An electrophysiology quesiton

Doktor DynaSoar targeting at OMCL.mil
Sat Feb 14 07:54:29 EST 2004


On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:34:30 GMT, "k p  Collins"
<kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:

} > 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.

I understood enough of what you said, and the nature of the question
at hand, to know they had nothing to do with each other.

} > 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.

So you refuse to compare your theory with one already published in the
field and with supporting experimental evidence. I'm sure no one is
surprised. Most everyone is well aware of your tendencies. Somehow I
get the feeling you had no idea there actually was a theory on the
phenomenon you claim to author a theory on. I would imagine anyone who
actually had constructed something worthwhile would relish the thought
of comparing it with the work of neuroscientists and physicists with
over 200 years of experience between them.

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

No, using the literature and experimental evidence is science. That's
what's in the book. 

} 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.

This is true. I'm also interested in debunking quacks.

} I just do Science.

Really. So do I. 
Anything I might have read?
Got a PubMed reference handy? OVID PsychInfo?
Any old abstract database will do.
Show me yours and I'll show you mine.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list