On 'Hunger'

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Thu Dec 23 09:41:45 EST 2004


"Mr. Smith" <smith at on-ramp.nl> wrote in message 
news:b8sks0daokbbhjgmbpqv9k8lvd1omhioia at 4ax.com...
| David Longley <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
|
| >Yes Ken, many of us do get it - but do you know where *you* got 
it from?
| >(cf. Herrick and Sherrington, personally, I got it from my 
supervisor
| >Crow). It appears to me that sometime in your past you have, 
perhaps
| >unknown to yourself, just "discovered" some of the basics of 
behavioural
| >science. You are talking about the reinforcement of rates of 
emitted
| >classes of behaviours, but you still haven't grasped that there's 
over
| >seven decades of empirical research work on what the 
contingencies are
| >which shape "approach" and "withdrawal" behaviours (i.e. both
| >phylogenetically selected operant behaviours and ontogenetically
| >shaped/conditioned operant behaviours), not to mention the 
extensive
| >work which continues to be done to explicate the molecular and
| >quantitative genetics/physiology.
| >
| >This spans nearly all of the life sciences, and believe it or 
not, you
| >are skating over all of that with vague generalities.
| >
| >You're not entirely* on the wrong track (which is the problem), 
but you
| >are missing the perspective which you need in order to say 
anything
| >that's useful or tangible. The devil is, as usual, in the fine
| >*details*, so my best advice to you (again) is that you try to 
look into
| >some of the detailed work on the monoamines and the direction of
| >behaviour (DA 5-HT and NA) and how, over the past 30 years or so, 
this
| >has finally started to pay useful dividends (largely as a result 
of work
| >in behaviour genetics).
| >
| >As it is, you're not saying anything new or useful (and I mean to 
be
| >helpfully provocative/critical). You're expressing the basics 
(which go
| >back decades even before even I was born - see website ;-) and in 
a
| >rather "florid" manner too (perhaps out of frustration and just a 
little
| >psychosis <g> (which shouldn't worry you too much as there's a 
lot more
| >about than most folk appreciate!). The risk here is that you 
will,
| >despite your good intentions, just deter others who don't know 
much
| >about any of this, from looking more carefully into the work 
which
| >*does* go into the details, and which *is* useful (e.g. dopamine
| >receptors, ADHD, expanded triplet repeats etc...).
| >
| >There is considerable variation within behaviour.....and what 
matters
| >*is* the details (and the discipline).
|
|
|
| Given that since your post above Ken has responded to this thread,
| but only to his own postings therein it seems that he's completely
| oblivious to your voice of reason as he busily goes about making 
sure
| that *most* of the posts to this forum are Ken talking to himself 
as
| he gibberizes various terms used by professionals and generates 
sundry
| affective neologisms. Given his devotion to that task over many 
years,
| I don't think I've ever seen one forum so dominated and affected 
by
| one individual for so long than this forum has been by Ken.
|
| Why can't Ken even present his theory in a coherent 
outline/report?
| It seems like apart from lots of surface noise, there's really 
nothing
| there. Whenever I've seen anyone debate him, he always falls back 
on
| it being the other person's responsibility to search through his n
| thousand posts to find the answer -- a classic wild-goose chase.
|
| I've observed that there is a subclass of fringe theorists who, 
upon
| close examination, don't merely lack something true, but they 
actually
| lack a theory; what they have instead is empty TALK about their 
theory
| wherein they promise about all the problems their theory will 
solve
| like a sales pitch without a product. I don't know if that 
perfectly
| describes Ken, but I think it does to some noteworthy degree.
|
| Mr. Smith

First, I apologize because I still
don't know how to set my news
editor to that it'll not "send" jagged
copies of other folks' posts.

Dr.(?) Longley knows, as does any-
one else who has a copy of AoK,
that all of the Giants are Referenced
in it and the Refs that are Cited in-
it.

So there isn't any way I can respond
to stuff like Dr.(?) Longley posted,
without pointing-out that whatever it
is is baseless.

I added, in-line in another post of mine,
that I discuss only the work I have done,
always being Scrupulous with respect
to Priority, both on behalf of others, and
on my own behalf.

As far as your comments on my partici-
pation here in b.n, they are also unfounded
in Truth.

Yeah, when I'm online, I do work pretty
hard, and that means I post a lot of stuff,
but I've routinely done so for =relatively=
short periods, then I go offline for 'months'
or 'years'.

And, as far as a "present[ing my] theory in
a coherent outline/report" is concerned, I
=did= that. That's what AoK is. I've sent
it to anyone who's asked for it, and given
permission to anyone who receives it to
give copies to anyone else who wants it.

In monetary terms, that's a Gift of more
than $700,000.

I've asked to be allowed to do more, but
discussing NDT here in 'b.n' is still the only
option that's open to me.

[And there's a =lot= more going-on than
most folks are aware of, but with which
I, nevertheless, have to deal.]

My personal resources are very-small. If
nothing alters, my Life will end prematurely.

If it seems "strange" that I don't "force"
NDT's stuff upon folks by seeking "al-
legiances" with folks in Government, Bus-
iness, Journalism, or whatever, that's just
because you do not, yet, understand what's
in NDT.

NDT =Completely= exposes all that's in
Free Will.

Seeing what's in Free Will, I will not Trans-
gress Free Will for =anything=.

So I have to Honor folks Choices, while
I work to point out to folks Consequences
that are inherent in folks' exercise of their
Free Wills.

Which is Sorrowfully-'funny' -- I've still
only gotten through maybe 5% of what's
been in AoK all along, so I've got to do
what I can in "mime" that "teaches" the
basics of NDT's stuff.

You know -- what you call "gibberish" :-]

I'm =trying= to do what needs to be done,
Mr. Smith, but Human Beigs each possess
their own nervous system, which Connects
them to "The Universe", and what they do
with them, and their Connectedness, derives
in what happens, uniquely, within them. And
although, yes, I do speak to such, I'll not
Transgress such for =anything=.

So I have to =ask=.

Then, I have to Honor folks' Free Wills.

One can know one is getting NDT's stuff
to the degree that what's here makes-Sense.

Meanwhile, I Weep for those from whom
NDT's stuff has been withheld -- including
those who've withheld it from themselves.

k. p. collins 





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list