KPC and b.n.

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Wed May 14 01:07:57 EST 2003


| [...]
| Don't be 'offended'. But do Science or just
| forget I, and the stuff I post, exist.
| [...]

Silence?

The above was strictly with respect to the context of the post in
which it was stated [quoted below] - with respect to superfluous
disruption of the Doing of Work that Needs to be Accomplished if
Humanity is to have a Chance to Survive.

It is =not= with respect to the Doing of Science.

So it does not constitute an 'excuse' from what's in the Doing of
Science.

It 'excuses' only those who Choose not to Do Science.

It Honors their Free Wills.

Get it?

Further discussion is added below.

"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:%G6wa.153375$ja4.7315413 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| "Christian Wilms" <usenet at out-of-phase.de> wrote in message
| news:1fuwfp7.1sv5z9omck00N%usenet at out-of-phase.de...
| | KP-PC <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote:
| |
| | > That you've done this in this Formal
| | > Challenge thread is unacceptable.

| | That's the way threads work. They start
| | out with one topic (here it was: Smith
| | predictor and the cerebellum) and a
| | discussion develops. During this process
| | new sub-threads develop. Such subthreads
| | are denoted with a new topic (typically the
| | first post will contain a "(was: ... )"  statment
| | and continue on their own. You did this by
| | spawning the "formal challenge" thread and
| | I did it again. Nothing "unacceptable" about
| | it. I never read any rule deeming such as
| | improper in any netiquette post.
|
| A Formal Challenge is a Man puttling his Life
| on the line.
|
| There's just no acceptable rationale for doing
| anything under that heading except addressing
| the Challenge.
|
| I don't expect anyone else to agree, but, as far
| as I'm concerned, to do otherwise is unthinkable.
|
| Why not 'jump' some other thread in which, it
| should be obvious, that I'm trying to allow my
| 'self' to be open to criticism?
|
| Why not just let a Formal Challenge just
| stand-alone as a Formal Challenge.
|
| You know?
|
| There's a 'time' and place for everything - some
| things just cease to Be if they are not just
| allowed to Be what they are.
|
| I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and, of
| course, anyone can do whatever they want to
| do in any NG, but, as far as I'm concerned, a
| Formal Challenge in Science is not something
| to 'transform' into anything other than what it is
| through 'jumping on it' in any way other than
| meeting it head on, defeating it if it can be
| defeated - otherwise, let it sit-there, waiting
| to be taken-up, or not.
|
| And, as I write this, I'm feeling 'guilty' about
| insisting on it, but good grief, it's 31+ years
| of work that you're treating as if it's nothing.
|
| You know?
|
| | > What you've posted is =completely= False,
| | > Christian.
|
| | I was refering to what I have read here in the
| | last few weeks. So I do in a strange way stand
| | on what you have posted. Everytime the
| | discussion gets down to solid arguments, you
| | tend to be evasive by "standing on what [you]
| | have posted".
|
| If you check, studiously, you'll find that I only
| 'flip-folks-off' when it's become obvious that
| they are just 'fishing', or when they totally ignore
| the discussion I've worked to present to them.
| I don't have 'time' to 'run around in circles' at the
| bidding of folks who come in to b.n for any
| purpose than to do Neuroscience.
|
| What about all of my 'personal' discussions?
|
| They constitute a long-term working toward
| elucidating "Consciousness" - I am using myself
| as the 'case study' - making this point or that,
| which will be pulled-together down the road, a
| long 'time' hence [if I can find a way to keep
| working]. I'm laying ground-work. It wouldn't be
| fair for me to use someone other than myself
| as the 'case study'.

If folks 'wonder', when one understands the stuff that's beein in AoK
all along, one literally Sees what have been formerly referred to as
"subconscious" dynamics.

I'm working to Teach folks with respect to such be-cause is'd in the
'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization inherent that all of "man's
inhumanity to man" derives.

There's a 'trade-off' inherent in coming to so understand. All
'excuses' with respect to feigned 'ignorance' are "rendered useless".

