/river inflow to one sole outflow) Confluence-lattice* Speed Ranges
8.94 centimeters per millisecond is the equivalent of what is published in various sources averaged, as near the upper maximum neuron-to-neuron lattice excitation crossing pulse speed of 200 miles per hour. However, the average muscle control speeds are of excitation propagation between connected neurons of about 11.00 centimeters per millisecond, which is the equivalent of 246 miles per hour. In contrast, seated intellectual pursuits performed via brain planning, brainstorming, studying, reading, writing and composing, and other such pursuits involve neuron-to-neuron lattice excitation crossing speeds of about 2.5 centimeters per millisecond, which is the equivalent of 55.9 miles per hour. That number is memorable for many of us in the United States, as approximately the former fuel conservation maximum highway speed limit of 55 MPH. Touch at skin surface speeds in at 7.6 centimeters per second, which is equivalent to 170 miles per hour. Pain input signal power propagates excitation potential at 0.06 centimeters per millisecond.
Associated guesswork related to neurosciences…
… not yet refined in portion to yet stand as part of: NEURON-THRUM BIOLOGICAL WILL THEORY …
Power Level States, Binary as Below or Above a Threshold — Validity Uncertain
I guesstimate at this stage (on 2025–06–07), for purposes of having a default working interpretation, and to facilitate core theory explanation, at this stage in the development of this theory, that each neuron’s state of power falls into the very limited domain of two possible states, of lower power flow-through, or higher power flow-through, depending on if enough signal power was sent inbound to each neuron entrance dendrite synapses by each of the upstream neuron’s axon dendrite to each neuron, to receive enough neurotransmitter density to rise above a bar to count as level 2 (conventionally 1) or instead not rise far enough in power level to count as such, then coming in at level 1 (conventionally 0). However, mild to lower-medium power levels can be existent at entrances, and those still ripple-crest though the soma and axon in my opinion, even if at such low power as to only be a 1 (0 conventionally). Therefore I have chosen the 1 and 2 binaries: to remind thinkers to keep in mind the idea that even a so-called “0 state” has some power and some flow, rather than anything nearly as low as 0.000000000000… watts, which would be a terrible and dangerous way to view neuron cellular life, in my opinion, and especially dangerous if designing therapies and activities and administrative handling of persons with brain illnesses, based on such invalid and ignorantly judgmental theories.
PcNf of Higher Power Level, Conversion Into PNt, if High Level not Conveyed Onward in Lattice — Validity Uncertain
Feasibly, but unknown to me, if a low power level 1 (conventionally 0) state predominated in how it came from an entrance dendrite which happened to line up better with soma resistance densities than did other entrance dendrites, whether low or high power, then whatever high power excitation flow had entered at power level 2 but at dendrite not haphazardly selected by no one, that when there occurs haphazard “natural cellular selection” completion, whatever higher level 2 (conventionally 1) power that did not get selected to propagate to the neuron’s exit, then whatever non-connective higher power, not to flow downstream to other neurons, would be used in part to charge the neuron, holding onto it as thrum intrinsic and internal, rather than discharging at that level at exit beyond axon, and rather than wasting the charge excitation results from entrance dendrite activity. Not wasting charge would provide a slippage and bonus sometimes extra efficiency to each neuron, beneficial to long term cellular maintenance, cellular well being, and quality of cellular life.
Neuron Structural Components Features — Validity Uncertain
(With uncertainty and possible sizeable error, I present just an idea of a way to interpret what I’ve read about neuroscience, biology, and psychiatry, to consider that some neurons in the human body do possess zero entrances to the neuron, but do always feature one and only one exit axon and exit dendrite to that neuron. These are unipolar neurons, and they are not in the majority of neurons, yet rather they are only heavily predominant in special minority zones of the brain, or near the brain, or near the peripheral nerve endings, and act as specialty pickup and initiation of neuron power flow to the brain and peripheral nerves, from what seems to me at first glance to likely include skin, inner ear, retinas, nostrils, tongue, and less from muscle less dense in them and from internal organs and bone connective tissue also less dense in them.)
