Censorship?

[kkollins at pop3.concentric.net]

Krakatoa wrote:
> 
> No, I don't think your posts are angry thrashing stuff. But they are,
> generally speaking, extremely arrogant.

My "arrogance" is a "tool"... a "prying bar" with which I mean to
release folks from their Victimhood at the hands of the "Beast",
"Abstract Ingorance"... the absence of an understanding of how nervous
systems process information... in such Absence, that which is merely
Familiar is Falaciously "valued" as if it constitutes "truth". This's
consequential because folks slaughter one another on the basis of such
merely-Familiar, false "finitizations" (AoK, Ap4), as we've all
witnessed through our Media-bourne eyes, in "Yugoslavia", and elsewhere.

> Usually you imply that you know
> much more (and have some inside truth) to virtually every topic in
> neuroscience, including CREB.

I'll take my research before any Scientists, anywhere, and can say, with
certainty, that the research will carry the day. I achieved Closure
nearly two decades ago, Stephan.

Note, as is explained in AoK, Ap10, NDT is still just a beginning in the
[Correct] direction. I'm not saying that no more work is necessary... a
great deal of work remains to be accomplished. I'm just saying that the
fundamental stuff that's outlined in AoK will stand as incontrovertible
Truth for all "time" (or at least until evolutionary dynamics greatly
modify the =very= fundamental neural architecture).

> 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.

First, I don't own any "armchairs"... to great an expense to divert from
the theory's needs.

Second, I never "dismiss" anything that isn't verifiably Incorrect. If
something's verifiably Incorrect, the thing to do with it is to make
sure folks understand it's verifiably Incorrect. Not to do such is to
abandon Science in favor of becoming a "member" in some
contrary-to-Science "social club".

The stakes are too high to opt for such.

Science isn't for "wimps". If one cannot endure one's work undergoing
Challenge, then one should find a field other than Science, because, in
Science, =everything= must be Challenged... and when one looks and sees,
one sees, clearly, that if one's work is, in fact, Challenged, one's
work is, in fact, being Honored in the way that only Science can Honor
it.

> Usually these are so hard to follow, they cannot be debated.

Usually the "problem", here, is that folks just haven't done the
necessary study. I saw this as a grad student... I saw that folks were
Dismissing the need to study comprehensively. And being Kitchen Police
Collins, I Chose to do this "dirty work". I never imagined that, after
it was accomplished, folks'd still Dismiss it... but folks do.

So, if you've a dislike of stuff's being "dismissed", talk to others,
not me. I only correct Errors, or as is the case re. CREB, contribute
new information.

> But this
> isn't the problem, what usually angers me is that you imply you have some
> inside knowledge of some topic,

That's only because you've not studied comprehensively enough to
comprehend the stuff I've been discussing. I've never come across anyone
who has. What I'm doing is "chiding" folks so that they'll get
"aggravated" enough to do the work. There'll be Joy in the end.

> and that everyone else is out to get you

There're some who are. These "folks" saw what was in the work long ago
and want to withhold the understanding from others so that they (the
would-be "withholders") can use the understanding to seek "profits".
These folks, by "virtue" of their actively-working to withhold the
understanding, are, in fact, attacking me, personally.

> and will eventually rip off this inside knowledge.

What I said above.

> You also tend to imply
> that people in science are dishonest and are out to plagiarize your great
> ideas, which is simply not true.

I admit, I over-generalize , leaving things "blind", because I think
it's =Wrong= to do anything in 3rd-Party ways. But my work has, in fact,
been widely Plagerized in a take-the-ideas way. And I must "generalize"
the discussion because the Plagerists tend not to come to discuss the
work with me in a First-Person way. (I've only experienced such rarely,
and the parties involved have always sc'dattled real fast when they saw
that they could not see what it's necessary to see if one claims
Authorship.

> You also imply that scientists are
> ignorant, that they advance falsehoods, and try to mislead people,
> including themselves.

With respect to all of this, I stand on what I've posted. It's the work
of the "Beast", with respect to which, I've worked arduously to Free
Scientists as well as everyone else.

> 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.

Stephan, I tried everything else, repeatedly, for more than a decade.
Sometimes "tough Love" is the only thing that'll work.

> Imagine if, in whatever type of programming you do, which I am sure is
> quite specialized,

It isn't. I Love programming to solve leading-edge problems, but the
stuff I do for pay is rather mundane. This Choice is deliberate. If I'd
do my Science for pay, the folks who gave me my salary would want
"ownership" of the Science. That'd allow them to "withhold" the
understanding as "trade secret" stuff, and the worth of the
understanding would be withheld from those who suffer greatly.

> 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.

Such happens all the "time"... I usually do stand my ground, but I
explain why, and BTW, I'm usually "over-ruled"... (it's that I work
"in-secret", and everyone thinks of me as "Dummy" :-) (I've realized,
since posting my prior post, that the largest part of the "problem" is
as I explained above... I achieved Closure nearly two decades ago... I
address things from the understanding inherent in that Closed thing. But
since folks remain ignorant of the stuff of that Closed thing, folks
experience their lack of comprehension, and "blame" their lack of
comprehension on me... this'd be rational if it weren't for the fact
that I've been "on my knees" Begging folks to just allow me to explain
for more than 25 years.) ken collins

> [...]