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

Hodgkin-Huxley equations

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Thu Apr 17 09:37:43 EST 2003

Hi Dag. Thanks for your generous comments. I'll discuss, from my
perspective, below.

"Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in
message news:b7lkp9$t67$1 at oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
| KP-PC <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote:
| > Einstein was allowed to Publish his work. I have not been allowed
| > Publish my work.
| In a way you did. You provide AoK to anybody
| at no cost, so you are financing it.

Yes. The problem with 'self-publishing is that it goes forth with
'excess baggage'. Folks 'discount' its worth, thinking that, since it
is self-published, folks presume that it's been thoroughly reviewed,
and rejected, by the Experts in its field. So they just flip it off.

The standard response that I've received [hundreds of times]  from
Journalists is, "Can you point to =any= expert who has concurred with
your theory's position?"

In other words, everybody's 'waiting' for someone other than me to
speak on behalf of the basic stuff that's discussed in AoK - no one
will take my word for it, even though I routinely offer to provide
folks with documentation in the work of the Neuroscientist
experimentalists and show them how the documentation says all the
same stuff that AoK says. My standard response is, "You don't have to
take my word for anything."

I try to explain that all I'm trying to do is break the impasse -
that what's necessary is to just get the question of NDT's validity
out-there where it can be argued right in the light of day.

|   If you had the money, you could publish it
| yourself in print.
|   Another thing is that maybe nobody has wanted
| to put in their money to publish your AoK and its
| comments. The world is a free marketplace.

I understand the 'economics' of publishing. But I also understand
that there's earth-shaking stuff in AoK that's flat out easy to
comprehend, and because it's so, it's easy for me to see that AoK's
stuff is not being dealt with Forthrightly. [My reaction to such has
not only been on behalf of what's in AoK. When I saw that all that's
both earth-shaking and easy to comprehend in AoK was receiving short
shrift, I saw that I had larger Obligation with respect to the fact
that 'the system' has this tendency to give short shrift to the work
of 'outsiders'. It's through more of the same 'excuse' stuff that
folks in general presume [as above] that folks in general in
Neuroscience presume that, if there were anything of value in AoK,
then it would have been Published, and, since it hasn't, 'there must
be nothing worthwhile in it' - so folks never get around to actually
seeing what's in AoK, so nobody will 'vouch' for AoK, so it remains
unpublished, which reinstantiates the 'vicious cycle' of
short-shrifted excuse-making.

What I've been doing online is just meeting all of this head-on. "The
buck stops here", and all that - challenging the short-shrifted
excuse-making, and, thereby, lifting the system up out of the
condition in which it can do as it has done with respect to work
that's as earth-shaking as are the few simple things that are
presented, in a thoroughly-substantiated way, in AoK.

|   I recently re-read a monograph on the history
| of thyroid gland research. It is extremely interesting,
| but the author has published it himself. Why? I
| guess that none of the official publishers wanted to put
| their money in it. It is their right. So this guy funds
| it himself, and takes the possible winnings himself.
|   AoK may seem too short for a monography, or
| too long for an article.
| Still, there are similarly long articles in review journals.
| The fact that AoK is a hypertext does not prevent it
| from being possible to edit into a normal review article
| without spoiling the message.

I'd like to do exactly that, but I held nothing in reserve while
doing the work that underpins AoK. I spent all of my personal capital
[and I'm not talking about 'money']. So, upon the completetion of
AoK, it was like I was ledt with nothing through which to continue.
Since then, I've literally 'lived' going to bed each night not
knowing how I could possibly make it through the following day. I've
been 'lifing' that way for the past two decades. It's an
exceedingly-hard 'existence', in which the main thing has been to
just refuse to quit. [When folks encounter my 'wailing' here in b.n,
it has nothing to do with them. All I'm doing is literally trying to
make it through the day - putting on 'defiance' with respect to what
might, otherwise, take me - because it's clear to me that, until,
NDT's understanding is generally communicated, I've no 'right' to
'give up' - because there're folks who suffer greatly, and stuff like
commonplace self-defeating geopolitical 'decisions' being made all
around the world, because folks remain 'unaware' of the simple stuff
that's in AoK. So how can I 'quit'?]

