A Matter of Life and Death and Neuroscience

kenneth paul collins KPCollins at postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Fri Oct 11 17:54:17 EST 1996

I've received the following email from Lee Kent Hempfling:
> I had to go to Dejanews to find this since my news server is once
> again on the frits...........
> I am responding to this in email for now and will forward the
> response to bionet.neuroscience when I can get back into it.
> Article 61 of 273
> Subject:      Re: A Matter of Life and Death and Neuroscience
> From:         kenneth paul collins
> <KPCollins at postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Date:         1996/10/11
> Message-Id:   <325DE279.3F49 at postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References:
>  <325D6F02.3844 at postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <53k6ja$68d at ren.cei.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii Organization: AT&T WorldNet
> Services Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups:   bionet.neuroscience X-Mailer:
>     Mozilla 2.01E (Win95; I)
> [snip]
> >> I expect the same from anyone dealing with this company's
> >> technology and I respect their doing so. The more challenge the
> >> better. My intention was to keep any response private so as not to
> >> interfere with your intentions of publishment.  Then.
> >> I did not THEN address your original letter to the group. I
> >> shall withhold comment on the letter based upon your response
> >> here. Publicly, I might add.
> >...frankly, your "questions" seem to me to be more of an
> >"inquisition" than any other one thing... they they do not deal
> >with the Neuroscience... Duality Theory is a theory in
> >Neuroscience, not "money" stuff... let us go our separate ways... ken
> >collins
> Mr Collins;
> You have a great deal of growing up to do. The above response is an
> egotistically childish act. You hop on to a newsgroup of neuroscience
> using terms to fit your own design, creating a new form of
> 'mathematics' to fit your own design and then plead for someone to
> listen. Someone does listen enough to want to hear more and instead
> of presenting what it is you demanded to be able to present you act
> as if you are being personally attacked and refuse discussion. First
> of all: If you can not handle questions and consider requests for
> definitions to be a inquisition then the theory you hold will be
> judged on its creator's refusal to act adult instead of on its own
> merits. Secondly: The questions DID deal with neuroscience , if you
> can not relate to them, say so. If you can not divulge something ,
> say so. If you can not release parts of your information for
> proprietary purposes, say so. But to refuse to discuss what it is
> that you wanted discussed is down right infantile.

...there is no such refuasl... my work is in Neuroscience... your 
questions were not...

> You consider that perhaps since a corporation's executive officer
> inquired about specifics of your theory that such inquiry is 'money
> stuff' and not neuroscience you have a much longer way to go before
> anyone will take you seriously. Believe me, I've been at the stage
> you are now and if I would have taken the same arrogant stance you
> are taking there would be no corporation today, let alone working
> machinery to prove the points raised.

...so be it... such is other folks' decision, not mine... but, yeah, I'm 
skeptical with respect to anything that smacks of a "profit motive"... 
I've never witnessed one thing motivated by "profit" which is not 
so compromised that it's become something other than what its developer 
had envisoined... "Duality Theory's" understanding just "vanishes" if 
it's "compromised" so as to conform to anything other than the 
Neuroscience experimental results... trust me... I'm an old hand at 
fending off "steering" BS that would transform the understanding into 
something that it is not... I will not participate in such... as far as 
I'm concerned, there is only the Truth pointed to by the Neuroscience 
experimental results... the rest is BS...

> I quote from your OWN plea:
> >I have been participating in this forum in the hope that my
> >interaction with folks here would win a hearing for a
> >unified theory of central nervous system (CNS) function,
> >cognition, affect and behavior, "Duality Theory", that I
> >have developed over the course of the past 25 years.

...yeah... an =in-person= presentation opportunity...

> You were given the opportunity to have that hearing. It was presented
> to you in private email and you refused saying it was only possible
> to discuss in public. Then you were given the opportunity, without a
> single bit of editing from the private email to do so in public and
> now you refuse.

