Original Science

[ReinyDays]

You're not very good at science, logic or numbers. That is obvious.
Richard Dawkins, your *god* of evolution and atheism SAYS "10 to the -40th probability is IMPOSSIBLE.

10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.
Imagine a space ship capable of maneuvering through sand, navigating through any one of those 15
spheres in search of one unique grain and finding it on the first and ONLY try.
THAT is the definition of 1 chance in 10 to the -50. Whoosh, there it goes right over your head.

There are only~10^80 fundamental particles in the universe.
Those seeds you are talking about are all in the cuffs of your bib overalls.

It took you six months to come up with this stupidity? ... I don't know Richard Dawkins ... Issac Newton explains my point with his calculus ...

 

[ChemEngineer]

I couldn't help but notice you failed to respond to my comments addressing your cut and paste nonsense.

Your usual tactic of spamming threads with gargantuan / bolded text is a rather cowardly tactic.

1. I have been studiously avoiding anything you post for many months after you repeatedly demonstrated abject stupidity and offensive hatefulness. Nothing has changed.
2. I created this specific thread CHALLENGING you and your godless pals to present some "original science" of your own choosing. Nothing. You have NOTHING. You cannot produce anything.
3. I opened this post of yours in hopes that you did produce something worthwhile. As usual, all you do is lie.
4. I quote scientists and attribute their writings to them. This is a common practice in all books, papers, magazines, everything published. It is not "cut and paste," it is quoting and attributing.
5. Much of my material is my original product. You can't stand it much less understand it so you snivel your childish "cut and paste" rant.

You really have a miserable life, spewing hatefulness so wantonly. Goodness induces more of itself, just as does hatefulness.
I pass out this quote to strangers to encourage them to be more kind. You need it very desperately.
_____________________________________________________


When someone tells you "Have a nice day," how do you do that? Here's how.

“We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested.” – Martin Seligman, PhD, in his book Flourish

 

[scruffy]

1. Religious extremists don’t understand that natural selection is the opposite of random. What the hyper-rigious don’t understand is that the forces that act upon biological organisms are not random. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

2. External factors such as environment and mutations cause DNA to change and morph in unpredictable ways. Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of believing that a “long time” only amounts to a few thousand years.

3. Then there is the issue of you reciting what you were indoctrinated with at creation ministries. Your attempts at argument are just cutting and pasting from creation ministries.

4. Humans have invented millions of gods, most of which were invented before your gods. Do the math. Using your silly attempt at analogy, the chances of winning the lottery can be one chance in several million, yet, people still win.

Isn’t that strange. You can’t even get a simple “what are the odds” right.

Exactly. The gentleman is a mathematical ignoramus.

Protein sequences have very little to do with chance. Maybe some polypeptides did at one point, but that was eons ago.

Probability is not statistics. Probability is hard core serious math, and no one should spout off about coin flips in the context of stochastic manifolds.

All this anti-Darwin bullshit is just butthurt Christians feeling sorry for their inferior knowledge and willful ignorance of modern math.

These days, information geometry tells us about stochastic manifolds that admit torsion (semi-Weyl, if anyone's interested), and this we can describe the trajectories of self organizing systems.

Neural networks obey the same math as DNA. You can get DNA waves just like you can get brain waves. There are chaotic attractors in the genome that display fractal spectra.

Anyone talking about coin flips in this context is brain dead. Perhaps they'd do better as an artist, or musician.

 

[Hollie]

1. I have been studiously avoiding anything you post for many months after you repeatedly demonstrated abject stupidity and offensive hatefulness. Nothing has changed.
2. I created this specific thread CHALLENGING you and your godless pals to present some "original science" of your own choosing. Nothing. You have NOTHING. You cannot produce anything.
3. I opened this post of yours in hopes that you did produce something worthwhile. As usual, all you do is lie.
4. I quote scientists and attribute their writings to them. This is a common practice in all books, papers, magazines, everything published. It is not "cut and paste," it is quoting and attributing.
5. Much of my material is my original product. You can't stand it much less understand it so you snivel your childish "cut and paste" rant.

You really have a miserable life, spewing hatefulness so wantonly. Goodness induces more of itself, just as does hatefulness.
I pass out this quote to strangers to encourage them to be more kind. You need it very desperately.
_____________________________________________________


When someone tells you "Have a nice day," how do you do that? Here's how.