End-to-End for the Central and Peripheral Nervous Systems-Validity Uncertain
Downstream of a unipolar neuron’s connection into the lattice network of the brain, then all following neurons that can be affected downstream from the unipolar neuron are at a minimum bipolar neurons, tripolar neurons, or multipolar neurons, until encountering finalization exit points where final neurons send power levels to cause muscle cell contraction signal instead of further neuron-to-neuron connectivity, or internal organ control signals, or of course other unique and very detailed roles of nerve ending “last exit” neurons, differing greatly in role from nerve ending “first entrance” neurons.
FORMAL THEORY — TEXTUALLY ILLUSTRATIVE DEFINITION
“Neuron-Thrum Free Will” Theory Comprehensive Definition
(The text of this theory, to which this text is an essential integrated introduction, was written with the author’s choice as to fair-to-nature minimum elucidation to fairly define and limit the theory. Lesser concise versions do not fairly explain nor provide perspective or context adequately, and such concise portions should only be used for headers and titles, rather than to pretend to adequately define.) Neuron-Thrum Free Will Theory is of the opinion and concept that multipolar neurons with two or more entrances for excitation power levels are, by the nature of variations in entrance excitation potentials at synaptic gaps, encoded in levels passed connectively by way of neurotransmitter transfer, as either one or two if binary (1 or 2, merely as alternative nomenclature to 0 or 1 binary), as either 1, 2, o 3 if trinary, and so on, if using more than two power level states, and depending on which neuroscience and microbiology research suggests which mode of power level divisions and multi-state flow-through with integrity. The subcellular life inside each soma, and to a lesser extent the details within the structure of each set of dendrites and each axon, in each one-neuron world with uncoordinated and independent flow of cellular activity, unconcerned with status of other neurons as to how the internal metabolism and other functions flow throughout the neuron, is what to this theory creates such variety and openness to human experiencing of life, and what makes near and far future activities, either mental internally or with physical bodily motion, totally unpredictable. Also, by a lesser related issue of “frontier openness and small perturbation timing sensitivity to all external nature” this unpredictability of our present futures, considered as of now, stands in nature as much more unpredictable than most all of us reflexively by default, presume to be the case (which will elsewhere be discussed and explained). These neuron internal and boundary functions affect physical arrangement within subtly so, and thus physical neuron-electric resistance density variations throughout the interior and boundary of each neuron cell are continually uniquely and haphazardly distributed as the life of a sole neuron cell proceeds, in functional concurrence concurrently, but not in internal concert with the other billions of neurons to a brain. Neuron-Thrum Free Will theory considers that this activity within especially the soma of each neuron is the key haphazard element allowing for spontaneous thought anglings and action idea initiation, ranging from so called “out of the blue” ideas, to unpredictable aforehand decisions between relatively equivalently appealing activities to pursue, in detailed sub-task. This theory proposes that the nature of the soma-centric haphazard subcellular life unique and changing resistance densities is the neuron and brain nature that is very primarily causal in spontaneous or haphazard happenstance thoughts and actions. This stands as the thrust of the theory, whether in actuality it were better or worse described by potential competing theories putting forth that there could be three power level states discernable by a neuron, or four, or even five or more, instead of just two states.
This Theory is Aimed for readers to optionally/partially adopt personally for personal considerations onward, as a Candidate of merit:
… for a new Merited Postulate of “Natural Causality” ([deprecating “natural law (sic)”]
This “Neuron-Thrum *Biological Will” Theory, if truly possessing merits for mainstream and continuing active peer review (by any and all persons of varied professional/vocational capacities) for tweaking (to include major corrections), then firming toward a Merited Postulate of Human and Animal Brain Activity, could better and more smoothly connect what I’ve presented thus far in this essay, to aspects of means by which we humans and animals engage impromptu and openly in non-predeterminable and unpredictable haphazard popup sole instants at sole subtask, and less relatedly due to entropic issues, longer interval/duration sets of tasks or subtasks (which do not exist in same entropic interval, except to intervals of too-hurried personal descriptive recount) toward personal or vocational pursuits.