It's be-cause of the TD E/I(up) inherent in this "rendering useless"
that I am working patiently to guide folks little by little with
respect to their innate capacities to See Truth.

The Fundamental have been in AoK all along.

What's not been in AoK are all of the necessary
experiential-couplings - the necessary examples of how
'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization, left uncomprehended, does,
in fact, Ravage Humanity.

I'm working to supply these. and will continue to do so for as long
as it takes, or until Life goes out of me.

| I only rarely allow myself the Luxury of Wasting
| Energy.

I did what will. apparently. be this decade's allotment of such, in
the recent past, in another online 'place' :-]

| Everything I do here in b.n builds toward
| lifting folks up in understanding with respect to
| stuff that's worth understanding.
|
| b.n is where I Work. This is not some 'social
| club'. It's literally my Work.
|
| Would you go into an office building and
| wander around interrupting folks while
| they're Working?
|
| It's Nonsensical to do so.
|
| So, why do it[?]
|
| I'm not singling you out. I'm addressing these
| comments to all the folks who just think nothing
| of interrupting the Work folks do in this Science
| 'place'.
|
| And I'm no[t] telling you to 'go away', Christian,
| but, if you have a purpose here in b.n, why don't
| you just do it, and let me do my Work?
|
| I expect you've not looked at it this way, but please
| do. Not everything in Life is a 'lark' with respect to
| which nothing matters. Some things do matter,
| immensely, and it's always the case that the more
| difficult they are to do, the easier it is for anyone to
| recklessly break their momentum - because, if they
| are difficult, they're already 'stretching' folks'
| capacities with respect to understanding them. In
| such cases, any reckless thing breaks the
| momentum, forcing the one who's doing the Work
| inherent to just start back where he was a [w]hile ago.
|
| Sure, it's easy to exert such force within difficult
| dynamics, but why do such? Why not just look for
| 'fun' in some less reckless way?
|
| You know?
|
| Or, if it's Science, why not actually do Science?
|
| Why just jump in to 'break' the discussion for the
| sake of 'having-a-lark'?
|
| What folks who do this sort of thing in a Science
| 'place' do is like climbing up into a high-rise
| construction project, looking around for a
| Construction Worker who is dangling out on a
| le[d]ge or a girder and deliberately distracting
| him from hi[s] Work - there are Serious
| Consequences inherent. It's not a 'lark'.
|
| | > But this doing has been a pretty-'lonely'
| | > endeavor, because, for years, all I got were
| | > rather savage attacks by folks who had not
| | > bothered to read AoK. AoK is a 'tutorial' with
| | >  [r]espect to doing Neuroscience in a
| | > globally-integrated way. If folks don't read
| | > and study AoK, it's hard for them to understand
| | > anything further that Ido.

| | If spreading AoK (since last week I even know
| | what _this_ acronym stands for) is so important
| | to you, if AoK is hypertext based (I reckon reading
| | something to this degree a few weeks ago) and
| | if all your ideas in AoK have already been stolen,
| | then why not place it on a WWW-page and refer
| | to it in the signature under all your posts.
|
| I've discussed all this repeatedly, and even in the
| recent past [probably still on the board].
|
| | > Seems you're a case in-point?

| | Without having access to AoK, how could I be
| | aware of anything which is discussed in it?
| |
| | regards, Chris
|
| I email AoK to anyone who wants it. It's ~350k.
| Runs under MSDOS[tm] or Windows[tm]. Let
| me know it you want a copy.
|
| I'm sorry, for having to say it plain as I have in
| this msg, but I'm Working here, you know?
|
| Don't be 'offended'. But do Science or just
| forget I, and the stuff I post, exist.
|
| Why interfere with a guy who's just Working?
|
| That you do so is why I react to what you do,
| as I do.
|
| It's just common sense to not interfere with a
| man who's Working.
|
| b.n is the only 'place' that I have in which to Work.
|
| You know?

 K. P. Collins

--
"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list