...Lee, your questions are not representative of my work... my work is 
in Neuroscience... your questions were in Philosophy or semantics... 

> >Duality Theory provides an integrated treatment of the
> >functioning of every major nuclear group that exists within
> >"the" CNS. Everything within the theory reduces directly to
> >the proven Neuroscience experimental results. Because of
> >this, I can take Duality Theory before any Scientists,
> >anywhere, with absolute certainty that the theory will
> >survive all challenges.
> Oh you can? Well, you were given the opportunity. Now you reduse to
> do so. You were given simple (MAKE THAT: elemental) challenges for
> definitions alone. Nothing that would have made you work too hard and
> your response is that
> >...frankly, your "questions" seem to me to be more of an
> >"inquisition" than any other one thing... they they do not deal with
> >the Neuroscience...
> You use a term of Copenhagen Interpretation, Duality. Yet refuse to
> define how it is you use it. You were asked to define:
> 1: Define Duality as you use it in the theory title.
> 2: Would you provide a brief synopsis of the main thrusts , the major
> point of the theory?
> 3: Would you be so kind as to define the
> following terms as it relates to the theory?
>  A: Intelligence
>  B: Learning
>  C: Memory
>  D: Muscle motivation
>  E: Processing protocol
>  F: Binding Aspect
>  G: Input mechanisms
>  H: Consciousness
> And you claim the above NOT to be neuroscience.

...yup... the above are Philosophy or Semantics or Cognitive Science... 
my work is in Neuroscience... nerve impulses... neural activation 

...but if I were to be granted an in-person presentation opportunity 
with Neuroscientists and fair witnesses, I'd discuss the sorts of things 
that your questions address... only, I'd do such in the context of a 
much-larger Neuroscience discussion... folks have been speculating, 
without much success, about "intelligence", "consciousness", etc, for 
centuries... in my work, I address things from the perspective of the 
Neuroscience experimental results, and show how "intelligence", 
"consciousness", etc arise out of the neural dynamics... what I do is 
the Neuroscience... I do not address "intelligence" and "consciousness", 
etc, except from the perspective of the Neuroscience...

...and, forgive me, you've given me no reason to believe that you have 
any background in Neuroscience, and since I got "fired" last month, my 
funds are low, and because of that I'm not interested in starting an 
online course in Neuroscience... because I'd not be able to finish it 
before the few dollars I have run out anyway...

> :>The theory incorporates a new branch of Mathematics,
> >"Information Calculus", that I had to invent as a solution
> >to the cortical "addressing" problem (how "memory" is stored
> >and retrieved in the CNS, and how sensory and motor
> >activation states are "recognized" and converged upon).
> What are the tenants of this new math? Why envoke calculus at all? In
> any form? A new math is fine, but to state it an run is ridiculous.

...I will present the Math =in-person=, before fair witnesses... my 
purpose in this is =not= to prevent others from having access to the 
Math... it is to prevent selfish folks from preventing others from 
having access to the Math... (it hasn't always been this way with my 
work... but I learned, 13 years, ago that such is necessary)

> >This Math is extremely-powerful.  In addition to its strong
> >applications to the CNS, it makes possible the development
> >of machine analogues of the information- processing
> >capacities of the CNS (information-content- addressing,
> >automatic generation of information classification
> >hierarchies, and self-programming).
> OK, then HOW?

...in person, before Neuroscientists, Mathematicians, and fair 
witnesses... if you want to see it, organize a workable presentation 
opportunity... period.

> >Duality Theory also provides explanations for the full
> >spectrum of behavioral dynamics.  Among many other things,
> >the theory provides concrete biological explanations for the
> >phenomena of creativity, curiosity, volition, "conscience",
> >and pain and its avoidance.  A central focus of the theory
> >is the phenomenon of prejudice, and how prejudice arises
> >within the biology of the CNS.  Again, all of this, and
> >everything else within the theory, reduces directly to the
> >proven Neuroscience experimental results.
> Cite them then. Or is that inquiry an inquisition as well?