[End of PART ONE, on
NEURON-THRUM BIOLOGICAL WILL
theory]
[Beginning of PART 2, on blended-mode interspersions, mixing topics pertaining to
NEURON-THRUM BIOLOGICAL WILL
theory, and also pertaining to
FLAW-CENTRIC ENTROPICAL INTERVAL
theory. Readers are advised to pause and reapproach, with bodily movement, if continued interest in reading onward, remains appealing.]
Unpredictable Haphazard Delay-Decision Selections, and/or Accidental/Default Selection [deprecating ‘choice’ (sic)] Proceedings [deprecating ‘Gates’ (sic)]
— ‘ANY of N’ Proceedings — (ANY being a proceeding, rather than a gate; with gates featuring natures very different, such as OR and AND gates intrinsic to studies in Electrical Engineering vocations and professions)
ANY OF X “delay decision gates”, are nondeterministic and unpredictable (without being rigged by external others inputs and impacts on a person) are very different from semiconductor logic gates, or transistor logic gates, or vacuum tube logic gates. So whatever inputs there are to an ANY OF X delay decision gate, the resultant action output for the entire organism is not predictable except with other constraints and self-fulfilling binders placed on a person, by other persons applying gentle or coercive pressures. Predictable logic gates in computer science cannot know the precise millisecond timing of when a input to the gate will be a 0 or 1, at any time before keyboard press or mouse cursor click enacted initiation of calculations as to what would cross into such gates, haphazardly random or just sloppy and with slippage based on the imprecision of millisecond keyboard or mouse finger touch; but importantly, if it is knowable that whenever a particular pattern of 0 versus 1 of two input states is input to such gates, then it is knowable which result will occur, without any free will exercisable in the gate. This of course does not predetermine when and which user actions will trigger functions coded to put bits, bytes, words, double words, and quad words, through logic gates. For examples of how the unknowable resultants Any Gates: ANY OF 1 option to act on has two possible resultants (1 + 1): performing the action, or continuing to abstain from performing the action. ANY OF 2 options has four possible resultants (3 + 1): performing action A only; performing action B only; performing both action A and B; and abstaining from performing either. Likewise ANY OF 3 options has eight possible resultants (7 + 1), and so on. So, ANY OF 4 options has 16 possible resultants (15 + 1).
A Possibly Accurate Theory of Entropic Will
This is an opinion piece, presenting a holistic and overall/nonspecific analysis theory of mine. The theory proposes a candidate interpretation, concerning how free will and haphazard (sometimes mistermed “random”) thoughts can come to mind for a mammal (so of course including us humans), from within the mammal brain. The theory is untried and unproven, and even if the relevant issue is not disprovable nor provable according to any theory, still it has not met the rigorous review of peers, nor has it been challenged with potential alternatives that would conflict with it, which would if done to failure to disprove or discredit this theory of mine, would strengthen the merit of this theory.
Alternative Stimulus and Response Presumption
The theory presumes brain zones are sensitive to internal stimulus signal flow within brain anatomy, rather than being totally dependent on external sensory stimulus. Response then also would flow internally within each brain, and affect more than just externally observable behavior. This internally co-generated and co-consumed stimuli and response signal flow suite would, along with that which is observable externally, be summed up in terminology as “the human experience” or even better “human experiencing”, rather than the more limited and incomplete partial category that is typically termed “human behavior.”
