Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield ?

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Sat Feb 14 22:54:22 EST 2004


It's 'interesting'. Do you think that
posting your replies twice makes
them anything other than what is
written in-them?

K. P. Collins

"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SwvL9UOXZjLAFwym at longley.demon.co.uk...
> 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
> >the
> >> >>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
> medical help..
>
> Kind regards,.
>
>
> David
> --
> David Longley





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list