IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

A challenge for Ken...Re: AoK...Re: Science in the News

Austin P. So (Hae-Jin) haejin at netinfo.ubc.caX
Thu Jan 27 13:19:17 EST 2000


Oh, I think that I'm pretty competent on the neuroscience, Ken...and
unlike you I actually know the biochemistry and the gene
regulation processes fairly well...Sometimes I forget the
electrophysiology, but I'll admit
it...eventually...

In fact Ken, I was probably among the first people to get a copy of your
AoK. It's too bad
too, because although you may have taken an interesting take on things,
you write like crap,
and it is an effort to sift through the piles of shite to figure out
what you are
trying to say. In fact, the one thing that annoyed me the most and if I
remember correctly, is that I think you devoted one paragraph (10
lines?) to
write down your "equation of state", and used the rest of your AoK to
demonstrate its
validity describing any and every system you could think of. Of course,
you seem to ignore that very general statements can be supported by
anything, whether that statement is verbal or mathematic. So you throw
in terms like "neurodynamics" or "activation topologies" to give
credence to your work. These could be in fact true, but until you
describe an equation for a specific situtation that maps out the
topology for that situation, rather than just verbally saying so, you
will just be considered a hack.

But like I said...you don't make predictions...you find a result that
can fit your
model, and then proceed to ramble on ad infinitum about how the
scientific world is
out to "crucify" you. Use your model to predict something
quantitatively, or something
that would not be expected from based on scientific knowledge to date.
Your
neuron-glia stuff was predicted in the epilepsy field almost 40 years
ago...look under
the term "ephaptic". It was clearly demonstrated experimentally to be
the case within
the past 4 years. Your "prediction" that people with Alzheimer's should
keep mentally
active...not new at all...your delving into behavioural
psychology...your
"conclusions" based on AoK are *obvious*. As I said also, it shares a
lot of elements
akin to taoism, and is therefore ancient. All you've done is write down
yin-yang in a
very general equation. So what? Is that supposed to be a "breakthrough"?
In fact, when it comes to aging, you are just grabbing at straws...that
is quite obvious...

My challenge: use AoK to explain the onset and progression of
Huntington's disease.
What does AoK predict as the causative factor(s)? Where do you think
intervention can
be introduced? Or do it for Lou Gehrigs disease (ALS). I don't really
care...so long
as AoK can actually provide solid predictions on what elements are
critical and what
elements are spurious (if there is such a thing).

If you can tell me this based on AoK and provide a model, then you will
be listened. No one has been able to provide a good model yet for either
yet, so the field is
open for you to clear a swath of enlightenment.


kenneth Collins wrote:

> forgive me, please, but if you knew the Neuroscience, and if you'd actually
> followed the long-term discussion (as is documented in the archives i keep), you'd
> understand that things've been contrary to what you've posted, quoted below.
>
> i can't repeat everything in every post.

You seem to do that quite naturally, Ken...in fact this newsgroup is
filled with your
unique at repeating yourself at every turn....



--
---
Austin P. So (Hae Jin)

I.I.S.G.P.
Biotechnology Laboratory
University of British Columbia

E-mail: haejin at netinfo.ubc.ca

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/haejin/index.html (under construction)




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net