Early Out Summary, for the Uninterested Reader
Next, is an initial alternative quick look closure offered, concerning the nature of my theory. The theory of mine, to be discussed with elucidative explanation later in this essay, attempts to explain the root of haphazard or spontaneous free will. I put forth that free will is not predeterminable and remains totally unknown and feasibly absolutely unknowable — in true natural detail — just mere few or split seconds ahead of action and internal thought, that in actuality does play out, and only knowable in immediate hindsight. The theory proposes that this root of haphazard or spontaneous free will would be as caused by a crossover between one larger brain-sized world and a hugely vast multitude of very much smaller worlds known as neurons. A reader might now wisely dedicate personal time to some other activity, more self-appealing…
Indeterminacy versus Determinacy, for the Interested Reader
With this crossover that mildly conflicts enough and co-influences (both ways) enough, the animal brain stands in defiance and true rejection of all notions of pre-deterministic predictable and deterministic flow over time. Brain overall extensive expanse lattice flow between and across neurons, versus the interior sub-life within cells influencing individual neurons, each uniquely, does produce brain operations that occur haphazardly, and with happenstance. The brain overall huge aggregate lattice of connections and living pulsing nodes (one world of scope) and the contents internal and at boundary of each neuron cell (another scope of worlds), with the swath of total neurons varying in internal biological processes throughout the brain, do coexist at differing scales.
The Crossover, or Co-Influence, is the Root Key
So mine is a “crossover of worlds” theory. This is not a crossover that is geometric or spatial, but it is a crossover in scale concept, between worlds, that I attribute to generating and holding the key to free will and liberty for each mammal, animal, and human. Plus this crossover of worlds, to its nature, holds the roots of our ability to be self-propelled and self-maintaining. I’m a humanist in my multifaceted personal formal and informal-unwritten philosophies, so I think it’s important to defend members of our species against too much pre-deterministic dictation of bogus “unfree will” in theories. I aim to promote and disseminate my theory, which shows demerits and fallacies, and dangers to “unfree will” theories influencing ethical, scientific, and legal maneuvers in global societies, to better support ethical and legal defensibility of human rights and civil liberties. This might explain my desire to form this theory and present it to readers, if some readers were formerly wondering as to my aims or motivations.
Next: Some Digressions yet with Scientific Rigor…
… which to some degree allow readers some latitude for enjoyable opt-out of more reading tedium on these intense topics (maybe to browse for “oblate definition vs. ‘ablation’ definition vs. ablate definition” 📝 or maybe to copy and paste at liberty some of the previous “human domain” ideas I’ve thus far presented herein) …
PREPARATION: Terminology Pitfalls and Corrections
“Information” Throws Out too much of Merit
Interestingly, in my opinion, the terms “information”, “information processing” and “information flow” do a misguiding disservice to how our physical brains operate. Information is such a divorcing term, benefiting us when we want to strip the real physical sciences phenomenon away from all its inconvenient and bewildering complexity, and so honing down to the idea of conveyed symbolic strings of symbol rudiments, devoid of real action, activity, and physical impetus, but of course having interpretative value to other humans literate in the symbol system, to convey ideas, such as this text sentence ending here (sort of) / while / whenceforth^ reading is involved.
This usage in conversation of the term “information” as supposedly validly referring to activity interior to our brains is distorting subtly, even if casual defense of humor bears true merit (which it does), yet to the point of triggering erroneous prescriptive or suggestive bogus wisdoms in neuroscience, and in psychiatry for treating brain atrophy. To be conversing (and so thinking) of: not overly sanitized but instead, overly irrelated “information” arrives sadly at an undesirable and costly divesting of that which occurs interior to our human brains, from the true-to-form brain activities between and in anatomical brain zones, and from the remainder of human physiques, clothes, indoor or outdoor atmosphere, nearby personal environs, and inclusiveness-ready notions of mostly all material “things,” extending outward.
“Signal power” and “signal flow” are far better terms, than is the misguiding^ static and inactive term “information”. Note — of merit ‘noise’ is a very differing concept than such as ‘sound’ or ‘tone’ and ‘audio’, thus breaking from former high school syllabi toward a few iterations of thought on ‘signal-to-signal’ ratios, in lieu of the noisy oft-taught spoken/considered moniker, has merits.
“Energy” and “Work” Throw Out too much of Merit
But what about “power” as compared to “energy?” To relate, some readers might recall that human cellular metabolism research wisdoms are known to attribute to the human cell (of whatever type) as the “power plant.” That title refers in concept to something only accurately termed if not abbreviated or made concise: “time-dependent-energy-flow”, known in short word symbolization as the word-symbol “power.”