...in person...

> >Duality Theory also resolves long-standing problems in
> >Neuroscience such as why the phenomenon of "decussation"
> >occurs ubiquitously within mammalian nervous systems (I have
> >discussed this particular stuff here in this newsgroup.)
> You seemed to be seeking allies for your theory but now seem to be
> seeking only what you wish to expound based upon only that which you
> wish to make a point of.

...that's not it... I discussed "decussation" because it's 
extremely-straight-forward, and easy to comprehend... go look in Deja 
News... perhaps the discussion is still there...

> >My rationale for developing Duality Theory arose out of my
> >observation that much of human interaction is nonsensical.
> >Consider, for instance the slaughter in Bosnia that our
> >media-bourne eyes have witnessed.  Three groups, each
> >supposedly distinguished through its Religious heritage,
> <snip>
> OK Fine. You had a causal motivation to work on the theory and
> mention above:
> > A central focus of the theory
> >is the phenomenon of prejudice, and how prejudice arises
> >within the biology of the CNS.
> Your original motivation shines through. It is admirable to seek an
> elimination or an explanation of prejudice. But how are we to know if
> you have concocted an explanation to ease your ideal of a single
> subject or have managed to develope a true overall theory of the CNS
> if you won't discuss something as elemental as the questions pointed
> to you above?

...in-person... there's a =lot= of material that must not only be 
discussed, but also =integrated=... =unified=... such cannot be 
accomplished in little snippets, with folks goming & going & missing 
pieces, and, so, having to continually "back track"... in a place where 
there are "cranks" who enjoy nothing more than "disrupting" any serious 
discussion that they come across...

...in-person holds no guarantees that the same difficulties will not 
hold sway, but in-preson is a bit more promising... plus, standard refs 
can be used in-person... folks don't have to take my word for 

...again, this "insistence" on my part is not arbitrary... "I learned 
the =hard= way" that in-person is best...

> I gave you the opportunity to help your cause by reducing elemental
> parts to their specific definitions. You passed on it. Why? If you
> would have said they information was classified I would have accepted
> that. But being in the position of being able to lend assistance to
> someone with brilliant ideas to have that person slap back with
> absurdity of the nature of 'inquisition' leaves me cold.

...frankly, it seems to me that you're operating under a "profit" 

..."lend assistance"... good grief! if you want to "lend assistance" set 
up a workable in-person presentation opportunity before Neuroscientists, 
Mathematicians and fair witnesses...

> >So, it's 25 years later, and I'm still thinking that,
> >surely, a college or university, somewhere, will allow me to
> >present Duality Theory's principles to an audience that is
> >capable of understanding them. I have come to this newsgroup
> >in this Hope.
> You seek only a college or university, yet you come to this newsgroup
> to seek the ability to be heard. Before you can get behind the ivy
> walls you have to provide a reason to be admitted. I tried to give
> you the reasons to be admitted by affording you the opportunity to
> present a synopsis, an abstract to particular points and you refuse
> since you consider a corporation's inquiry as being non academic. You
> have a great deal of learning to do about presenting ideas for
> review. And a great deal of humbling to acquire before ever being
> considered serious in your quest.

...Lee, in-person, before fair witnesses... I'm not trying to be 
"admitted" to University... I'm just looking to what folks at University 
profess... and trust me, circumstances have left me so humbled that I 
cannot co down any farther... can't you see that I'm =free= because I've 
lost everything that a man can possibly lose...? i've nothing left to 
lose... that's why I can say what needs to be said without having to 
acquiesce to BS... there's value in such...

