aw, you're 'just' not Thinking, Dag.
i'll accept any non-trivial published Neuroscience article as a test of NDT's
that doesn't mean i'll accept the stuff of the article, which, if you'd been paying
attention, you'd've seen, very-well, for yourself.
what it means is that i'll either demonstrate the correspondence of the article's
stuff (as i've done repeatedly here in B.N) or refute the stuff of the article (as
i've done repeatedly B.N).
there's a lot of B. S. in the Neuroscience stacks, all of which can be sorted-out
via application of the TD E/I-minimization principle.
which is what i was saying in the original post, which you failed to properly quote.
when you can't deal with something, Falsify with respect to it?
K. P. Collins
Dag Stenberg wrote:
> kenneth Collins wrote:
> > there is an [whatever] article in [wherever]...
> > although it deals with [whatever], the stuff of this article Confirms
> > NDT's [anything] hypothesis, as it's briefly discussed in AoK, and which dates
> > from the mid 1970s.
> > HURRAH+++***!!!
>> It would certainly be a stanger revelation if any article did not
> confirm, but overthrow AoK, at least in the mind of its Creator.
>> > [P. S. the stuff of every Neuroscience paper that's ever been published
> > can be discussed from the perspective of the stuff that's discussed in
> > this msg, and when such is done, the Science is =always= Advanced,
> > which, itself, stems from the fact of wdb2t. KPC]
>> This post stands on itself.
>> Dag Stenberg