Also, in my opinion, the term “energy” inaccurately misguides our notions and ideas, as it divorces real-time power (the realest commodity to any physical system) from momentary time fluctuations and dynamics. This is because energy is a term abstracting power from real application and involvement, in order to enable summing up over long periods of time, or summing up over larger domains of spatial zone, referring to stored potential chemically, or geometrically in the presence of gravitational attraction. Such odd seeming terms as “potential energy” and “chemical energy” are not so odd, as the concept of energy itself is so oddly unreal already (a reality about energy that is little known even to many degreed engineers and scientists, so this does accrue to the reader some potentially new savvy and expertise), and energy concept was designed for accounting manipulations of “activity” over time, or referring to collections of large swaths in space of “things”, such as of boxes of food (as kilocalories, summed up). The term “energy” is super convenient for quick reckoning, but is limited to unreal and never existent (in real-time ) “periods of generically-bounded time intervals” and so I relegate it to historical or forecast accounting, only. The term “work” is more true-to-form, and is not as convenient to work with as “energy”, but it is divorced from time-sensitivity in the factor of how quickly, or how slowly, or how variably in speeds, the action of interest proceeds in reality, especially disregarding and accidentally divesting the major (and not mere) ten seconds of biological action/activity involved in conveying “work” principles vocally (with verbally having many a verb ally, much more than vocally...)
“Electrical” and “Electricity” Fail to Represent Neurons and Brains
When estimated and referred to in measurement systems, this power within brains differs fundamentally from electricity (electric/city power to wall outlets), electrical power (inside devices on alternative current), and electronic power (inside devices on direct current). Copper wire is of course not involved. Semiconductor silicon is of course not involved. Metabolic generation of bioelectric charge “potential” within, especially, neuron cells, differs greatly from all our city, building, and device electric factors. In my opinion, a term for the neuron-to-neuron flow should not be made inaccurately concise, and should be better referred to with intrinsic elucidation, as “neuron-to-neuron co-cellular electric-flow power” measured, or estimated, in watts. In addition to attending to the flow of power between neurons, there is more power, in watts, involved. That’s maybe unique and only according to my theory (which the reader will discover is explained later in this essay, to address some wondering on long-windedness the reader might have encountered by now). That “more power” than meets the consideration, would, in my opinion, be best referred to as “internal neuron single-cell-serving electric-thrum power.” The idea is that total power for one neuron cell would be the summation of internal neuron single-cell-serving electric-thrum power (PNt) plus neuron-to-neuron co-cellular electric-flow power (PcNf). So PTotal ongoing within a neuron = PNt + PcNf. (Power Total equals the summation of Power of Neuron Thrum plus Power of Co-Neuron Flow. The cNf and the Nt in notation could be represented using subscript textural notation, of course, as not done by the author in this paragraph, due to editor limitations.)
The Full and Complete Comprehensive Nature of “Power”
“Power” is often an unpopular term with those persons keenly attuned, for wise reasons or unwise reasons debatable, to choosing words that seem sanitized of any particular disagreeability or association with such concepts as “power mongering” or “abuse of power” and “coercive power”, each of which is actually an improper terminology usage of the term. Our global societies seem keen to watering and dumbing and pacifying “down” much wording and terminology, and in my opinion such practice is unwise and detrimental to all persons alive, which is an opinion fully the opposite and inverse of some common nonsense, as I call it.
Unknown to many persons, “power” is the only fully true-to-form player in operations and activity between matter in science, with “work” and “energy” being convenient summations or separations from natural and true/real reality time-dependency. So “work” and “energy” act as concepts or ideas that involve loss of integrity, due to separations from the true and natural “always” dependency of all actions (be they in-between imparting, or co-imparting, or reflective in operative “activity” between material “things”) happening in our ongoing real-time moment. This present real-time moment keeps on sliding and changing as time measurement systems change by, and is the “when” — time-changing. — in which we always live.
PREPARATION: New Terms, Formally Adoptable
If the reader is in vocational or personal capacity to further the usage of the following terms, then as the author I welcome the reader to the human idea domain of these below terms with mere short wordings being fair usage for all and uncopyrightable, and I encourage the reader to document and spread these words, freely and with no plagiarism of my supporting discussion. Paraphrasing is fine, and similar assessments or analysis are allowed.