“We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested.” – Martin Seligman, PhD, in his book Flourish

1. You have been studiously retreating from challenges to your endless ''quotes''. It really reflects poorly on you when claiming to have others on ignore when you selectively respond with a silly ''quote''.

2. You created a CHALLENGE yet you are unable to respond to those challenges. Why did you bother? This thread, as with other threads you dump into the Science and Technology forum, is drenched in your version of religious extremism. You have a profound misunderstanding of science. There is no requirement for faith when facts are known. The success that science has enjoyed in understandng and predicting the natural world are not in question. Part of that success dreived from removing the shackles of fear and superstition imposed by religious dogma

3. What is worthwhile is laying out for you a clear progression showing human understanding of biology, chemistry and the physical sciences. The hyper-religious tend to revile science and knowledge because there are irreconcilable differences separating religious literalism, faith, vs. the rational, natural world.

It's quite a contradiction for the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a platonic one.

4. There is a term, ''quote-mining'' that applies to the tactic of dumping ''quotes'' taken from creationist websites. It's a tactic of ''quoting'' scientists as "evidence" against evolution in particular and science in general. Let's refer to your thread of ''25 pages of quotes by scientists''. It was a monstrosity of edited, parsed and altered ''quotes'', which, as was pointed out, included a ''quote'' by Adolph Hitler. You have no interest in any discussion of original science, your intention is waste bandwidth with endless ''quotes'' you steal from ID'iot creationer websites.

5. What part of ''25 pages of quotes by scientists'' was original?

There's no need to project. What you “personally believe” here is all fine and good, as long as you do not portray it to be anything more than mere “personal belief.” But it is still demonstrably a surrender to ignorance. It is an explicit assertion that the subject is not amenable to reason or evidence; that it is entirely outside the capacity of humans to understand so we should not even try. Of course that would require us to draw all our conclusions not as humans but as sheep, and blindly follow the traditions and tales of those who came before us. That in turn would automatically subject the vast majority of humanity to forever live in error and superstition. You may be happy with such a circumstance. Others of us are not

 

[ReinyDays]

Exactly. The gentleman is a mathematical ignoramus.

Protein sequences have very little to do with chance. Maybe some polypeptides did at one point, but that was eons ago.

Probability is not statistics. Probability is hard core serious math, and no one should spout off about coin flips in the context of stochastic manifolds.

All this anti-Darwin bullshit is just butthurt Christians feeling sorry for their inferior knowledge and willful ignorance of modern math.

These days, information geometry tells us about stochastic manifolds that admit torsion (semi-Weyl, if anyone's interested), and this we can describe the trajectories of self organizing systems.

Neural networks obey the same math as DNA. You can get DNA waves just like you can get brain waves. There are chaotic attractors in the genome that display fractal spectra.

Anyone talking about coin flips in this context is brain dead. Perhaps they'd do better as an artist, or musician.

Crap ... I need to be more careful with my math claims now ... who knew Malliavin Calculus plays the same role as the classical differential calculus for the C∞ differential manifolds? ... I sure didn't ... thanks for the info ... I'll be using it soon, maybe not correctly, but you'll see this in an environmental thread in the near future ...

 

[scruffy]

Crap ... I need to be more careful with my math claims now ... who knew Malliavin Calculus plays the same role as the classical differential calculus for the C∞ differential manifolds? ... I sure didn't ... thanks for the info ... I'll be using it soon, maybe not correctly, but you'll see this in an environmental thread in the near future ...

It would certainly be a step up from the bullshit the leftards have been spewing for the last 50 years.

 

[ReinyDays]

It would certainly be a step up from the bullshit the leftards have been spewing for the last 50 years.

First week calculus sends most of these people into a tail spin ... from both sides of the aisle ... but if you know what a manifold is, then I'm certainly not the board's math expert ... thank the Living God ... You're welcome ...

 

[scruffy]

First week calculus sends most of these people into a tail spin ... from both sides of the aisle ... but if you know what a manifold is, then I'm certainly not the board's math expert ... thank the Living God ... You're welcome ...

