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

Doktor DynaSoar targeting at OMCL.mil
Sat Feb 14 07:04:06 EST 2004

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:42:39 GMT, "k p  Collins"
<kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:

} "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.

I stand on what I said. You're wrong.

} > } 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.

Then it wasn't all know since Cajal's time. A lot of what Luria said
came from data published after 1934. I stand on what I said. You're
wrong. And you weren;t just incorrect. You regularly make up stuff and
throw it out with no consideration towards what you are saying to
whom, and with no regard for the truth. 

} > } 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,

It's still completely accessable to anyone via Google, or simply by
access their news server and downloading the message using the
message-ID in the References: header.

} Falsely terming it a 'rant'.

It was a bit weak for a rant. Perhaps "blabber" is better.

} What can I say?

What you could say is whether it is or isn't. You contradicted
yourself, and your supposed explanation did nothing but obsfucate.

} 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.

I am thinking perfectly well, thank you. And unlike you I can
replicate any piece of evidence to support my point and present it in
an intelligible and acceptable fashion. However, I would expect you to
ignore it all over again, so I leave doing so as an exercise.

} And using a Taxpayer-funded ID to do so.

Nope. I pay for it out of my NIH grant. Since that grant  constitutes
my income, I'm paying for it with my paycheck. By the way, it's the
department of psychiatry. At the medical school. 

} 'go away'.

Can't. I'm dedicated to keeping quacks, kooks, and loonies in their
place and debunking the BS that might confuse people who're interested
in the truth. It's a time honored traditional hobby for many

Feel free to continue jawing up a storm with any such who want to
engage you in your pet "theory". I'm not against that stuff. Heck, I
enjoy a great conspiracy theory myself and hang out on those boards.
But leave real people with real questions that have real answers
alone. You can confuse them with much irrelevant and frequently wrong

By the way, is this you? It's the most recent PubMed reference I could
find for a "Collins KP":

J Urol. 1988 Nov;140(5):984-5. 
Complications of penile prostheses in the spinal cord injury
population. Collins KP, Hackler RH. Division of Urology, McGuire
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia.

Then there was an article about clubbing of fingers (probably a letter
rather than an article, as there was no abstract) and an article about
Social Security. Clearly no other science articles there.

But I did locate: "On the Automation of Knowledge within Central
Nervous Systems. (Unpublished manuscript)." elsewhere.

That parenthetical phrase looks likely. Only found it in the
references of one article though. That sounds likely. Am I warm?

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list