An electrophysiology quesiton

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Sat Feb 14 22:42:01 EST 2004


I stand on what I've posted, and, Honestly,
I've no interest in reading anything you've
published. I try not to 'embarass' folks.

K. P. Collins

"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:clvr20turv6sheuedusq409c12cmt9ikl9 at 4ax.com...
> 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