A manifold is kind of a generalized surface. The requirement is that it be "locally Euclidean", meaning you can take derivatives - which in turn implies it's a topological space with a measure. So for example, the surface of the earth might be a manifold, except that it has singular points at the north and south pole - and what the topology allows you to do is "paste together" separate charts that cover these singular points, so you can do math everywhere.

Continuing with the surface of the earth, let's say we need to increase resolution, and we want to capture the jaggies, like, mountains and canyons and the shape of the bottom of the ocean. Then our manifold becomes "random" - however one can still construct an underlying coordinate system whereby one can measure things.

Certain forms of randomness are actually very regular, they have repeating patterns and resemble themselves at various resolutions. There's a famous paper called "How Long Is The Coastline of Britain" by an IBM researcher named Mandelbrot that describes fractal structure and how to calculate the fractional ("Hausdorff") dimension.

The idea is that even if you have a Death Star with lots of jaggies, it's still fundamentally a sphere, and concepts of radius and arc length still make sense.

Math is cool. The next step after manifolds is tangent bundles, and then parallel transport. In parallel transport, you're taking the derivative of one shape with respect to another - so it might be "as if" the underlying coordinate system were being bent into the shape of the second surface, except that you require your tangent vectors to preserve their orientations.

Parallel transport - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Affine connection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ReinyDays]

A manifold is kind of a generalized surface. The requirement is that it be "locally Euclidean", meaning you can take derivatives - which in turn implies it's a topological space with a measure. So for example, the surface of the earth might be a manifold, except that it has singular points at the north and south pole - and what the topology allows you to do is "paste together" separate charts that cover these singular points, so you can do math everywhere.

Continuing with the surface of the earth, let's say we need to increase resolution, and we want to capture the jaggies, like, mountains and canyons and the shape of the bottom of the ocean. Then our manifold becomes "random" - however one can still construct an underlying coordinate system whereby one can measure things.

Certain forms of randomness are actually very regular, they have repeating patterns and resemble themselves at various resolutions. There's a famous paper called "How Long Is The Coastline of Britain" by an IBM researcher named Mandelbrot that describes fractal structure and how to calculate the fractional ("Hausdorff") dimension.

The idea is that even if you have a Death Star with lots of jaggies, it's still fundamentally a sphere, and concepts of radius and arc length still make sense.

Math is cool. The next step after manifolds is tangent bundles, and then parallel transport. In parallel transport, you're taking the derivative of one shape with respect to another - so it might be "as if" the underlying coordinate system were being bent into the shape of the second surface, except that you require your tangent vectors to preserve their orientations.

Parallel transport - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Affine connection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your parallel transport link is broken ... wiki is showing clockwise rotation in the Northern Hemisphere ... that's only true on Jupiter ... [giggle] ... I generally only see climatologists make that mistake ... not mathematicians ... shame on you ... [chorkle] ... trust me, I've studied torsional manifolds inside a Dunkin' Donuts longer than you have ... ROFLMAO ...

The length of the British coastline depends strictly on the smallest unit of measure ... and as this smallest measure approaches the infinitely small measure, the length of the British coastline approaches infinity ... easy peasy ... the beauty of Mandelbrot's work is any mile-long section of British coast is self-similar to any millimeter of British coast, which again is self-similar to the molecular arrangement along this coast ... and theoretically down to the strings themselves ... and this is supposed to work the other way ... the physical structure of the entire universe is self-similar to the British coast ...

Therefore, all that existed before the Big Bang was bad weather ... self-similar to the British coast ... Dr. Mandelbrot is entitled to his opinion ...

I hope you stay active, we need all the math help we can get ... and feel free to correct my mistakes, you'll find many ... and I don't mind being shown I'm wrong when I'm wrong ... especially with math, why I love the subject ... for homework, find work performed:

"Looks complicated, must be Navier/Stokes" --- some rocket scientist somewhere ...

 

[scruffy]

Your parallel transport link is broken ... wiki is showing clockwise rotation in the Northern Hemisphere ... that's only true on Jupiter ... [giggle] ... I generally only see climatologists make that mistake ... not mathematicians ... shame on you ... [chorkle] ... trust me, I've studied torsional manifolds inside a Dunkin' Donuts longer than you have ... ROFLMAO ...

