Krakatoa stephan at nospam.ucla.edu
Fri Dec 25 04:38:22 EST 1998

No, I don't think your posts are angry thrashing stuff. But they are,
generally speaking, extremely arrogant. Usually you imply that you know
much more (and have some inside truth) to virtually every topic in
neuroscience, including CREB.  Whereas people spend 50-80 hours a week for
4-20 years on a typical scientific problem you tend to dismiss their
analyses (for example, by not even finishing what is a short mini-review
written for newcomers), and offer your own which you come up with after
half-reading something while sitting at your keyboard armchairing it.

Usually these are so hard to follow, they cannot be debated. But this
isn't the problem, what usually angers me is that you imply you have some
inside knowledge of some topic, and that everyone else is out to get you
and will eventually rip off this inside knowledge. You also tend to imply
that people in science are dishonest and are out to plagiarize your great
ideas, which is simply not true.  You also imply that scientists are
ignorant, that they advance falsehoods, and try to mislead people,
including themselves. Obviously, these are not flattering things to say. I
think irrespective of any problems you have with scientists for whatever
reason, this attitude, which is conveyed in many of your messages, is
unfair and insulting. 

Imagine if, in whatever type of programming you do, which I am sure is
quite specialized, some guy who knew next to nothing about programming
walked into the room and said "hey I can do that in 10 minutes" spewed off
some nonsense which didn't make sense, and then wondered why you took
offense.  Basically, this is the situation you find yourself in.


In article <75v4m7$8fr at chronicle.concentric.net>, "ken collins"
<kkollins at concentric.net> wrote:

