COLLEEN M. SPECHT v102nq9f at
Tue Oct 8 21:25:12 EST 1996

In article <3259C3D4.6315 at>, kenneth paul collins <KPCollins at> writes:
>first, Colleen, it was me that got "jumped"...
>second, I've spent 25 years developing a new theory and 
>your reaction to it is "snip" because you can't understand 
>it ... because it's new...?

i apologize: i have misled you.  i snipped it because i didn't see it as a
response to the post that it was in response to.

>quoting from what you posted:
>> and were it normal, how do you explain cultural
>> differences, or even gender differences?
>....folks in different cultures experience the different 
>stuff of those different cultures... behavior 
>develops so as to reflect such experiential differences...
>, contemplate a genetically Viet Namese infant who 
>is brought to the US and who is raised by American parents 
>within the American culture... becomes behaviorally 
>"American"... acquiring American nationalistic prejudice 
>in the process... (or vice-versa for a genetically 
>American infant) what our nervous systems do is is glom 
>onto what we experience... it's exactly this that 
>techniques which artificially  manipulate the biology 
>flat-out ignore...

yes, but depression *and* learning mechanisms are presumably the same
across cultures, are they not?  if they are not, i do not see how we can
continue this thread any further.

on the other hand, *what* one becomes depressed about, or learns, as you
note, would be different within, *as well as* between cultures.  therefore, 
i am afraid i still do not follow you.

>> i do *not* believe, however, that the neural engram has 
>> been *disocovered*.
>....perhaps you can make some allowance for my "desperate" 
>online demeaner... I am the one who resolved this 
>problem... I had to invent a new branch of Mathematics  
>(Information Calculus) to do so... and even though I can 
>take this stuff before any Scientists, I've not been able 
>to win any opportunity to do so... and time's running 
>out for me...

the neural engram will be found in a living system, not in a mathematical
model.  this is not what the term (used for decades in the literature) refers

>> and you do not know me, either, kp.  i do not think you
>> are an ogre because you express differing ideas.
>, you just treat me as if I were :-)

i am *sincerely* sorry if you feel that way.

>> it is not *that* you express differing ideas, it is not 
>> even that you do not express them very well.... it is 
>> that you express them with contempt, impatience, and 
>> with a lack of appreciation that everyone who reads this 
>> group is not a clinician or scientist
>, that's not it... if you'll look back in the thread, 
>you'll see that I got "jumped"... and the "jumpers" were 
>not only wrong, they were wrong and denying the validity 
>of the Truth which I was posting... I'm patient with folks 
>who want to understand... I tend to be less patient with 
>folks who will not listen to reason, but who go right on 
>posting stuff that's verifiably False... and I really get 
>worked up when what's posted is wrong but plays into the 
>hands of folks who care about money instead of people... 
>pick & choose, my reactions will pretty-much be the 
>same... I've been at this for years... I'm only doing what 
>=needs= to be done... the existence, and seriousness, of 
>the need are easily verified...

i thought i was following this thread from the beginning...all i recall is
that a man named brian scott pointed out (to us all) that ECT is not what you
claimed it to be.  is this the "jump" (?) you refer to?

(and please try to be more patient!)

>> i hereby pledge that if you wish to continue this 
>> bantering i will not waste anyone else's time.  kindly 
>> respond to my email so the rest of the group can be
>> spared the noise.
>....well, I'm sorry that things did get a bit "testy"... 
>but it's essential that I keep my discussion out in the 

as you wish...i think that the bantering has stopped for the moment...

>....just try to understand, I've given up my own Life to do 
>this work for =you=... you are free to receive it, or not, 
>you are not free to refuse to understand what it is yet 
>trash it, too... ken

perhaps this is what none of us can understand...and if you don't mind i would
like to say that i don't believe that good intentions are useful unless they
are applied properly.  you leave out much detail in your haste to make your
points that they are easily missed.  that's all.

have a good one,


colleen specht

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list