Introducing the ‘Currently Newing Now’
Sliding now is when you are reading this. To seemingly (and somewhat actually) digress, for purposes of supporting my theory with related conceptual presentation, herein I coin as a new term: the ‘sliding now,’ differing from “as of now” time hack, which recedes in recent personal history quickly. The ‘sliding now’ does not recede, always precedes the future (split-seconds ahead, out to epochs ahead) and always follows after the past (split-seconds ago, back to epochs ago).
Introducing ENTROPIC INERTIA
There are scientific truisms that relate to us the natural law absolutes of a “Predominance of Continuance of Matter”, and an “Absolute Inviolate of Continuance of Energy.” The first law of thermodynamics states and if elucidated on does explain much upon continuance of energy, which I believe is misworded with poor word choice of “conservation” which erroneously implies restriction to spatial region, or restriction to energy form, or restriction to active or potential modes. Returning to point, the property of matter and the property of space fabric empty that I attribute to holding and imbuing these Continuance Laws, I herein attempt to coin the double word term “Entropic Inertia (of Matter and Space)”.
To connect the two new terms, I relate to the reader, that is telling and interesting in my opinion, that the sliding now would possesses moment-timespan entropic-inertia “bulk” less than a millisecond in timespan, and surprisingly may be greater in timespan than some oscillatory frequencies existent would suggest (as oscillation is pure power/verb action, and the sliding now breadth or bulk would be in the nature of noun substance, limited to Mach 1 in immediate vicinity molecule-to-molecule speed slippage, which is much less than the somewhat variable, to contemporary research, speed of verb action radio, infrared, light, ultraviolet, and more).
Introducing the LESS-THAN-MILLISECOND MOMENT SIZE
I have wondered that maybe some small but still sizeable fraction of one millisecond might be telling, if computer semiconductor-electric operations cannot act with resolution much less than the millisecond of overall clock, for physical repolarization of material noun substance componentry orientation. This I have not considered at length, nor have I researched to assert any estimation, but still I intuitively feel the timespan size of the sliding now to be much larger than the maybe fictitious nanoseconds and picoseconds, to material matter capabilities. For now I’ll merely term it the less-than-millisecond moment size, that we have never exited, and that feasibly we will never exit, and that feasibly our deceased remains will never exit in futures beyond each of our lifespans, as a comfortable “time home” to live in.
The Less-Than-Millisecond Moment Size is metaphorically (and only metaphorically not literally) perpendicular to spatial extent (evident as size and shape of atoms, molecules, or of empty space fabric). This small-timespan bulk and impetus to continue onward (without disappearing from existence with the principle of “continuance [not conservation, which is poor terminology] of matter not in thermonuclear reaction” as time unfolds), as coined Entropic Inertia would be, to my theory, imbued in the nature of matter within atoms, and within empty space fabric, also. That’s where and within what I consider Laws of Scientific Nature to be imbued, in defiance of the default notion that physical natural law would be imbued in the backdrop or field of solar systems, galaxies, or the universe in total. Every shred of pencil eraser scrapings, to later wipe off of a piece of working paper, is very powerful and special to nature. Nothing is trivial, if keeping to strict terminology.
Preparation: Ancillary Side Supporting Notes
The Limits of the Term “Time”
The term “time” does somewhat mislead, but only minorly, as it is not the real entropic flow of our ever-changing sliding now, but instead time is a mensuration measurement system, with device electric physical excitation potential propagation speeds calibrated in design to match rotation rate of our planet, for the time numbers, and the orbital rate of our planet, for the Gregorian calendar contribution to time measurement and referral, when timespans greater than 24 hours are considered.