> [sorry, the following is the text of three msgs that I posted in
> bionet.neuroscience early this evening but, which as of 10:25pm, had not yet
> been posted in that Newsgroup. I must avail upon folks in this Newsgroup as
> my only recourse in the Hope of making an "end-run" around what seems to be
> a "INet problem". Thank You, ken collins]
> [msg1]
> Krakatoa wrote:
> >
> > In article <3681743C.56462637 at pop3.concentric.net>,
> > kkollins at concentric.net wrote:
> >
> > > 1. I stand on what I've posted... it will be yet another thing that,
> > > several years, hence, will be being Plagerized all over the Internet...
> > > and, Sadly, if Experience holds, in the Formal Journals, "Two".
> > >
> >
> > Yes, you posted that you didn't bother to read the paper, which I guess
> > you're proud of.
> The night of my CREB post, I gave the most "time" I was able to give to
> anything to my reading of the paper in question and writing the msg I
> posted. I'm an Amateur. I work as a programmer during the day, and do
> what I can on my research at night, on weekends, hollidays and
> vacations. "Time" is precious to me, and I only give any task that which
> it needs. Then, I move on to the next thing.
> Beyond this, I expect that it's the case that it's not clear to folks
> that I Honor Truth... if there's any small part of the paper that I've
> not read, I say that I've read the paper incompletely, because that's
> True.
> It's somewhat "amusing" to me that your responses to what I posted are
> so "condescending". Dr. Kandel has been one of my Heroes for decades,
> and the paper was referred to me by one of the few folks here in
> bionet.neuroscience who has given me the Kindness of "just" doing
> Science with me. I took my last vacation day this year to Honor that
> Colleague's "just" doing Science with me so I could make the trip to the
> nearest University Library to get a copy of the paper... I only get 10
> vacation days/year, so I gave 10% of my year's wealth of vacation
> days... and 100% of such wealth at the "time"... to Honoring the one
> who'd "just" do Science with me.
> So what's "amusing" is that you seem to think my post is some sort of
> "angry-trashing" stuff. It's not that, but just-the-opposite stuff. When
> I'd read 13 pages of the paper, I saw that there was a Contribution that
> I could make. When I see such, if there's someone who's "just" done
> Science with me, I always try to Honor such by giving back what I can
> Contribute... it's =this= that I did in my post.
> I Apologize to you, and any others, if my "lack" of "expected style"
> "misled" you. It's just that I do not have "time" for "style"... for me,
> such'd be Total-Waste, and I Waste is one of the things that I Choose to
> "move away from".
> This clarification having been given to you, I Invite you (and your
> Colleagues) to Discuss the "ramp" stuff if you Choose to.
> I was going to start a new thread pertaining to it this evening, anyway,
> because, on the way home from Mass this evening, I Realized that there's
> a =small= (judge for yourself, after reading the new thread's first msg
> (which I've not yet begun to work on)) "nomenclature" problem in what I
> posted that, it seems to me, is the [...] in folks' minds. I'll get that
> sorted out, and will Appreciate your comments.
> But if you Choose to continue to be a Jackass, I'm just going to let you
> flap in the wind. K. P. Collins
> [msg2]
> Krakatoa wrote:
> >
> > In article <75rna7$649$1 at nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sgarriott at my-dejanews.com
> wrote:
> >
> > > I know that this may be a strange question, but I've always heard that
> old
> > > cliché that human beings on the average only use about ten percent of
> their
> > > brains.
> > > [...]
> >
> > The question, which is common, actually reflects a basic misunderstanding
> > about the way the brain is organized. Most parts of the brain has
> > specialized functions which is the only thing (or collection of related
> > things) that part of the brain does.
> While I do =not= argue that there is not relatively-static,
> highly-dynamic, and on-a-continuum-in-between "specialization" (there
> =is=), all that's necessary to see that the position you've taken is
> False is the stuff of the "lost-limb" studies... if it was as you say,
> there'd be no plasticity in which the cortical areas that were devoted
> to the control of the now-absent limb are put to excellent use through
> sprouting... if it were as you say, these plastic dynamics would not
> occur... but they do. And, when one follows things back from cortex,
> voila... 100% of the subcortical stuff becomes subjected to the same
> needing-to-be-able-to-adapt Physical Reality.
> > Some parts of the brain are more
> > domain-general, but they represent small parts of the brain, and they are
> > also probably used very heavily by everything.
> The single most-significant feature of the organically-intact functional
> neuroanatomy is its Total Integration... what you say pertains =only= to
> organically-damaged brains. The poster's Q was with respect to
> organically-intact brains.
> > So back to the original question, most of the brain is devoted to sensory,
> > motor, or regulatory function.
> What you say is drastically-over-simplified... creativity, curiosity,
> volition, thought, etc., all happen in the =same= neural topology as do
> "sensory", "motor" and "regulatory" function... there is not a single
> neruon in the brain that is exclusively "sensory", "motor" and
> "regulatory"... although there's no all-to-all connectedness, the
> brain's functioning is, never-the-less, 100% integrated throughout the
> neural topology... the hormone excreted by the pituitary affects the
> activation "states" that occur in "motor" cortex.
> This whole "motor"/"sensory" conceptualization is =Archaic=.
> Neurons are "located" within the neural topology for =one= Reason... to
> align behavior with the energy gradients that exist in the external
> environments so that behaviors manifested will, over the long term,
> [become Inverted (AoK, Ap4) with respect to] what's described by 2nd thermo
