Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield ?
David at longley.demon.co.uk
Sat Feb 14 09:53:11 EST 2004
In article <nIhXb.4830$hm4.4717 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, k p
Collins <kpaulc@[----------].invalid> writes
>"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:IzC9tvKhNBLAFwQ2 at longley.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <ngvm20dhocqmnjkm1f984462t1v1l5ntdj at 4ax.com>, r norman
>> <rsn_ at _comcast.net> writes
>> >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:44:47 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
>> ><gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>RN: "Perhaps in another 50 years we will all think like [Ken]..."
>> >>GS: Especially if someone dumps a powerful psychosis-inducing drug into
>> >>water supply.
>> >>"r norman" <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:jd5l20d11nt95du21tr7mitl2fdqsp1rc0 at 4ax.com...
>> >>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:11:36 GMT, "k p Collins"
>> >>> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>> <snip virtually all the content>
>> >>> >I stand on what I've posted.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >[I forwarned that the stuff that I discussed
>> >>> >in my reply to your post is "too-hot", and
>> >>> >encouraged you to not reply, so don't be
>> >>> >'angry' with me. It's just that, where I am,
>> >>> >Science 'moves toward' Truth.]
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Thank You for the work inherent in your
>> >>> >replying, Dr. Norman.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >K. P. Collins
>> >>> >
>> >>> As I said -- I, too, stand on what I've posted. I'll continue with
>> >>> the "traditional" way of thinking which I believe has served us so
>> >>> fruitfully for the last 50 years of experimental neurophysiology.
>> >>> Perhaps you are right. Perhaps in another 50 years we will all think
>> >>> like you and wonder why we were so dense all those years. But for now
>> >>> I remain unconvinced.
>> >Who knows? Someday pigs may fly. Someday we will actually find WMD
>> >in Iraq. Someday (although this one is even less likely) we may be
>> >teaching about 3-D energy dynamics!
>> >As a rapidly aging guy brought up in the Eisenhower era to be polite
>> >and respectful, I find truly appalling the level of civil discourse
>> >all too often practiced on news groups. (Not this one so much). I
>> >think I made it pretty clear that neither I nor anyone else in the
>> >universe believes his theories. But I didn't feel it necessary to be
>> >rude about it.
>> Is it rude to refer to what appears to be psychotic behaviour as
>> psychotic? Not only does Ken show classic signs of psychosis, but he
>> also violates nearly every rule of scientific etiquette. He assimilates
>> the work of others, fails to acknowledge where it's come from (cf
>> Gellhorn, DA, 5-HT and NA etc), misleads the unwary (though I can't
>> imagine there are many of those), ignores all advice, and should at
>> least get some professional advice. Is it being rude to try to be honest
>> with him? Is there not a risk of reinforcing what is otherwise just bad
>> behaviour by "being polite"?
>> Like several here, I mean Ken no harm, but I'd like to see him face
>> facts. It's possible - and with some help, he need not give up entirely
>> on what he's interested. But as things are, there's no chance, and
>> "being polite" may not be the way to help.
>> David Longley
>Most of what you've posted is Lies [who or
>what is "Gellhorn"?], but I agree with the first
>phrase in your last sentence. It's as you say,
>so I'm using the Freedom, inherent.
>K. P. Collins
What I reckon you *should* do is *assume* that what you feel is original
in what you have to say, may in fact not be, and assume instead that you
have tacitly absorbed some well worn ideas, failed to appreciate this,
and gone on to mystify them and be mystified by what you have done. It's
all too easily done in behavioural neuroscience, psychology etc.
There are all sorts of ideas in the history of psychology and neurology
to do with approach-withdrawal and homeostasis. Some are information
theoretic (entropy models), some cybernetic, some systems theoretic,
some Control Theoretic - but there are *lots*. By and large, this kind
of grand scale thinking has largely had its day and has given way to
detailed, smaller, specific problem, empirical work, because most folk
see science as largely just that, a very large, detailed jig-saw.
Quasi scientific, grand approach-withdrawal vector models, date back to
at least the beginning of the 20th century. You can find such notions in
Freud's Eros and Thanatos (and don't forget his "Project" see the book
by Pribram and Gill (1976)) to Gellhorn's ergotropic- trophotropic
system. A little research on the web would have highlighted all of this
- but you should know it anyway. There are all kinds of detailed systems
which could be described as "opponent-processes" - from the autonomic
nervous system, to colour vision to the supposed general functions of
dopamine as bilateral "accelerators" and serotonin as "brakes" (perhaps
with NE as clutch! <g>). Psychology is chock-a-block with
"approach-withdrawal" models of such behaviour (the earlier ones being
drive reduction systems see Hull. These are often couched in terms of
"reward and punishment", conditioned reinforcers, incentives,
conditioned excitators and inhibitors, etc. Over the past five decades,
there has been a tendency to draw frighteningly absurd CNS subway maps
for the above, all mapped into functional, albeit "conceptual"
neuroanatomy. Nearly all of this is science fiction of course. It just
looks good (or better than the non neurogobbledegook versions because
the latter have *latin names* for identifiable subway stations! Like
many folk I imagine, I can talk like that for hours, and I can (to
many), sound like I really know what I'm talking about (and in such
detail that I can easily delude myself for a while too <g>). It's really
little more than a kind of intoxicating, verbal-head-banging, madness
(most of the time!) (Oh, and I can get very passionate talking about the
importance of neo-phobia too <g> - but I try hard not to....<g>.).
Be wary - very wary, of ever straying very far from functional relations
between variables *which you can show that you (or colleagues) have
quantifiable (demonstrable) control over*. Failure to respect this
'anchor' is a pretty sure fire route to crazy/intoxicating metaphysics,
and if you're not mad to start with, talking and thinking that way can
certainly lead others to think that you've flipped <g>. Some of these
newsgroups subjects attract such folk like bees to honey.
The facts are, most scientists are wary of behaving that way themselves
I suspect, they discipline their creative moments and verbal behaviour.
If they see it running amok in others, they naturally protect their
verbal own, and their verbal community's integrity, by criticising the
transgressor. If you are going to indulge in grandiose 'eccentric'
behaviour, you should expect others to demand rigor of you to match
.....hence the demands to "put up or shut up"!
I've suggested before that you take on something less grandiose and more
manageable. You won't be the first to have been given such advice in
your best interests. That you refuse to listen makes me (at least) fear
the worse. Hence my oft repeated advice that you seek professional
More information about the Neur-sci