Keeping My Theory Invulnerable to Just One Irrelevant Criticism
I am very open to opposing or supporting constructive criticism, but debate between atoms and mesons and subatomic particles and neutrinos and superstrings is not a debate that is anything but counterproductive. I explain this next:
(I chose atoms to discuss, to remain independent and regardless of questionably proven or unproven theories of particulate or discrete matter entities smaller than the series of many types of smallest atoms, familiar to the reader as each type being of differing atomic number. I believe with indeterminacy but self-compelling intuition, that maybe a version of reality of atoms being the smallest (and gladly with over 200 variety pack in size, of smallest extents per type of atom) material things to exist with any discrete/separable identity, to have great merit in implying that size divisions or internal segments smaller than an atom is a notion which makes no sense to a reality of space unfamiliar to our relatively huge size, and in keeping with ancient historical Greek scientific concept. Regardless, if there be actually smaller discrete/separable identity particles or superstrings to matter, then what I have put forth should still hold valid but was just defined and discussed at the larger atomic scale, for broad agreeability independent of favored and ostensibly proven theories).
Engineer-Assessing on the Cell as Prime Life Scale
It is better, in my opinion, to view mammal brains as collections of billions of neurons, glial cells, symbiotic bacteria multi-cells, and also smaller to the miniscule intercellular components of life (for where there is biological chemical/molecular microtissue aggregates that do not happen to be of, or inside, the boundary of a biological cell, at any particular notional time of nearby cell-integrity lifetime-spans).
Ambient Memorable Sources of Biology and Engineering Knowledge
My untried candidate theory proposal is derived from four (4) main categories of biological systems knowledge and flow behavior knowledge from aeronautics, applied to signal power flow through neuron somas:
Basic neuroscience engineering-style published parameter ranges.
Basic physical brain behaviors published concerning neurons, such as more recent research published, upping brain watts and inductively approximating brain signal-power propagation speeds.
An intuitive and inductive approach toward the complexity of subcellular life variety, with respect for a great deal of subtle and detailed miniscule nuance, and with very dynamic change predominating over overall average factors. I came to internalize this approach from long decades ago reading several books by the author Lewis Thomas. His biology watcher books concerned biological life on planet earth, focusing on the living cell as the key to biological life, our being alive operating more poignantly and concentrated in metabolic and thermal power, than is underpinning lifeforce possessed by all else (from animism).
My own systems engineering assessment of how things work when physical sciences, and ebb and flow, are considered in a “internal” and “physical” (rather than psychologically analytical) human brain factors and human systems operations, as an engineering scientist. That’s in the stead of a medical healing analysis, and in the stead of a psychological focus on self-esteem and motivators.
Historical Divide and Separation between Human Systems and Engineering
That last category, number four (4), “systems engineering”, deserves some explanation. That it deserves explanation is to defend engineering being involved with humanism and human interests beyond just devices and products to be designed and manufactured. To my estimate and opinion, it seems that for long centuries as of now, scientific engineering analysis of mammal brain function has been discouraged, out of understandable fear that too much of a design attitude or a “social engineering” attitude might come to skew the study and research, into dangerous ways for societies and governments. That seems, to my guesswork and opinion, to maybe explain why psychology and behavioral science seem hampered and stereotypical in overly dramatic and overly bitter assessments, with real human professionals in such fields under pressure to sterilize interpretations of any scientific engineering opinion.
Pertaining Realm Breadth of “Brain Engineering”
Interestingly, engineering focuses, at its roots, on how “things” operate together, how “things” are maintained or maintain themselves, and how “things” age and change. So engineering does not just focus on how things are designed, which only applies to human-made tools, devices, and other items or products, if any sort of design is made. Design is in the minority of engineering work, and system upkeep, system adjustment to new changes, system fabrication, system failure assessment, system vulnerability assessment, and system suitability to task assessment do all together weigh heavier into what engineering is, and what engineering has to offer, which stands as much more than just only design focus would seem to inaccurately suggest to us. Systems engineering, flow engineering fields, and human factors engineering all have much to offer in the fields of neuroscience, neurobiology, cellular biology, and psychiatry. Classic engineering could greatly assist us in understanding our nervous “systems” and those of other animals, much better, in my opinion.
