Changes

<translate>Let us continue with our example</translate>:

<translate>Let us continue with our example</translate>:

Let us take a common encryption and decryption platform. In the following example we will report the results of an Italian platform but we can choose any platform because the results conceptually do not change:

<translate>Let us take a common encryption and decryption platform</translate>. <translate>In the following example we will report the results of an Italian platform but we can choose any platform because the results conceptually do not change</translate>:

You type your message in plain text, the machine converts it into something unreadable, but anyone knowing the "code" will be able to understand it.  

<translate>You type your message in plain text, the machine converts it into something unreadable, but anyone knowing the "code" will be able to understand it</translate>.  

Let us suppose, then, that the same happens when the brain sends a message in its own machine language, made up of wave trains, packets of ionic fields and so on; and that carries a message with it to decrypt the ‘Ephaptic’ code.

<translate>Let us suppose, then, that the same happens when the brain sends a message in its own machine language, made up of wave trains, packets of ionic fields and so on; and that carries a message with it to decrypt the ‘Ephaptic’ code.</translate>

This message from the Central Nervous System must first be transduced into verbal language, to allow the patient to give meaning to the linguistic expression and the doctor to interpret the verbal message. In this way, however, the machine message is polluted by the linguistic expression: both by the patient, who is unable to convert the encrypted message with the exact meaning (epistemic vagueness), and by the doctor, because he/she is conditioned by the specific context of his/her specialization.

<translate>This message from the Central Nervous System must first be transduced into verbal language, to allow the patient to give meaning to the linguistic expression and the doctor to interpret the verbal message.</translate> <translate>In this way, however, the machine message is polluted by the linguistic expression: both by the patient, who is unable to convert the encrypted message with the exact meaning (epistemic vagueness), and by the doctor, because he/she is conditioned by the specific context of his/her specialization.</translate>

The patient, actually, by reporting a symptomatology of orofacial pain in the region of the temporoandibular joint, virtually combines the set of ''extension'' and ''intention'' into a diagnostic concept that allows the dentist to formulate the diagnosis of orofacial pain from temporomandibular disorders. (TMDs).  

<translate>The patient, actually, by reporting a symptomatology of orofacial pain in the region of the temporoandibular joint, virtually combines the set of ''extension'' and ''intention'' into a diagnostic concept that allows the dentist to formulate the diagnosis of orofacial pain from temporomandibular disorders. (TMDs). </translate>

Very often, the message remains encrypted at least until the system is damaged to such an extent that clinical signs and symptoms emerge so striking that, obviously, they facilitate the diagnosis.  

<translate>Very often the message remains encrypted at least until the system is damaged to such an extent that clinical signs and symptoms emerge so striking that, obviously, they facilitate the diagnosis.</translate>

Understanding how the encryption works is quite simple (go to decryption platform chooses and to try it out):

<translate>Understanding how the encryption works is quite simple (go to decryption platform chooses and to try it out)</translate>:

#choose an encryption key among those selected;

#<translate>choose an encryption key among those selected</translate>;

#type a word;'

#<translate>type a word</translate>;

#get a code corresponding to the chosen key and the typed word.

#<translate>get a code corresponding to the chosen key and the typed word</translate>.

For example, if we insert the word ‘Ephaptic’ in the platform encryption system, we will have an encrypted code in the three different contexts (patient, dentist and neurologist) which correspond to the three different algorithmic keys indicated by the  program, for instance: the A key corresponds to the patient's algorithm, the B key to the dental context and the C key to the neurological context.

<translate>For example, if we insert the word ‘Ephaptic’ in the platform encryption system, we will have an encrypted code in the three different contexts (patient, dentist and neurologist) which correspond to the three different algorithmic keys indicated by the  program, for instance: the A key corresponds to the patient's algorithm, the B key to the dental context and the C key to the neurological context.</translate>

In the case of the patient, for example, writing <code>Ephaptic</code> and using the A key, the "machine" will give us back a code like  

<translate>In the case of the patient, for example, writing <code>Ephaptic</code> and using the A key, the "machine" will give us back a code like </translate>

The key can be defined as "Real context".   

