A Matter of Life and Death and Neuroscience

Lee Kent Hempfling lkh at mail.cei.net
Fri Oct 11 13:35:07 EST 1996

I had to go to Dejanews to find this since my news server is once 
again on the frits...........

>>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)


>> 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.

To which Mr. Collins replied:

>...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

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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 refuse 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. 

:>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 and run is ridiculous.

>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?

>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?

>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.

>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,


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?

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 the 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.

>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.

>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 you 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.

>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.

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. How are 
we to know that? 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.

"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                   |lkh at cei.net
Neutronics Technolgies Corporation   |http:www.cei.net/~lkh/ntc/
PO Box 3127 Fort Smith Ar 72913      |Due to traffic: new improved site.
Room temperature, cold dynamic system, quantum computation, built and proven.
Video available at the above site.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list