On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:24:36 GMT, "k p Collins"
} I stand on what I've posted.
Fine. Please continue. And do so off to the side when the material you
have is irrelevant to the situation and hand, and so confusing to
someone who might not know to ignore it.
} I've discussed it sufficiently. All
} you're 'doing' is ignoring what I've
} discussed - 'demoting' it to 'syman-
} tics', and ignoring the 3-D energy-
} dynamics that literally embody
} information within nervous sys-
} tem function.
And I'll continue to do so every time it intervenes where it's
irrelevant. And the same for when you're so entirely wrong in your
statements that it flies in the face of simple, well known facts.
If you'd care to speak to 3D energy dynamics, perhaps you'd care to
address the theory of Pribram, Bohm, Hiley, Jibu and Yasue as
decsribed in Pribram's "Brain and Perception", particularly the
appendices (Bohm & Hiley's "Undivided Universe" covers the physics
aspect more fully). I suggested tensor calculus would be appropriate
for describing the 3D neural field phenomena, but they maintain Gabor
functions are more accurate. Should you have thoughts along these
lines, feel free to expound, but please do so under an appropriate
} I've refrained from constructing a web site
} because I cannot afford to sustain a web
Your earthlink account comes with 10 MB of web space, already paid
for. It would cost you nothing more but a little time. Is it not worth
it to have your material clearly explicated for everyone to see?