<translate>The key can be defined as "Real context"</translate>.   

{{q4|Why do you say that the patient's "key" is defined as the REAL one?|difficult answer, but observe the Gate Control phenomenon and you will understand}}

{{q4|<translate>Why do you say that the patient's "key" is defined as the REAL one?</translate>|<translate>difficult answer, but please observe the Gate Control phenomenon and you will understand</translate>}}

First of all: Only the patient is unconsciously aware of the disease that afflicts his own system, but he does not have the ability to transduce the signal from the machine language to the verbal language. The same procedure occurs in 'Systems Control Theory', in which a dynamic control procedure called ‘State Observer’ is designed to estimate the state of the system from output measurements. Matter of fact, in the control theory, observability is a measure of how much the internal state of a system can be deduced from the knowledge of its external outputs<ref>[[wikipedia:Observability|Osservability]] </ref>.  While in the case of a biological system a ‘Stochastic Observability’ of linear dynamic systems <ref>{{cita libro  

<translate>First of all</translate>: <translate>Only the patient is unconsciously aware of the disease that afflicts his own system, but he does not have the ability to transduce the signal from the machine language to the verbal language. The same procedure occurs in 'Systems Control Theory', in which a dynamic control procedure called ‘State Observer’ is designed to estimate the state of the system from output measurements. Matter of fact, in the control theory, observability is a measure of how much the internal state of a system can be deduced from the knowledge of its external outputs</translate><ref>[[wikipedia:Observability|Osservability]] </ref>.  <translate>While in the case of a biological system a ‘Stochastic Observability’ of linear dynamic systemsis preferred</translate><ref>{{cita libro  

  | autore = Chen HF

  | autore = Chen HF

  | titolo = On stochastic observability and controllability

  | titolo = On stochastic observability and controllability

  | LCCN =  

  | LCCN =  

  | OCLC =  

  | OCLC =  

  }}</ref> is preferred, the Gramian matrices <ref>[[wikipedia:Controllability_Gramian|Controllability Gramian]]</ref> are used for the stochastic observability of nonlinear systems<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>, <translate>the Gramian matrices are used for the stochastic observability of nonlinear systems</translate><ref>[[wikipedia:Controllability_Gramian|Controllability Gramian]]</ref><ref>{{cita libro  

  | autore = Powel ND

  | autore = Powel ND

  | autore2 = Morgansen KA

  | autore2 = Morgansen KA

  }}</ref>.     

  }}</ref>.     

This would already be enough to bring now our attention on an extraordinarily explanatory phenomenon called ''Gate Control''. If a child gets hit in the leg while playing soccer, in addition to crying, the first thing he does is to rub extensively the painful area so that the pain decreases. The child does not know the ‘Gate Control’, but unconsciously activates an action that, by stimulating the tactile receptors, closes the gate at the entrance of the nociceptive input of the C fibres, consequently decreasing the pain; the phenomenon was discovered only in 1965 by Ronald Melzack and Patrick Wall<ref>{{cita libro  

<translate>This would already be enough to bring now our attention on an extraordinarily explanatory phenomenon called</translate> ''<translate>Gate Control</translate>''. <translate>If a child gets hit in the leg while playing soccer, in addition to crying, the first thing he does is to rub extensively the painful area so that the pain decreases. The child does not know the ‘Gate Control’, but unconsciously activates an action that, by stimulating the tactile receptors, closes the gate at the entrance of the nociceptive input of the C fibres, consequently decreasing the pain; the phenomenon was discovered only in 1965 by Ronald Melzack and Patrick Wall</translate><ref>{{cita libro  

  | autore = Melzack R

  | autore = Melzack R

  | titolo =  The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods  

  | titolo =  The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods