micro mods to neurons

[Lee Kent Hempfling]

kspencer at s.psych.uiuc.edu (Kevin Spencer) enunciated:

>kenneth paul collins <KPCollins at postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:

>>...there is an unusual aspect of Duality Theory's understanding... 
>>it is that, if the understanding is attacked and/or rejected, 
>>before it is understood, the theory's position becomes 
>>substantiated in the very act of "rejecting" it... (for those who 
>>have it, see AoK, Ap10)...

>It sounds as though Duality Theory cannot be disproven, which would
>mean it's not a scientific theory -- its predictions must be falsifiable.
>In that case, this newsgroup is really not an appropriate forum to
>discuss this theory.

Thank you, Kevin. Can not be, means it is law. Can not be challenged
means it is not theory. Can not be defended means it is a waste of
time. So far I have seen nothing other than arrogance in its defense.
Let alone, what it might actually be. But I've tried.
lkh
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.