Animal Lush Experience — with Just Binary States
The Nature of what Binary Can Do
I lean toward it seeming more flexible to work with binary 1 and 2 (conventionally 0 and 1) but microbiology of dissected deceased forensics tissue is fraught with unknowable and unprovable conclusions inaccurate, due to the doubt and indeterminacy of logically valid scientific method. With binary then more can be built in terms of structure, than can with trinary or base-4 accounting systems. With binary, matters can start as simple as 1 (0) being horizontal and 2 (1) being vertical. Then within that, another 1(0) would be to the left and another 2 (1) would be to the right; whereas another pair of binaries would refer to upward and downward on the vertical aspect. Then a binary could refer to zero displacement in that direction or unit one displacement, for distance from origin. Then from unit one displacement, vertical or horizontal perpendicular array can be referred to with binary option. Finally, black and white can be modeled for purposes of a colored chess board.
Lush Detail and Ambience with Panorama Relationship, by Binary
More than two states as basis would cause a great reduction in the flexibility and wide openness of what could be modeled with variations in neuron-electric flow states of power levels, as compared to the amazing flexibility of binary. Parallel arrays of similarly oriented neurons, with connective flow direction and reception swaths of coordinated zones, allow for the equivalent of hexadecimal, but built with roughly “functionally parallel” binaries, deviating from linear geometric parallel fully. Surprisingly to our instinctual default reaction to see this as cold of sentiments and stiff without humane humanity, the qualitative subtleties of nuance and charm or character that can be viewed as a high resolution image with excellent color depth, including if the image is of impressionistic esoteric or eccentric nature rather than cold crisp photography, can be referred to and built with mere binary at the roots, such as for semiconductor personal computers, which graphics standards employ hexadecimal values packaged together for Red, Green, and Blue, (and maybe also Opacity), or for Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Chrominance.
Published by Talon 38 FileMedia
Eighth Edition
2025–06–07
OTHER RELATED READINGNature, Sciences & (Formal to Nuance-Informal) Philosophies
I regularly write and accumulate essays: [1] on many of the sciences; [2] on software, devices, internet, and computers; [3] on human factors, generic, or systems engineering; and [4] on brain atrophy {deprecating ‘mental illness’ (sic)} which I have long personally assessed as oft directly caused upon 1/16th of humanity by understandably coy and elusive unnoticeabilities (historically to all parties) of the effects of 0.00000… calorie (estimated) energy resultant effects on biological animal/human cells upon eating or drinking of foods, beverages, and even vaporous air toxically (very subtly) tainted by such as lite and zero calorie offerings.Other writings such as this are globally publicly reviewable, at these Medium.com convenient sub-writings publications:
COPY CORIGHT ISSUES
Futures for this postulate on Neuroscience, are beholden to an ugly author-to-reader dynamic, which for decades has long stifled readers’ personal trends and interests away from even casual informal writing, and thus also presenting a stifling hindrance to reader personal firming on topics of personal interest, while interested in reasonable enjoyment concurrent with other merits of other persons assessments.
Reader mentally maneuvering in contrast to this hurdle is greatly dependent on my relating to readers that stifling of reader proceedings after reading, festers by third or fourth party too-quick misunderstanding of copyright legal codifications. Third+ parties socially dynamic intercessions of dissuasion via medium potency, could be recovered from, toward renewed personal interest in scribing, noting, elucidating on, reader personally vested interest trends, yet to my repeated review, nearly surely only successfully if a person in such social position were to afterward study such copyright issues, which is of nature very different than the two sub-words natures in the blended term. At first surprisingly to many persons: copycoright* is of true great mildness and latitude by/for the reader to write on exact same topic with human domain full latitude — as being intrinsic to the faint and casual open nature of very *mere* copycoright. The long-legacy debacle, to my estimate presently, is in the structure of two words — copy and right. Rights of way in same millisecond are atrocious in practice, if not fathomed as corights*, and handedness and sides of azimuthal personal placement from personal perspective view, L/R, are part of many languages’ legacies.
By this eighth edition, these various human domain new concept-relationships formed in this essay, are potentially of great societal and species value, yet are at this stage are only related herein.
TOPIC REALMS