IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Unstable->Stable Equilibrium Transitions

NMF neil.fournier at sympatico.ca
Fri Feb 6 02:23:49 EST 2004

Actually your responses here was quite predictable. I particularly enjoyed:

> 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.

I rely on empirical and measured data, not theoretical constructs or
pseudoscience.   You come to a public forum and present your ideas, which I
think is a great move and I completely encourage it, but then you get angry
because people ask you to present the calculations and data that helped you
arrive at those conclusions. That kind of behavior (even though it is
predictable) is ridiculous and questionable.  And even more unfortunate is
this becomes a complete waste of both mine and your time.

Be passionate and emotional about your research, but to bring yourself to
level where the discussion becomes insults back and forth is completely
pointless. (When these types of behavioral responses occur , i.e. insulting
each other, the conversation becomes a complete waste of time and does not
provide anything productive and worthwhile). That is something that I
believe you and I are both beyond (or at least I hope we are).    I extended
politeness when I asked you questions and I expect you to do the same in
your response. (However, I do believe that often reading script can be
construed by an individual to contain certain "tones" that may or may not
have been originally present).  Being critical about data isn't a stab at
the person who is presenting the data. That is something that I try to
convey to my younger colleagues.

I can understand your frustration.  I would encourage you to keep on
submitting your manuscript to variety of different journals (i.e. journal of
theoretical biology, etc).  But everything I have said is and was completely
valid.  And I stand on what I posted.

"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DfFUb.12066$jH6.11517 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:ztCUb.7013$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
> > but lack any mathematical or experimental data to support it.  You
> > interesting verbal descriptions involving your theories but never
> > any calculations that would show how these processing occurring.  I
> > support and even believe in many of the concepts you present- which
> > 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
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net