The length of the British coastline depends strictly on the smallest unit of measure ... and as this smallest measure approaches the infinitely small measure, the length of the British coastline approaches infinity ... easy peasy ... the beauty of Mandelbrot's work is any mile-long section of British coast is self-similar to any millimeter of British coast, which again is self-similar to the molecular arrangement along this coast ... and theoretically down to the strings themselves ... and this is supposed to work the other way ... the physical structure of the entire universe is self-similar to the British coast ...

Therefore, all that existed before the Big Bang was bad weather ... self-similar to the British coast ... Dr. Mandelbrot is entitled to his opinion ...

I hope you stay active, we need all the math help we can get ... and feel free to correct my mistakes, you'll find many ... and I don't mind being shown I'm wrong when I'm wrong ... especially with math, why I love the subject ... for homework, find work performed:

"Looks complicated, must be Navier/Stokes" --- some rocket scientist somewhere ...

Excellent, thank you.

Do you know, is there a math font where we can actually post math? Is that available to us?

 

[ChemEngineer]

My personally recorded observations of our Creator's brilliance:

As the frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum changes, the very properties of the energy itself change.

In the visible range, electromagnetic radiation (called “light” within this narrow range) is stopped by most, but strangely not ALL matter. Glass, water, and special kinds of plastic are transparent to EMR.



One of the many profound aspects of EMR is how it changes to penetrate matter when it gets both longer and shorter. Hence we can take x-rays and transmit radio messages through a wide variety of matter that no light in the visible spectrum can pass through.



Marvelous.

 

[Mushroom]

But, but,but...What about Carl Sagan's phony "billions and billions" argument? (He tried to create the illusion of certainty by multiplying probability times infinity.)

Here is the funny thing, he never said that.

Much like the claim that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, that did not come from Dr. Sagan. It actually came from a parody skit that Johnny Carson did.



Much like Sherlock Holms never said "Elementary, my dear Watson", and Kirk never said "Beam me up, Scotty". Yet another thing that is commonly attributed to somebody that they actually never said.

 

[Hollie]

My personally recorded observations of our Creator's brilliance:

As the frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum changes, the very properties of the energy itself change.

In the visible range, electromagnetic radiation (called “light” within this narrow range) is stopped by most, but strangely not ALL matter. Glass, water, and special kinds of plastic are transparent to EMR.



One of the many profound aspects of EMR is how it changes to penetrate matter when it gets both longer and shorter. Hence we can take x-rays and transmit radio messages through a wide variety of matter that no light in the visible spectrum can pass through.



Marvelous.

My personally observed awesomeness of the gods magical creator brilliance

Cancer cell

Description​

Cancer cells are cells that divide continually, forming solid tumors or flooding the blood or lymph with abnormal cells. Cell division is a normal process used by the body for growth and repair


Marvelous’ness.

 

[scruffy]

My personally recorded observations of our Creator's brilliance:

As the frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum changes, the very properties of the energy itself change.

In the visible range, electromagnetic radiation (called “light” within this narrow range) is stopped by most, but strangely not ALL matter. Glass, water, and special kinds of plastic are transparent to EMR.



One of the many profound aspects of EMR is how it changes to penetrate matter when it gets both longer and shorter. Hence we can take x-rays and transmit radio messages through a wide variety of matter that no light in the visible spectrum can pass through.



Marvelous.

Programmable interactions and emergent geometry in an array of atom clouds - Nature

The reported network of connectivity between atomic ensembles is entirely programmable and independent of its geometrical arrangement, because of the interaction with an optical cavity.

www.nature.com

 

[Mushroom]

But, but,but...What about Carl Sagan's phony "billions and billions" argument? (He tried to create the illusion of certainty by multiplying probability times infinity.)

Ahhh, I see you do not like my factual explanation, and he did not say that.

Care to present your evidence? And no, not his book that he wrote decades later. That was actually him having fun with the fact that many believed he said it, and he never did. I actually presented the broadcast that caused that to become commonly believed.

Just like people still believe Sarah Palin said she could see Russia, and that Sherlock Holms commonly said "Elementary".

 

[ChemEngineer]

Here is the funny thing, he never said that.

I have read and critiqued a number of Sagan's books. On top of that, I wrote to his publisher and cited numerous errors.
Sagan wrote me a letter completely ignoring his errors and asked me to buy his newest book.
I never bought any of them. They were all library books.
But I did sell his letter on E-Bay for $125.
Agnostic Carl Sagan's memorial service was held at .... St.John the Divine, in New York City.
Hypocrite to the miserable end. He's a believer now you betcha!

