A.R. Luria The Working Brain p.58-60

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Fri Feb 13 22:42:39 EST 2004


"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:dunm20pkmshsis92poi69d8avsn34um205 at 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:49:46 GMT, "k p  Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> } Hi Peter, Thank You for posting this stuff
> } to which you've referred in the past.
> }
> } All of this is 'just' standard Neuroanatomy,
>
> No, it's functional neuroanatomy, outlining and focusing on functions,
> not just locations.

I stand on what I posted, including my
follow-up.

> } most of which has been known since Cajal's
> } huge Accomplishments,
>
> So all the references from the 50s and 60s are useless?
> Ramon y Cajal died in 1934.

It was in my point, but, no, all replicable
data is as Gold.

> } and it's all included
> } in explicitly, in the form of a Proof of the
> } TD E/I-minimization Principle, in AoK, Ap3
> } [functional ramifications are discussed in the
> } "Short Paper" section of AoK, and in Ap5,
> } 6 & 7].
>
> It is?


I stand on what I posted, including my
follow-up.

> } But what Luria addresses is not the same as
> } what's in AoK.
>
> It isn't?
>
> It is or it isn't. You said it was (sic) "in explicitly".
>
> <snip redundant ken-rant>

I explained what's pertinent, in lengthy
discussion that's occurred between the
OP and me, but you've 'snipped' it,
Falsely terming it a 'rant'.

What can I say?

I stand on what I posted, including my
follow-up.

> } I don't know if you implied, in former msgs, that he
> } did, but Luria didn't say any of this.
>
> You're darn tootin'. He made sense.

I stand on what I posted, including my
follow-up.

You're choosing Falsehood, and,
otherwise, being unthinkingly-Offensive.

And using a Taxpayer-funded ID to do so.

'go away'.

K. P. Collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list