F. Frank LeFever
flefever at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jun 22 21:31:16 EST 1998
I'll write again, more succinctly: the bottom line is, if you cannot
tell us HOW your have "proven" whatever it is you say you have
discovered, we may doubt that you have "discovered" anything.
Not knowing what it is you claim to have discovered, I cannot judge the
quality oof your thinking regrding it, However, you have several times
in the history of this newsgroup commented on things I DO know
something about, and so I know that you are capable of stating (as if
fact, not just a modest "guess") thoroughy misleading mixtures of fact
and nonsense. This makes me suspicious of the validity of your private
"proofs". The remedy for this, in science, is too describe your
prooofs pubolicly in sufficient detail too allow others to evaluate
them and perhaps attempt to replicate them.
In <358D943B.4676 at postoffice.idirect.com> K C Cheng
<kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com> writes:
>F. Frank LeFever wrote:
>> In <358A7B25.14CE at postoffice.idirect.com> K C Cheng
>> <kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com> writes:
>> >Cijadrachon wrote:
>> >> >In telepathy, therefore, we sense others' thoughts like we
>> >> >sense our own.
>> >> Never managed that one, and thought the cell numbers, connections
>> >> processings were far too different for that.
>> >> How do you do that?
>> >Re the above:
>> >That is because we sense not by "connections, neuron numbers."
>> >like in the electric fishes, their own electroreceptors detect
>> >electrical impulses of the same species.
>> I'm not an expert in the area, but I believe
>> your citing this in the context of ESP is misleading in two ways:
>> to the inverse square law, there are limitations on the distance at
>> which this detection can occur, AND apparently this is primarily
>> information about location, POSSIBLY level of excitation (I'm
>> here) but not necessarily anything more informative about what the
>> other fish is THINKING...
>>The inverse law has no relevance to whether ESP can be detected.
>etected, it is futile to deny detection just because there is an
>law. The latter only further supports that it is being detecteed, and
>om how far. Second, whether the electric fishes detect other fishes'
>oughts is not something we would ever know for sure. However, since
>e fish can detect another fish's location, the possibility that it
>ally detects the other's "thoughts" cannot be excluded. =
> There is an enormous body of data on the ways neurons communicate,
>> classically by chemical messenger; apparently with some direct
>> electrical influence also, but this is on the order of small changes
>> polarization between contiguous or nearly contiguous neurons, I
>These are all only one part of knowledge re neuronal activities. The
>rest has been discovered and proven by me. One should not close eyes
>new inventions jusst because yesterday nothing was known about it. =
>However, whether poeple accept new knowledge is their freedom of
>choice. I only discover and prove. It's not for me to force
>on others. =
>> There is also a much smaller body of data suggesting influence by
>> external electrical fields, natural or experimentally imposed, but
>> power many orders of magnitude beyond what our brains generate.
>> Consider: we need great electronic amplification to detect
>> brain-generated electrical activity even when electrodes are right
>> the scalp!
>I agree. Yet, EEG is a way of detecting brain electrical impulses
>requiring much amplification. =
>> It is irresponsible of you to assert or even to suggest as a
>> possibility that elecrical fields of one brain can influence
>> in another brain several feet away--to say nothing of several miles
>> away--without SOME indication that you have a well-developed
>> for how this could occur; preferably a rationale with testable
>> hypotheses (i.e. predictions).
>I never suggested that. Instead, I used the term "boosted:" amplified
>for others to detect millions miles away. =
>> So, too, like radio stations
>> >having their own broadcast frequencies, man detects brainwaves of
>> >fellow men and women because their brainwaves are at the same or
>> Would you care to say what these are? Naively, I would think that
>> someone whose DOMINANT frequency at the moment was 8-10Hz might not
>> detect someone with a higher frequency (e.g. 40Hz?) or lower...
>> Anyway, what we normally exhibit is a complex mixture of
>> with much variability from moment to moment. NOT exactly the same
>> being "on the same wavelength". PERHAPS two people in the midst of
>> epileptic seizure might be on the same wavelength--not a good time
>> communication, but might explain some of the productions of one of
>> incessant discussants (partial continuous epilepsy? formerly known
>> psychomotor or temporal lobe seizure??).
>That is why I used the term "similar" frequencies. =
>> >Detailed out in my "The Electric Fishes Speak" now being worked
>> Sounds like it needs a lot more work before you present it or any of
>> its components in public. Sounds like you have not done the basic
>> groundwork in neurophysiology yet, even at a bibliographic or
>> level. =
>Basic work quoted only when relevant to proving a new fact or truth. =
>Just citing everything irrelevant is not having an idea at all, much
>less an invention. Right, I only have bibiliographic dta for
>physics, chemistry, etc. , no irrelevant neurophysiological nonsense.
>However, you'll find this volume rather indispensible.
> I have read some of kccheng's earlier misleading replies
>> to innocents posting inquiries in this newsgroup...)
> Just like this one, any time you see me giving out "misleading" =
>replies, please point out. I'll explain myself to avoid
>Blessed are those who are humble. Down with nuisance. =
>> >Also, problems with my internet service provider's server(?). My
>> >homepage is now difficult to see. Hope to have it fixed or soon
>> >have a new site.
More information about the Neur-sci