When I have some time, I will post some of Sagan's egregious nonsense, and Isaac Asimov's too!
What a hateful hack Asimov was. His only child is a convicted pedophile. Be proud, Isaac. Be very proud.

 

[jwoodie]

Ahhh, I see you do not like my factual explanation, and he did not say that.

Care to present your evidence? And no, not his book that he wrote decades later. That was actually him having fun with the fact that many believed he said it, and he never did. I actually presented The Tonitethe broadcast that caused that to become commonly believed.

Just like people still believe Sarah Palin said she could see Russia, and that Sherlock Holms commonly said "Elementary".

You should expand the scope of your inquiry beyond The Tonight Show. Here is a quote of Sagan on Cosmos: "A galaxy is composed of gas and dust and stars - billions upon billions of stars. Every star may be a sun to some one." He also wrote a book entitled Billions & Billions published in 1997.

 

[ChemEngineer]

From Cosmos by Carl Sagan

P 276: “The information in the nucleus of our cells would fill a thousand volumes.” (“Evidence of much poor planning”, P 57, Pale Blue Dot?)

P 286: “The mindless contents of commercial television . . .” (I saw Sagan many times on commercial television. Were his own “commercial television” programs “mindless”? What inconsistency - what “chauvinism”.)

P 338: “Sex was invented.” (By whom? A clever “accident” of “random” gene mutation, was it not? Male and female forms, simultaneous and complimentary, along with binocular color vision, a hundred million gigabyte brain, Fourier analyzing ears, impossibly complex enzymes . . .)



P 339: “Think of the negative connotations of words like alien or outlandish. (Or Nixon. Or Reagan. Or Military. Sagan also said, “Hansen courageously testified before Congress. This was during the Reagan years.” P.B.D., Page 225)

Ibid: “The Cosmos may be densely populated with intelligent beings.” (P 250: “That we live in a Universe which permits life is remarkable.” His two statements are incongruous, even incompatible.)





Ibid: “Rich nation states will have to share their wealth with poor ones.” (“Compared to other nations, the U.S. by far spends more foreign aid than anyone else. “ – WorldPopulationReview.com

Shall we give them our NASA budget? What part of Sagan’s wealth did he share with “poor ones”? Is there the first notation in any of his books that any proceeds will be shared with the “poor ones”?)





A Eulogy for Carl Sagan was delivered at The Cathedral of St. John the Divine, New York City, February, 27 1997 during a memorial service entitled "A Celebration of Carl Sagan's Life". It is ironic in the extreme that this agnostic who constantly belittled and denied God was celebrated in one of God’s Sanctuaries.

 

[Hollie]

From Cosmos by Carl Sagan

P 276: “The information in the nucleus of our cells would fill a thousand volumes.” (“Evidence of much poor planning”, P 57, Pale Blue Dot?)

P 286: “The mindless contents of commercial television . . .” (I saw Sagan many times on commercial television. Were his own “commercial television” programs “mindless”? What inconsistency - what “chauvinism”.)

P 338: “Sex was invented.” (By whom? A clever “accident” of “random” gene mutation, was it not? Male and female forms, simultaneous and complimentary, along with binocular color vision, a hundred million gigabyte brain, Fourier analyzing ears, impossibly complex enzymes . . .)



P 339: “Think of the negative connotations of words like alien or outlandish. (Or Nixon. Or Reagan. Or Military. Sagan also said, “Hansen courageously testified before Congress. This was during the Reagan years.” P.B.D., Page 225)

Ibid: “The Cosmos may be densely populated with intelligent beings.” (P 250: “That we live in a Universe which permits life is remarkable.” His two statements are incongruous, even incompatible.)





Ibid: “Rich nation states will have to share their wealth with poor ones.” (“Compared to other nations, the U.S. by far spends more foreign aid than anyone else. “ – WorldPopulationReview.com

Shall we give them our NASA budget? What part of Sagan’s wealth did he share with “poor ones”? Is there the first notation in any of his books that any proceeds will be shared with the “poor ones”?)





