Fw: can someone answer my question?

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Sun Dec 6 22:30:45 EST 1998


Walter Eric Johnson wrote:

> : > kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> : > : This is, Verifiably, B. S. 100% of the nervous system is involved in 100% of all
> : > : neural-activation "states"... if it were not so, "quiescent" neural "activation"
> : > : would interfere with convergence, and, to the degree of such, "convergence" would
> : > : have observable "holes" in it... which is what =all= lesion studies Verify.
> : >
> : > Please explain what you mean by the above.  What is this "convergence"
> : > that you mention?
> :
> : "Convergence" is the opposite of "divergence"... invoke "common sense"... in Maths, a
> : function's "convergence" refers to it's "solvability"... is there one answer, several,
> : many, or none (including infinite "solutions")
>
> In mathematics, you could have an infinite number of solutions and yet
> converge to only one of them.

In my prior post I had in mind "infinite series"... if an infinite series doesn't converge,
it cannot be reduced to an equation, which is the "solution" to which I was referring. What
you refer to with your "infinite number of solutions" (and which I totally-forgot to mention
in my prior post, because I've experienced "convergence" being relevant with respect to such,
except in numerical analysis, which, when one looks, is seen to be  infinite-series stuff)
are "equations"... and an "equation" is the =single= "solution" which maps all possible
correlations within a "defined field of numbers"... an "equation" is either such a =single=
"Solution", or it's nothing. Your "infinite number of solutions" is B. S. An infiniite number
of anything is "just" Infinity... without additional info, Infinity is equivalent to Nothing,
be-cause it gives exactly zero info on "where to look".

Kind of like what you've been posting to me, Mr. Robot Responder.

> There is nothing about convergence that demands there be only one answer.

Ho, ho, ho :-)

If there's not =One Answer= there's =No= Convergence.

>  However, that is immaterial.  In
> your posting, your use of convergence is obviously not mathematical.

Ho, ho, ho... get thee before a mirror :-)

> Or if it is intended to be mathematical, your use is meaningless.

Ho, ho, ho... get thee before a mirror :-)

> : > What kind of observable "holes" do you mean?
> :
> : Think of an image with "pieces" missing... then apply your image of this
> : "thought-image" to the information-processing dynamics that occur in the brain... the
> : two cases are exactly-analogous.
>
> That seems like a rather meaningless explanation to me.

Yeah, Robot Responders can't Do Meaning-Stuff.

> : > Also, please provide citations for the lesion studies to which you
> : > are referring.
> :
> : I will not... lesion studies are fundamental... one who doesn't know them needs to know
> them =before= asking questions. (BTW, the refs cited in AoK are adequate with respect to
> such.)
> :
> : > I'd expect that if 100% of the nervous system was involved in anything,
> : > the result would be a fatal seizure.  But then, I don't claim to be
> : > an expert in neuroscience.
> :
> : It's just that, since, as is discussed in AoK, everything that occurs within nervous
> : systems occurs in rigorous accord with the TD E/I-minimization principle (see AoK), : the
> stuff that's relatively-inhibited is actually 100% involved in the convergence upon : a
> neural activation "state" via TD E/I-minimization (see AoK)... to the degree that it's
> : not so, dysfunctional conditions  would occur... as is briefly discussed in AoK,
> : "catatonia" reflects such "disinhibition", for instance.
>
> That's really pathetic when someone tries to answer a question by
> using bs.  Can't you give a straight answer to anything?

Robot Responder, can't you See that I didn't ask a question? Ho, ho, ho... "you" Can't See
=anything= :-)

> : > That reminds me.  Why not tell us what qualifies you to be an
> : > "expert" in physics, mathematics, and neuroscience?
> :
> : I did the Work that Produced the Results.
> :
> : That reminds me.  Why not tell us what qualifies you to be my Inquisitor?
>
> There are few qualifications required to ask a question.  On the other
> hand, one who claims to be an expert must be prepared to demonstrate
> his expertise.

Oh, Robot Responder, reach down and Pull-"your-Plug"... there're enough Jackasses in the
world without there being such a Pitiful Attempt at out-doing them on all accounts.

> : Who are you to Twist things around so that it's "me" that is "the topic" under
> : discussion, rather than the Neuroscience... can't you See how Truly-Offensive such is?
>
> If anyone is to accept your proclamations about Neuroscience, they
> must first be sure that you are what you claim to be -- an expert.

No, Dummy Responder... they, unlike "you", are Free to Choose.

> : ...not only to me, but to everyone who meets here...  as I've told you before, I
> : long-ago Disclosed myself fully, at excruciating Cost... I "owe" no one, especially,
> : not you, =anything= in this regard.
>
> You claim to be an expert.

Yeah, for the first "time" during the current online stint, I do so-claim. But Bozo
Responder, since you've been Falsely-Attributing that claim to me, you're not only a Jackass
and a Bozo, since you're obviously programmed to Deceive... you're also a Liar... Enemy of
Truth.

> If you can't back up that claim, your credibility is pretty much zero.

I've backed it up, alright, you're just so Flat-Out Incapable you cannot even See what's
right before your serial port.

> With no credibility, everything you say is suspect.

Ho, ho, ho... get thee before a mirror... er, Debugger... Bugs, Bugs, Bugs :-)

> Thus, if you want anyone to take you seriously,
> you must first establish the fact that you are an expert.  (Of
> course, if you have nothing useful to say, it doesn't matter whether
> or not you establish anything first.)
>
> : Kindly, "go away", "eric"... Mr. "Robot responder".
>
> When are you going to answer my questions?

When you =Stop= your Murdering of Innocents.

To the Operators of this "robot responder": Take this matter =Seriously=. I Mean =Exactly=
what I've posted in the preceding sentence... your machine is B. S. ...you folks will have
Murdered thousands before the dust settles. Disconnect your Pitifully-Inept machine, and
Apologize to everyone here in bionet.neuroscience, or the place where you're doing your
little "experiment" stands to Lose =Everything=. K. P. Collins




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list