I read the post you suggested. There are indeed some very intriguing ideas
that you present, however. You present interesting "conceptual models"
but lack any mathematical or experimental data to support it. You present
interesting verbal descriptions involving your theories but never present
any calculations that would show how these processing occurring. I might
support and even believe in many of the concepts you present- which aren't
all that out there-however, you do provide any statistical and mathematical
evidence. You seem to be under an assumption that you are presenting this.
Umm sorry. No.
Do not respond to this post by stating you have done the calculation
previously and (in some unobtainable manuscript) presented it elsewhere.
(That is a cop out and extremely irritating. Either present the data or
move on. I can make the same assumptions regarding any theory that I have.
I think your logic is relatively good, however, some parts of your
discussion contradict actual electrophysiological recordings that I think
hold weigh more water than anything you have discussed. This could all mean
one of two things. The electrophysiological analyses do not take into
account global and holistic aspects to neuronal functionality that you are
advocating (which can very well be the case and something that I am inclined
to believe is the problem with this area of research. This why I am
interested in your postings). The parallel possibility is that YOU ARE
Ken, until you provide any substantial mathematical evidence based upon the
actual physical properties of neurons and neuronal circuitry, your ideas
will remain in the whimsical realm of theory. Perhaps that is what you
intend. But be extremely careful when you parade that your model is valid
and everyone else's are wrong. That will likely get you get you on thin ice
very quickly. Those pretensions are not valid until the necessary evidence
that I suggest to you are presented. Your tenacious drive to proselytize
your theories is commendable, but stick to the data rather than superfluous
"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZmnUb.10627$jH6.352 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:xhnUb.10620$jH6.6559 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...> > [...]
>> This works [on the Groups Google[tm]]:
>> protein+folding+3-D energydynamics+kpaulc
>> [inserted an extra hyphen in the prior post]