A Eulogy for Carl Sagan was delivered at The Cathedral of St. John the Divine, New York City, February, 27 1997 during a memorial service entitled "A Celebration of Carl Sagan's Life". It is ironic in the extreme that this agnostic who constantly belittled and denied God was celebrated in one of God’s Sanctuaries.

So, as usual, you just mindlessly cut and pasted from an obscure “critique” and stole a collection of “quotes”.

Just lazy and dishonest.

Cosmos - A Critique

"Cosmos" - A Critique “Cosmos”, by Carl Sagan A Critique by MirabileAuditu Note: Carl Sagan was a scientist and teacher at Cornell University. Unfortunately, he demonstrated an extremely left-wing bias, while contradicting himself and saying things that were either untrue or patently...

www.physicsforums.com

 

[scruffy]

From Cosmos by Carl Sagan

P 276: “The information in the nucleus of our cells would fill a thousand volumes.” (“Evidence of much poor planning”, P 57, Pale Blue Dot?)

P 286: “The mindless contents of commercial television . . .” (I saw Sagan many times on commercial television. Were his own “commercial television” programs “mindless”? What inconsistency - what “chauvinism”.)

P 338: “Sex was invented.” (By whom? A clever “accident” of “random” gene mutation, was it not? Male and female forms, simultaneous and complimentary, along with binocular color vision, a hundred million gigabyte brain, Fourier analyzing ears, impossibly complex enzymes . . .)



P 339: “Think of the negative connotations of words like alien or outlandish. (Or Nixon. Or Reagan. Or Military. Sagan also said, “Hansen courageously testified before Congress. This was during the Reagan years.” P.B.D., Page 225)

Ibid: “The Cosmos may be densely populated with intelligent beings.” (P 250: “That we live in a Universe which permits life is remarkable.” His two statements are incongruous, even incompatible.)





Ibid: “Rich nation states will have to share their wealth with poor ones.” (“Compared to other nations, the U.S. by far spends more foreign aid than anyone else. “ – WorldPopulationReview.com

Shall we give them our NASA budget? What part of Sagan’s wealth did he share with “poor ones”? Is there the first notation in any of his books that any proceeds will be shared with the “poor ones”?)





A Eulogy for Carl Sagan was delivered at The Cathedral of St. John the Divine, New York City, February, 27 1997 during a memorial service entitled "A Celebration of Carl Sagan's Life". It is ironic in the extreme that this agnostic who constantly belittled and denied God was celebrated in one of God’s Sanctuaries.

What part of this is science?

The Fourier analyzing ears?

Frequency analysis (both spatial and temporal) is ubiquitous in the human brain. In the visual system spatial frequency filtering is self organized on the basis of a complex log map between the neurons in the thalamus and the neurons in the cerebral cortex. (Complex log is a spiral, like a seashell). In the auditory system frequency analysis is also spatial, since the hair cell mapping is tonotopic.

If you really want to understand the brain, study the relationship between egocentric and allocentric reference frames in the hippocampus. There are "place cells", and there are "grid cells", and everything automagically realigns itself with changes in head position or direction of motion.

There's nothing mystical about it, it's simple physics. There's an area of the brain not many people know about, called the claustrum, that tells the hippocampal system what to pay attention to on the basis of novelty. This system is driven by the medial prefrontal cortex, which it turns out is performing a wavelet coupled Volterra decomposition on the input. The Kalman filtering people have been trying for YEARS to accomplish this, they finally hit on the method of unscented hotspot selection (sigma spots), which turns out to be vastly more computationally efficient than Toeplitz matrix inversion.

If you want to know WHY this works, you have to understand what a Laguerre function is and why it's important for Volterra analysis. When you do this, you will notice that the shapes of neural postsynaptic potentials practically leap off the page at you. And these in turn, are driven by the chemical kinetics of ion channels and neurotransmitter receptors.

These mechanisms are ubiquitous in evolution, they're highly conserved, they haven't changed since goldfish.

The interesting part is how the various organisms achieve scale continuity.

A clue is provided by the neurons in the auditory system you were speaking of, which are only precise down to about a msec (that's the refractory period), yet deliver an inter-aural population code precise down to about 10 microseconds or less.

None of this requires a guiding hand, it can all be self organized on the basis of coincidence detection. The math is real simple, the hardest thing about it is gradient descent.