Ken Collins KPaulC at
Thu Sep 16 18:25:18 EST 1999

Forgive me please, for jumping on the opportunity, you present, to 'let the
hurt out', a bit.

although i understand that even posting a response has 'ramifications', i
choose to do so.

i don't 'gate sensation'. i operate at an entirely-volitional 'level', and
respond when there's some possible Worth in responding, most-often,
understanding the ramifications (as now), but valuing what can possibly be
as worth more than 'saving face'. 'saving face' in the 'face' of that which
needs to be done is Cowardice. when other folks suffer for the sake of one's
'saving face', it's more-serious, still.

those are the 'ground rules' for embracing need to respond.

the 'ground rule' for not =initiating= discussions with individuals is that
i Guard Free Will. this usually means that i wait for others to express
their Wills, =then= work with what they present to me, going at such in
very-many 'different' ways, endeavoring to 'construct', over 'time', a
complete, fully-fleshed-out, opportunity for folks to comprehend this or

doing this piecemeal, via little snippets', is a bit arduous for folks, and
for myself, but i Guard Free Will. one can gain a sense for how well she/he
understands the core of NDT when one realizes that she/he does, in fact,
comprehend the need to Guard Free Will.

so, understanding the 'ramifications' of posting this or that little
snippet, if there's an willing-opening, and there's the tiniest 'point' that
can be started, i go for it (usually, with groaning Spirit).

all of this leaves things seeming superficially 'disjointed', but it's just
that i've an extremely-strong 'memory' for the stuff of the work i do, and
can pick up discussions from years ago, if there's an opportunity to add
something that needs to be added.

yes, i understand that most others don't have the whole collection of
'snippets', and that there are 'ramifications' in they're receiving only
relatively- (or very-) incomplete discussion... but, to work this way, has
been the only opportunity open to me.

again, please forgive me for responding, in this way, to what you've posted.

it ain't 'sensory-gating'... it's just Neuroscientific 'pointilism' :-)

...the only medium to which i've been granted access.

when i was younger, it was 'difficult', but i'm not much 'concerned' with
'appearances' anymore.

my 'concern' is that, given an opportunity, i not fail to work some good
with it... especially when Life hangs in the balance.

K. P. Collins (ken)

Bill Skaggs <skaggs at> wrote in message
news:m7u2ou2abd.fsf at
> dag.stenberg at writes:
> > John <johnhkm at> wrote:
> > > --
> > > GAINESVILLE---Scientists have tried through the years to attribute
> > > schizophrenia to one brain abnormality or another, but solid proof has
> > > lacking. Now University of Florida researchers have found that subtle
> > > differences in 10 brain structures can provide a strong indicator of
> > > someone has the disorder.
> > ...
> >
> > I hate this sort of thing. Regardless of how strong previous evidence is
> > (and in the case of organic abnormality in schizophrenia there is much
> > compelling evidence from before) the latest indications are always
> > presented to the press as the first "solid proof", etc.
> >
> > Dag Stenberg
> Yes, the striking abnormalities in sensory gating seem much more
> compelling than this sort of thing.  And in any case, I'm not yet
> convinced that the results are even valid.  When you're doing the kind
> of analysis the authors were attempting -- looking for correlations
> among a large number of variables -- it's essential either to have the
> number of subjects much larger than the number of variables (which
> wasn't the case here) or to do "cross validation", meaning that the
> distinguishing factors are re-tested on a group of subjects different
> from the ones who were used to derive the criteria.  There is no hint
> of cross-validation in the web pages, and it isn't completely obvious
> that the authors or reviewers would have the statistical expertise to
> recognize the need.  If it wasn't done properly, the results are
> essentially meaningless.
> -- Bill

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list