Topology vs. 'chemistry'

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sun Dec 5 17:19:23 EST 2004


"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in 
message 
news:%zysd.91645$7i4.11343 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
| Nervous systems are Topolog-
| ically-embodies systems, not
| 'chemically-embodied systems'.
| [...]

First, I mean =no= "offense" to
Chemists. I mean 'just'-the-op-
posite stuff.

The stuff I reiterated in the pre-
ceding post, linked-to above,
and which has been in AoK,
Ap9 all along, is =IMPORT-
ANT= be-cause when one is
aware of the Topology, one
can literally =read= the Chem-
istry -- and =all= of Physics -- 
directly from the Topology.

It's as I've stated, also reiter-
atively, "I looked in the brain,
and saw the universe."

It's True -- evolutionary dyn-
amics literally embodied phys-
ical reality within nervous sys-
tems while 'engineering' their
Topologies.

See the Topology, and you
See the way physical reality
works.

Folks 'wonder' how I'm able
to routinely resolve the "tests"
that folks post [and probably
'snicker' when I say that I
haven't read in Neuroscience
in more than a 'decade', but,
until folks get the basics that
I've been reiterating, there's
no point in me doing so. Be-
sides when I do go to the
Neuroscience stacks, all I
come-across is my work be-
ing ab-used, with nary a men-
tion of its True meaning for
Humanity. "Painful".]

But stop 'wondering'. It's simple.
I do as above -- =read= the neural
Topology to discover the answers
to folks' "tests", of course, from the
perspectives of the "tests". [I had
to work it all through, from the
perspective of the neural Topology,
back in the "Terrible times".]

This neural-Topology stuff is
one of the =Fundamental= things
that I've been working, all along,
to convey to folks.

It's 'funny'. To me, it's all just
obviously-communicated in the
stuff of AoK.

Some offline folks did, but most
folks didn't, get-it.

So I'm going back over stuff,
again, searching for ways to
break-through to folks' com-
prehensions.

The stuff that I've reiterated
in these two posts is =Fund-
amental= to anyone who act-
ually =wants= to do Neuro-
science.

Neuroscience cannot be done
without it.

Yes, 'alchemy' -- stuff that
'expects' "treasure" to 'magi-
cally' happen, if only it's the
'ingredients' are mixed "just-
right" -- can be done without
recourse to the neural Topol-
ogy, but that's just as devoid-
of-understanding as 'alchemy'
has always been.

I mean =no= "offense".

I mean 'just'-the-opposite stuff.

ken [k. p. collins] 





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list