Walter Eric Johnson
wej3715 at scully.tamu.edu
Fri Oct 2 19:16:11 EST 1998
Cijadrachon (cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de) wrote:
: Dear Budding Neurologist, this might be part of your aspired future:
: >wej3715 at fox.tamu.edu (Walter Eric Johnson) wrote:
: >K C Cheng (kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com) wrote:
: >: Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
: >: > K C Cheng (kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com) wrote:
: >: > Eric Johnson
: >: If that is your definition of a "kook," I am not one either. However,
: >: don't you think you call me a "kook" in that restricted sense too
: >: early? How do you know I do not wish to contribute to knowledge? I
: >: just said that I have a 10.5 hour video coming out to make it
: >: comprehensible to even high school students. Why you want to jump to
: >: conclusions when you don't know enough to esteem me, much less paying me
: >: the right esteem you give to Einstein?
: 1 point for unrealism, 1 for eg.3 imbalances and a bunch for
I assume you are deducting said points. Or are those "kookiness" points?
: Cheng, thou dost no "see" like Carlos Castaneda means, nor understand
: transcending and enlightenment. If thou wert to understand these, thou
: mightst also understand the halo around Jesus and the telepathic
: forms of akasha he used to enter other systems, and also more about
: how imitating that with technology can be one of the biggest steps
: in humanity and one the most dangerous as long as there are
: Eg.3-For-Supersaries on Earth.
I find it hard to take anyone seriously who takes Carlos Castaneda
: Eric Johnson:
: Thou understandst the brain even less than Cheng in many areas, art
: fixed upon thy young group among the spirits of Earth, ignorest
: thousands of years old data of other cultures, ignorest hundreds of
: thy senses like a Vatican sheep would do, hast not understood why
: Cheng is more honest in his way than the in thy way,
: and yet talkst as if thou wert the Creator of Chengs and all brains
: and more worthy.
If you have any references to thousand year old papers on
the synapses, please post them whenever and wherever relevant.
As far as Cheng's honesty? He claims to have all these great
things he has discovered (460 volumes worth!) but everything
he posts is pure, unadulterated crap. Would you call such
: Thou shouldst work on they widom more (like me, too;-)
I'd hardly call taking LSD "working on wisdom". Anything but
: >You're just trying to sell snake oil.
: You are misjudging Cheng.
: He is fanatically convinced of what he does and to me seems not the
: person out for cheating.
In other words, intent is lacking? In reality, he is not honest
with himself and if he is not honest with himself, how can he be
honest with the rest of the world?
: To the opposite if someone were to ask me how many hours of work he
: has put into the thing, I do not exclude that the price is low if you
: were just seeing the working hours.
But effort is no measure of value. If it was, the downfall of
Hitler's Third Reich would be considered a great travesty because
of all the effort he and others put into creating it. Instead,
we must measure value by other means which may be much harder to
discern. By other measures of value, Cheng's life work may very
well be worth less than if he had spent his life cleaning out
: Not meaning that what he says is necessarily something you are into
: and agreeing with..
I don't measure value by whether or not I'm interested in the subject.
: >If you really had something of value, you could publish it in
: >the peer-reviewed journals.
: Who apart from some Westies would do that?
: I know a few who sit on an enticing mound of data that I have been
: laying siege to for a while, but alas, they seem about as willing as a
: stubborn dragon weighing a ton that you try to drag by his tail from
: the pile to depart with it or at least share the treasure.
I'd seriously question whether that "enticing mound of data" was
anything other than "rotten eggs" if all they do is sit on it. I
can see that for commercial reasons, someone might not share their
results outside of their company.
: Two I know are studying stuff not to do with neuro, are jobbing at
: the same time to finance their flat in Berlin (prices are not that
: cheap here) and food, insurance and so on, might go shopping in
: between, do the laundry, their mail, bring back stuff to the library,
: learn alone or with a friend for a test, work around on some
: computerstuff, and maybe play a computer game or see friends when they
: finally have a bit of time, to relax at least a bit.
It doesn't sound like they're doing any serious research.
: But I assume that you might be so absorbed in your branch that that
: thought has never occurred to you.
And which branch is that? Most people think I'm interested in too
: >: I can refund you academics
: >: if you're not satisfied that it's proven beyond the slightest scientific
: >: doubt.
: Minus one oil bag for Johnson
Cheng seems to be under the impression that we should spend a huge
amount of effort going through everything he has written and that
anything short of that is very unfair to him. He seems to think
that his 460 volumes are so great that everyone should drop what
they are doing and read them -- that it is our duty to hear him
out. In reality, it is his duty, if he wishes to be heard, to
convince us that what he says is worth our time and effort. So
far, all his arguements have had exactly the opposite effect.
: >Are your thought processes as disorderly as your web pages?
: Minus 13 on tact and minus 666 on not thinking the question till the
: end why someone might be that fanatically after understanding the
I suspect that Cheng's pet cat understands the brain better than
: >:... Please do not let skeptism get the best of you. ...
: > So, please wait and see. The proof is the thing in any
: >: scientific doctrine. Whether right or wrong depends on it. That's why
: >: only after, not before, reading and digesting the whole proof should
: >: anyone voice an opinion on the electromagnetism of memory, mentation and
: >: behavaiur.
: >There are thousands of kooks who are attempting to pass off their
: >halucinations as fact.
: Did you read what he said at all?
Yep. He said that noone should express an opinion about his crap
until they have read and understood all of it.
: And how about you tell us what is wrong about what he just said, than
: going kooking like you would not know but judge like someone where
: what is said is not the topic but personal emotion stuff.
It is clear from what he has presented that he doesn't understand
anything of value about the subjects about which he writes.
: Many points for Cheng.
: <stupid magic stuff snipped>
: >Experience rapidly teaches one that someone who is not highly
: >knowledgeable about a scientific discipline is extremely unlikely
: >to be correct when asserting that the current theories are wrong.
: The ones who know nothing about them I often like best.
Does whether you like them have any bearing on the matter?
: They are not rotten by dumb theories, but simply point at their head,
: and tell me how deep in from there and what that does there.
In other words, nothing matters but halucination?
: While many shamans and others have been linking via hundreds and
: sometimes far more kilometers for ages, neurology has discovered
: recently that there are different fields in the brain and is
: puzzling about their meanings.
: >To do the work you claim to have done would require a great
: >deal of organizational skill just to keep things straight.
: >You haven't shown signs of such skill.
: Nearly half a thousand books?
: Some videos and so on?
: I guess you simply never tried to write that many,
: and that is why you say so.
Like I said, effort is no measure of value.
More information about the Neur-sci