...and, frankly, Lee, you've shown me nothing that is not BS through & 

> >I can say with certainty that, to a level commensurate with
> >the work of Isaac Newton in the old Natural Philosophy, I
> >have solved "the" CNS as an information-processing system. I
> >can take this solution before any Scientists, anywhere, and
> >it will withstand all challenges that they are able to put
> >to it.
> Challenges were put to it, sir. You refuse to address them on the
> grounds that they were challenges. They were only simple queries of
> definitions. If you wish to be challenged, we can handle that. DO you
> think it is the job of scientists to entertain your ideas only
> because they are your ideas? NO It is the job of scientists to
> disprove your ideas. If they can not be they will then entertain
> them. If yo do not provide at least a bit of the information to be
> able to enter into discussion over then you fail to meet a simple
> challenge which precludes you the opporunity of a greater one.

...from the perspective of Duality Theory, what you refer to as 
"challenges" require the whole course in Neuroscience... it's as if you 
said to a Physicist, "explain how gravity is the same as electromagnetic 
force"... see what I mean...? gotta do a =lot= of preliminary stuff 
first... this's why I knew you didn't know what you were talking 
about... so why bother...?

...do you think I've been sitting on my hands for 25 years? I haven't... 
the theory's stuff is out there... Scientists have access to it... the 
only folks who don't yet have access to it are those for whom the work 
was done... ironic isn't it?

> >Because the understanding that is contained in Duality
> >Theory can ameliorate the tragedy that is touched on in the
> >"litany", above, I ask that the community of researchers
> >allow the understanding to be communicated. K. P. Collins
> >5:53pm, Thu, 10 Oct 96, Hartford
> What? You wanted to talk about it? But the moment you are challenged
> you say this:
> >...frankly, your "questions" seem to me to be more of an
> >"inquisition" than any other one thing... they they do not deal with
> >the Neuroscience... Duality Theory is a theory in Neuroscience, not
> >"money" stuff... let us go our separate ways... ken collins
> If you are going to step before the firing squad to present your case
> you'd better expect questions and you'd better answer them. They are
> your only armor. You refusal to answer anything as elemental as that
> which was provided reduces your theory to obscurity.

...in-preson, before fair witnesses...

> I am told by one of the director's of our firm that you're theory may
> coincide in part to what we have built our technology on. 

...do you think that such was not obvious to me...? I've kept careful 
records, all of my work is documented... all of it was developed from 
the raw Neuroscience experimental results... if there's "infringement", 
I can demonstrate to anyone that it is not I who have infringed...

> How are we to know that? 

...frankly, Lee, that is =your= problem... I've done what's necessary to 
guard my rights with respect to my work...

> Not only could I have given the opportunity for you
> to expound your ideas in a public forum but I would have addressed
> them from a civilized critique based upon proven concepts and hard
> evidence. I would have given you the chance to either make your case
> and be vindicated or to do as you have done: turn tail and run.
> Others could have joined the conversation and you could have opened
> doors to academia you would not otherwise have been afforded the
> opportunity to knock on.

...incredible BS...

> "Let us go our separate ways." You said.
> If you can not take the heat, why in the world did you stroll into
> the furnace?
> You put up the idea. Why is it you have now chosen to shut up?
> lee kent hempfling
> chairman, ceo
> Neutronics Technologies Corporation.
> |Lee Kent Hempfling                   |email:lkh at cei.net
> |Neutronics Technologies Corporation  |http://www.cei.net/~lkh/ntc/
> |PO Box 3127 Fort Smith Ar 72913

...look, Lee, my work has been plagerized many times... I'm leaving all 
of the plagerists to fend for themselves... and since you've now 
admitted that you had reson to want to pry into my work because you are 
"told by one of the director's of our firm that you're theory may
coincide in part to what we have built our technology on" what do you 
want me to say...?

...all of my work is thoroughly documented...

...frankly, Lee, I spotted your motivation in the moment of reading your 
first email note to me... you "lost me" before we even began to 

...your problem is not my problem... K. P. Collins
People hate because they fear, and they fear because
they do not understand, and they do not understand 
because hating is less work than understanding.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list