But it's not as if I'm not wanting to imbue AoK with 'elegance'. It's
that, because each day is literally a struggle for my own survival,
how can one both survive and simultaneously undertake yet another
major writing project [I can't even get my research materials out of
their boxes. I can't afford to go to the Library. I can't afford
office materials. I can't afford long-distance phone charges. I can't
find employment. Etc.

So, I agree with you, Dag, but I can only say that I've been
'holding-on' waiting for some small opportunity to just do as you
advise. I see Death grinning at me in each of my 'tomorrows'. Just to
not 'give up' takes almost everything I have. With the small scraps
that are left over, I do what I do here in b.n.

Basically, I decided long ago that, just because folks won't 'rescue'
me, such doesn't 'excuse' me from having to do what I can clearly see
needs to be done.

So I'm doing what needs to be done in the only way that's been 'open'
to me - through these thousands of 'scraps' of what's left of me
after I've 'just' survived to awaken to yet another day.

There's an old movie, "Groundhog Day" that presents a light-hearted
view into circumstances that are a little bit analogous to my own.
The protagonist [played by Bill Murray] gets trapped in a 'time warp'
in which he awakens everyday to the day he had just lived [which
happens to be the day, in American tradition, called "Groundhog Day".
The movie doesn't make clear how much 'time' actually transpires, but
it must be decades because of all that shows up in the guy's living
[he learns to play the piano expertly, for instance, and gets a
Medical Degree :-] All through interminable living of the one day. I
really like this movie because it's almost exactly what I've lived in
my own life - waking each day to live 'the same day' all over again,
interminably. Only, in my case, there's no ravishing Beauty to
lighten the 'day's burdens - only work.

|   Thus, I see nothing technical preventing printing AoK.

Thanks. To hear you say that, Dag, gives me Joy. You are the first
person who's ever said such in interaction with me.

My own opinion is that, before AoK can be published, it should be
brought up to date with respect to the contemporaneous Literature.
The biggest thing in it that needs to be reworked is 'time' and it's
non-existence, but I'd like to survey the Literature once again if
there's any interest in allowing AoK to be Published [AoK is more
that 20 years alo already.]

|   The question remains, have you offered it to editors
| (book, journal)? What kind? How many times?

Yes. I pursued Publication via many routes simultaneously. Submitting
it to Publishers, while seeking to gain a hearing for it by passing
out copies of it at Conferences, sending out copies to Researchers
whose work was integrated, telephone calls, in-person visits. I made
a video tape and sent it out. I did everything that I could think of.
I allowed myself no'excuses'.

| Did they turn it down at once, or have it reviewed?

To my knowledge, AoK has never been formally reviewed. When I sent it
out to "Scientific American", and it was back in my hands in three
days, that just 'broke' me with respect to seeking further
publication. AoK was written in a way that Honors both the Freeman
Company [then, the owners of "SA", and "SA" itself - I incorporated
many refs to "SA" deliberately because "SA" was, then, available at
local Libraries across the U.S., with the express purpose of making
AoK accessible to all readers.]

So, when "SA" retrurned the ms. [twice] in three days, I knew that
it'd just been turned around in the mailroom by some clerk who'd
obviously been 'instructed' to 'reject' anything that didn't have a
'fancy' address attached to it, so I just decided to shift into the
'strategy' that folks here in b.n have witnessed.

| Did they suggest modifications?

No. [A previous ms ["Why: Human Behavior"] was read by a guy at the
Marine Biological Laboratory [MBL], but his comments were restricted
to 'style', I received no indication from him that he had actually
read, and comprehended the substance of that paper.]

| Did you try modifications
| to make it more readable or comprehensible?

I will, as above, go over AoK in its entirety with respect to what's
in the contemporaneous literature [basically, to integrate the stuff
that I've been going over online], if I can only find a way to be
able to devote myself to that endeavor.

|   You say that you have fought for your theory. Did you?