> (wdb2t; which I discussed in another thread, using bacterial chemotaxis as a
> working
> example).
> There are no "motor" neurons, and there are no "sensory" neurons...
> there are =only= neurons that form the topological-distribution of
> neurons that will perform as above.
> > For example, I think somewhere in the range
> > of half of the cortex is visual, so as long as your eyes are open you are
> > using half of the brain.
> Beyond what's above, which holds exquisitely with respect to the
> Classical visual Neuroanatomy, the "visual areas" are highly-involved in
> the brain's active information-processing dynamics during sleeping
> consciousness (msg for more if it's wanted).
> > And even if you are making relatively small
> > coordinated movements you are recruiting several large areas involved in
> > movement (e.g., motor cortex, basal ganglia, cerebellum). And of course
> > you are generally recording some aspects of your experience, which means
> > you are involving several memory regions.  So yes, you are using most of
> > your brains capacity, most of the time. Even sleep requires a great deal
> > of brain function!  Hearing the phone ring, picking it up, having a short
> > conversation, and remembering 5 words of what was said probably recruits
> > 95% of the brain.
> And anything that's "quiescent" is actively-quiescent... it's =always=
> 100%.
> (I note you've "learned a lot" in going from one paragraph to the next
> :-)
> > Now as far as the 10% figure, this is just a myth.
> But one that's been so-tirelessly repeated... Sadly.
> > It is based on several
> > moronic assumptions all of which are untrue. One of these is that the
> > brain is domain-general and works by mass action; this is patently false,
> > at least for many brain regions, particularly those which occupy most of
> > the brain (sensory, motor, and regulatory functions).
> You should've studied Lashley's work until you saw what's in it. It
> flat-out discloses the total Integration of the brain's functioning.
> > The second is that
> > all neurons can fire at maximal rates and can have maximal metabolism
> > simultaneously (because the 10% estimate is based on theoretical metabolic
> > maximums). Of course, the latter is totally false since this would only
> > happen during a life threatening grand mal seizure and would not reflect
> > higher brain function.
> It's =aproximated= during the commonly-occurring startle response.
> > So think about it this way, consider you are driving down the street in
> > your car at 30 mph. The car is a Camaro and is capable of 150 mph. The
> > heater is set to 72 degrees but is capable of heating the car to 105. The
> > radio is set to 85 dB but is capable of 110.  The A/C is off, but is also
> > capable of being on. The rear defroster is off, but is capable of being
> > on. The brakes are not being operated, but are capable of stopping the
> > car.  Do you get my picture? Do you really feel that driving the car at 30
> > mph is using only 10% of its capacity, or it being used to its full
> > capacity, even though many systems are not recruited to the arbitrary
> > theoretical maximum at any given time?
> Oh, Stephan... I've just seen that you are the "volcanic erruption" guy,
> and this Saddens me...
> ...but your analysis is False... within the brain's
> information-processing dynamics (which is all the brain does), the
> Ability to function Maximally to which you refer, above, Derives as a
> function of experientially-driven neural activation. Without such, the
> neural dynamics tend toward Chaos (see the sensory-deprivation
> literature, for instance), and to the degree of such, the
> information-processing Work that a brain can achieve is commensurately
> diminished... in other words, Rigorously-proportionately-more of the
> brain's =always= 100% utilization goes to Waste, be-cause Chaotic
> processes tend toward "random walks" which "go nowhere".
> You should get a copy of AoK and study it... everything is Resolved
> within it (although it's stuff is a couple of decades old, and
> non-Existent "time" is invoked in it... just do the Maths to transform
> between non-Existent "time" and the Physically-Real one-way flow of
> energy from order to disorder that is what that which has been referred
> to as "time" is... wdb2t.)
> > Cheers,
> > Stephan
> =Please= don't use pseudonyms in msgs to me... and when I tell you that
> I'm going to move something "'center-stage' immediately", please do not
> doubt that such'll happen. I "move away from" Waste, and wouldn't've
> said it as I did if I'd not already done it.
> The other thing to understand is that the circumstances in which I
> "Exist" make no allowance for "beating-around-the-bush"... every day
> lost is counted in Lives, and I cannot disHonor such. If you don't
> understand these "seemingly 'mysterious'" things, Understand =First=,
> then, please do, have at it. ken
> [msg3]
> There's no Physical distinction between "the two"... the "two's" only
> the one thing.
> You've "just" been misled by folks who've run off with your tax money,
> 'cause that's what their Profs taught them to do, and the Profs' Profs,
> before them, and so on... back to the Beginning when all there was was
> Ignorance.
> Ignorance had been "perpetuated", in this way, be-cause folks had not
> comprehended the way the brain processes information. In an Absence of
> an understanding of the way brains process information, the way that
> brains process information tends strongly to value Learned Ignorance
> because it's Familiar.
> Understanding how brains process information is the "door" through which
> one escapes the Tyranny of Ignorance (because Ignorance is Tyrannical, I
> refer to it as the "Beast"... it's "time" we banished such into the
> Nothingness whence it came). ken collins
> [I can explain if you want to hear more. kpc]
> shadowrunner at hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I'm looking for any information about neuro or physiologic difference
> > between verbal and non-verbal memory.
> >
> > Thanks to reply by mail to:
> > shadowrunner at hotmail.com
> >
> > Seth

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list