Unstable->Stable Equilibrium Transitions

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Fri Feb 6 00:04:35 EST 2004


"NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ztCUb.7013$ZN1.570168 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> 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.

I stand on what I posted.

I work from the data that's been in the
Published Literature for decades.

You seem to want me to 'pour' that
data into your memory, when only you
can do that.

Try to imagine how 'funny' what you
posted, quoted above, must seem to me.

I've solved the problem, yet, because
I've not presented the solution in a
way that's 'familiar' to you, you 'deny'
the solution, even though there is no
other solution, and even though your
stated 'objection' is explained by that
which you 'deny' :-]

What I expect from you [and others
who agree with your stated position]
is that you [and/or they] will 'translate'
the solution I provided into standard
symbolic Maths, and 'claim' that you
[and/or they] have actually done some-
thing.

This same thing has happened ad infinitum
within my experience.

And it Stinks.

Get over it.

The standard symbolic Maths is anemic
with respect to theoretical exploration.

It puts itself into a 'straight-jacket', and
then decries the 'impossibility' of the
solution - when the only 'impossibility'
is self-inflicted.

So, I reject your 'denial', and will do so
until someone allows me to Demonstrate
the Maths I use.

"Umm sorry."

> Do not respond to this post by stating you have done the calculation
> previously and (in some unobtainable manuscript) presented it  elsewhere.

I've been 'on-my-knees-Begging' for
decades to be allowed to Demonstrate
the Maths I use.

All I've ever gotten is B. S. such as
you've posted, Neil.

> (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.

Either Learn the data or 'go away'.

It's not my job to regurgitate what's
in the Literature because you don't
want to be 'bothered' with doing the
work inherent in becoming 'familiar'
with it.

The reading is everyone's job - the
'price' that has to be paid in order
to earn the capability of Resolving
the Problem.

> 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.

Ho, ho, ho.

Fire away, Neil.

> 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
> WRONG.

Thanks to the fact that, since no
one would meet with me, in-person,
to discuss it, having nothing else to
do, I've checked my work a g'zillion
times.

It's rock-solid, right down to the
'level' of individual ionic Coulomb
'forces'.

What I've discussed will stand as
incontrovertible Truth for all 'time',
or at least until evolutionary dyn-
amics fundamentally-alter the
neural Topology.

> 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.

I already have. Reread the discussion
of ionic-Coulomb-'force' continuity
given in the Googled post until you
realize that that discussion is 100%
Maths.

Don't tell me to translate that Maths
into the language with which you are
'familiar'. The language with which
you are 'familiar' was just not up to
the demands of the Problem.

I've heard the 'objection' you've
stated so many 'times', Neil, that
hearing it again makes me want
to 'throw-up' - it always comes
from folks who haven't a clue with
respect to how to go about solving
the Problem whose solution I've
presented.

Yet they, like you, demand that
I 'become-them', so that they can,
then, understand how to Resolve
this or that Problem whose solution
I've presented to them.

Get over it - the Maths with which
you are 'familiar' is 'anemic' [so
self-delimiting that it 'blinds' folks
to the path to the solution].

What's necessary is for you to
take a copy of what you've posted
to me, stand before a mirror, and
read it's 'Maths' comments to
yourself - then, take what you read
to-'heart'.

> Perhaps that is what you
> intend. But be extremely careful when you parade that your model is valid
> and everyone else's are wrong.

While I did differnetiate between
the Maths that I use, and the
standard symbolic Maths, in this
current discussion, I didn't comment
upon anyone else's "model".

Everyone knows that there aren't
any other "models" that are not
orders-of-magnitude less-refined
than is the 'model' I've discussed.

> That will likely get you get you on thin ice
> very quickly.

Yeah, I know.

The 'way things are supposed to
be' is the 'god' to whom 'blind'-
automation bows-down.

And "woe to any" who thumb
their noses at it!

The 'club' gangs-up upon them,
'borrows' their work, and then
declares them "not to exist".

It's happened in my experience
thousands of 'times', and it never
fails to Sorrowfully-'amuse' me.

"Group-'think'".

"Mob-'mentality'".

It takes the very Life from any
who do not kiss-the-butt of the
codified "Abstract Ignorance" to
which it 'bows-down'.

It always gives-itself-away by its
=never= doing anything which
acknowledges the Existence of
any from whom it, nevertheless,
takes everything.

It's all so Sorrowfully-'amusing'.

> 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
> theory.

Enough of your B. S.

'go away', Neil.

Take your Ancient 'impossibilities'
and straight-jacketed symbolics
with-you.

And don't let the door hit you as
you go.

K. P. Collins

> [...]






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list