smith predictor and the cerebellum - APOLOGY

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Sun May 11 16:51:45 EST 2003


"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:9Nxva.79704$cO3.5242592 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
| "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
| news:U%fva.149232$ja4.7018872 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | [...]
| | "Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in
| | message news:b9j89d$nnl$1 at oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
| | | KP-PC <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote:
| | | > [...]
| | | [...]
| |
| | [To ALL] Formal Challenge: Find =anything=
| | that's discussed in AoK which was not already
| |  Proven in the Literature that existed when
| | AoK was written.
| | [...]
|
| The Challenge stands, but I'll CLARIFY, here,
| that =of course= I had to include References to,
| and discussion of, Work done by others in
| order to Substantiate the New stuff that's in AoK
| [as is stated clearly in AoK's Preface].
|
| Of course.
|
| My Acknowledgement of the Work done by others
| was given =The= Place-of-Honor in AoK's Preface
| - at it's [climactic] Conclusion:
|
| "I thank those who have devoted their lives to
| uncovering the secrets of the central nervous
| system. Your papers have been my 'colleagues'.
| I hope that you will enjoy considering
| [Neuroscientific] Duality Theory's synthesis of
| your findings."
|
| I thought that was clearly-enough stated.
|
| I still do :-]

In the hypertext version of AoK, the following sentence 'replaced'
the text quoted below:

"Further tests of this assertion  are welcome."

The text that was 'replaced', as it stands in the paper version of
AoK, of which [as is accounted for elsewhere in the paper version's
Preface] hundreds were distributed, is as follows ["[...]" signifies
post-edits newly added in this msg; "=...=" signifies italics in the
original; all single quotes are double quotes in the original]:

"It is my hope that others will wish to put the theory to the test
using experimental results pertaining to their areas of
specialization in neuroscience, cognitive science, sociology and/or
behavioral sciences.

The theory can also be put to the test through the use of media
accounts of 'current events'.

It is my position that [Neuroscientific] Duality Theory provides the
=integrating= paradigm [after T. S. Kuhn] that was missing from
neuroscience, cognitive science, and the behavioral sciences.

A word on the 'style' of the manuscript: [Neuroscientific] Duality
Theory can be approached at many 'levels' of complexity. It is my
hope that folks will read the short 'body' of the paper. The
appendices are provided for those who wish to delve a bit further. In
addition to this, I have endeavored to keep the main discussion at a
fundamental level throughout the manuscript by putting
less-fundamental siacussion in footnotes. This is somewhat arbitrary.
Typically, the contents of the footnotes is needed for the =full=
comprehension of the main text. Footnotes are also used to cross
reference the discussion and to discuss experimental evidence. This
manuscript only provides an =overview= of [Neuroscientific] Duality
Theory. It is my intention to continue to expand this manuscript into
a neuroanatomy/neurophysiology textbook. Until that task is
accomplished, this manuscript should be used as a guide to the
interpretation of the references cited within it. That is, full
comprehension of the contents of this manuscript is dependent upon a
comprehension of the contents of the references that are cited within
it. In the hope of facilitating this end, I have included more than
20 references to articles that have appeared in =Scientific
American=. these can be accessed at local libraries."

Then the text of the paper version of AoK resumes it's coincidence
with the electronic version to concluded as was quoted in my previous
post [above].

The post-edit with Respect to the Work of T. S. Kuhn is added, above,
because the larger context of my Honoring of his Work, in AoK's
"Short Paper" section [with Permission from the Publisher], is not
included here.

I, now, regret having 'replaced' this text in Preface of the
electronic version.

It's stuff is, however, reiterated =multiple times= within the rest
of AoK, in both electronic and paper versions.

This 'replacement' reflects the 'state' of what was, then, my
learning with respect to stuff that I've been discussing, here in
b.n, in recent days. I saw it's stuff, but didn't, then, fully
understand all that was going on with respect to AoK, and see, now,
that I Erred on the side of 'caution' with respect to the electronic
version.

The electronic version was originally done so that it could be posted
to CompuServe's "MedSIG" Forum [back in 1988 or 1989]. It was the
'time' at which I'd decided, after having worked in 'normal' ways for
17 years, that I just had to 'fight' to win a hearing for NDT.

The 'difficulty' was compound. I'd long-since Verified that folks who
understood, at least to a degree, what's in AoK, were ab-using it's
stuff. But I simultaneously had to work to communicate NDT's stuff to
folks who were just naive.

The 'replacement' was with respect to 'going-dark' with respect to
who stood where, so that I could gather information with respect to
such, and Discern so as to procede 'appropriately'.

The main Problem then, remains the main Problem now - I could not get
AoK Formally Published - and, in order to get NDT's understanding
Communicated, I had to work on this Problem that is
otherwise-superfluous with respect to the work I do.

It's been 'heart'-breaking - "forty miles of bad road" since 1974,
and only an 'overgrown-path-through-the-jungle' since 1983.

K. P. Collins






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list