An electrophysiology quesiton

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Fri Feb 13 22:34:30 EST 2004


"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:halm20htmm7dr2dsufipj05al3jrccin8s at 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:24:36 GMT, "k p  Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> } 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.

That's just it - you're presumed, without
'bothering' to understand the position I've
been discussing.

> 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
> thread.

It's not necessary to use anything more
simple Logic [of course, also dealing with the
experimental data] to sustain the position I've
been discussing.

And supposedly 'using' anything else is
flat-out Dishonest.

I'm going to continue elsewhere [here in
this thread], but, I'm 'sorry', you've lost
me.

You're obviously 'interested' in other than
the Science.

I just do Science.

> As for:
> } I've refrained from constructing a web site
> } because I cannot afford to sustain a web
> } site
>
> 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?

I've explained.

K. P. Collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list