Yes. I did. I continue to do so.

| A newsgroup is not the place to fight for one's theory
| with a view to publishing it.

I continually pursue other venues. [I think I'm 'famous'
['infamous'] - it's long been obvious [verifiable] that folks 'know'
of my efforts.]

|   In science, the normal way to publish a text is to
| target it according to the expectations of the audiance
| of a certain scientific journal, and format it according
| to the rules given by the editor. Then you send it to the
| editor. He may reject it outright - then you find another
| forum and send it there. If he sends it to reviewers
| - fine. The reviewers will with 90% certainty suggest
| changes at least, or tell you where you went wrong
| in their opinion. You get a chance to resubmit
| after changes, although I must admit that it is
| difficult to understand that when you get a latter
| saying "Unfortunately, based on reviewer's
| comments, we cannot publish your work in its
| present form. If, however, you make proper changes,
| we are open to resubmittance" or sonething
| along those lines. Rules are: do not bicker with
| editors or reviewers. They do represent the probable
| readership. Take their advice. If on resubmittal
| of the modified text you do not pass, take the work
| to another journal. Use all reviewers' comments
| to improve your text, because the next reviewer
| is going to make the same observations. Then
| take it to another journal, and another. Never
| believe that your text will pass somewhere
| without improvement, if somebody else is paying
| for the publication. Publishers are not censors,
| they are business people.

Part of the problem, here, stems from 'triviality'. I was told that I
had to either give up on my research or give up on grad school. I
chose the latter, the result being that I'd no 'mentoring' with
respect to the commonplace expectations with respect to Publishing.

To me, all that matters is to actually do work that's worthy of
publication :-]

To others, including Publishers, 'style' superceded substance with
respect to Publishing. It's word-of-mouth within the rarified realms
of the intellectual community that gets things done - that, and
incorporating a 'style' that communictes ones 'membership in the
club'. Not being a 'member', I lacked such 'trivialities'.

I do not 'hang my head' with respect to AoK. It's well written, and
flat-out communicates what needs to be communicated. It is, however,
a demanding ms. in that it has as a prerequisite of its full
comprehension in-depth understanding of basic Neuroscience. It
doesn't 'apologize' for this prerequisite stuff, but does show the
reader how to go about acquiring it. [And I've always offerred to
explain more, inany way that I can, to assist the reader with
specific questions re. what's in AoK.

Basically, virtually all of the Neuroscience problems that were
outstanding at the 'time' AoK was written are resolved within AoK.
Which is why my 'heart'-breaks so that AoK will not be allowed to be
Published - it's like a vice - I'm being crushed between folks'
wanting the solutions that've been in AoK all along, and folks'
'rejection' of my having given all those solutions to them, only to
have their right-there existence be 'denied' because the folks
seeking 'solutions' don't care enough to actually learn the
Neuroscience that underpins the solutions they seek. [It all goes
downhill [in the direction of WDB2T] from there. Folks 'take offense'
that an 'outsider' presumes to tell them that they don't know basic
stuff in the fields in which they've earned their Ph.D.s Such is
understandable, but there it is, needing to be risen above.

|   If you have tried at least ten publishers,

In one way or another, I've tried hundreds.

| improving your text in between according to
| suggestions, and still nobody will print it, the
| implication is that very few people are assumed
| to be interested enough to read what you write.
| Then you just send it to a select number of
| fellow scientists and hope that it strikes a chord
| somewhere. At least chances are that a copy will
| be saved for posterity and maybe someone in
| two hundred years sees its value. But it is totally
| improductive to keep lamenting about the
| ignorance and incomprehension of people. If the
| text does not impress, neither will the wailing.
| It just makes it less comprehensible and less
| appealing. At least in northern latitudes.
| Dag Stenberg

I'm pretty sure I have Cancer. I'm just doing what I can do with what
I've got left, trying to remain True to the demands of what needs to
be done.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Cheers, Dag, ken

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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