Unstable->Stable Equilibrium Transitions

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Fri Feb 6 06:07:24 EST 2004


"NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ZUHUb.25463$9U5.1286794 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> Actually your responses here was quite predictable.

That you 'predicted' is an admission that
your intent was Malicious.

Do you 'think' that I was 'oblivious' to
that?

> 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 rely on internet searches, ripping-off
the work done by others, and posing as if
it's your own.

> You come to a public forum and present your ideas, which I
> think is a great move and I completely encourage it,

I do this be-cause it's the only path
that's been 'open' to me.

I've been at it for 15+ 'years'.

The capacity of doing it this way
is orders of magnitude less than
a couple of weeks' in-person
communication would be.

> but then you get angry
> because people ask you to present the calculations and data that helped
you
> arrive at those conclusions.

No, that's not why I "get angry".

I'm not actually "angry" with you.

I'm just doing what's necessary to
expose the actuality of what you've
been doing.

And I stand on what I've posted.

My discussions always contain enough
information to allow anyone who wants
to, and who can, translate the stuff I
discuss into the Maths of their Choice.

Where there are particular needs, I
write little QBASIC[tm] programs
to get folks past the 'Difficulties'.

I am a Theoretician, not a Research
Assistant. I do stuff that hadn't been
done before.

Your 'efforts' have been consistently-
Cheap, Neil, and my reaction to Cheap-
'efforts' is consistently-the-same - when
they are directed against the work I've
done, I expose them for what they are.

Anyone can see that for themselves by
just Googling my former posts, isn't it
so?

It was your Choice to come into b.n
with your "predictions", and Malicious-
intent.

Good grief, Neil. I doubt that there's
anyone on the face of the planet who
has as much Experience as I do in
Recognizing, and Exposing Cheap-
'efforts'.

The heart of what I Study is 'blind'-
automation.

Your Cheap-'efforts' are 'just' more
'blind'-automation.

You gave-yourself-away early-on.

Do you want me to go back and
Demonstrate that it's so?

[If you look, you'll see that I marked
it, in real-'time', early-on.]

> 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.

Here, you're just piling-up more Cheap-
'effort' - standard, 'canned', say-nothing
personal 'attack'.

What can I say?

Such bounces-right-off be-cause
to do what Needed to be done, I had
to get-beyond this sort of B. S - decades
ago.

If you consider it a waste of your
'time', then what does that say about
your "prediction".

It says that you Like to waste your
'time' :-]

You "predicted" that you'd waste
your 'time'.

Do you 'think' all of that hasn't been
obvious to me during the course of our
interaction?

You intersperse "gee whizzes", and
feigned 'compliments', and 'think' that
one cannot see-right-through such?

It's =EASY=.

Just "range-widely" and one sees Truth,
despite =any= amount of 'feigning'.

> Be passionate and emotional about your research, but to bring yourself to
> level where the discussion becomes insults back and forth is completely
> pointless.

If that were the case, that'd be a Waste.

But it's not the case.

You came with your Cheap-'efforts' at
'prediction', wanting to do a self-fulfilling
thing that's Hurtful to the Work I've done
on behalf of folks who Suffer.

Big-Mistake.

Huge.

I'm not "insulting" you.

I'm just shutting-down your Cheap-
'efforts'.

Batting-them-down.

If you check sufficiently, you'll find
that this is what I =always= do when
I'm confronted with Malicious-intent.

It was your Choice to proceed as you
did..

You Declared your Malicious-intent.

Now you're whining about the fact
that you were 'caught with your pants
down'?

Hell, if you 'drop-trou' in-public, what
do you expect?

Especially when you "predict" the results
of your hangin'-your-butt-in-the-wind?

> (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).

I always meet Malicious-intent head-on.

There's Worth in doing so, because folks
who read, Learn both how to Recognize
Malicious-intent, and how to deal with it.

Would I rather have not had to deal with
your Deliberately-Malicious-intent?

Yeah.

If you check, you'll see that I Tried,
early-on, to Gracefully redirect your
'purpose'.

But you Chose to continue, so I had to
Expose what you were doing.

> That is something that I
> believe you and I are both beyond (or at least I hope we are).

Check it out, and you'll see for yourself
that I've been beyond it all along.

I'm through sharing information with
you.

You've Chosen to lose what you could've
Learned.

> I extended
> politeness when I asked you questions and I expect you to do the same in
> your response.

You =FEIGNED= 'politeness', and
you iced it by being a "greasy smack",
with your =FEIGNED= 'compliments'.

> (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.

"'being critical about data '" is a standard
form of B. S. - especially when =all= of
the data is already in the Literature - and
I'm not talking about "esoterics" - the data
to which I refer [the data pertaining to what
we've discussed - the transition from
instability to stability] is all undergraduate
Biology.

I only showed what hadn't been seen in-it.

Yet, here you are, in bionet.neuroscience
whining about the fact that you don't already
know it - wanting my to teach you?

> 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.

Obviously, you stood-in-it before
you ever came to b.n [this 'time'
around].

People are Dying and, otherwise,
Suffering, on massive scales because
NDT's stuff has not yet been communicated
sufficiently, and, here you've been, working
to 'verify' your B. S. 'predictions.

Take your Malicious-intent with-you
when you 'go away'.

K. P. Collins

>
>
>
> "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
> 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