About Ken [was: Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield]

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Sun Feb 15 02:49:20 EST 2004


"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:yCDXb.5751$hm4.762 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%6DXb.5722$hm4.1993 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:8CCXb.5697$hm4.3080 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > "r norman" <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:qq8t209ahdsfv06ahud80a9hmgdf9ns66g at 4ax.com...
> > > > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:51:22 -0500, Doktor DynaSoar
> > > > <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:31:28 -0500, r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >} 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.
> > > > >}
> > > > >
> > > > >I'd like it to be known that I have nothing against him and his
> > > > >"theories" I only have something against him expounding them at
> > > > >unsuspecting people asking serious questions. They're very often
> > > > >students, and posting in a non-alt newsgroup might expect real
> answers
> > > > >to their questions. I think they deserve the chance to find the
right
> > > > >answers, and that sometimes necessarily includes indicating a given
> > > > >answer is wrong. If in doing so I can shorten the time it takes to
> > > > >make the effect stick, and therfore decrease the long term traffic
> > > > >noise level, I will.
> > > > >
> > > > >Compare him with John Winston. John hangs out in the UFO and
> > > > >paranormal groups, regularly posting things he's found along those
> > > > >lines. If someone asks him a question about something he knows or
has
> > > > >material on, he posts it. He's been doing this for 15 years on
usenet
> > > > >and Fidonet before that. He's impervious to flames because he knows
> > > > >he's done nothing to give people cause to be upset with him. Never
> has
> > > > >he done the equivalent to what goes on here, such as answering
every
> > > > >question by claiming it's related to motion (because after all, all
> > > > >energy and matter are in motion) and then relating it to Bob
Lazar's
> > > > >"discovery" that the anti-gravity engines in the flying saucers at
> > > > >Area 51 run on element 115. I've been a major fan of John Winston
> (for
> > > > >his behavior, not his material) for all of those 15 years. No one
can
> > > > >claim that in all that time he misled anyone.
> > > >
> > > > I apologize.  An inexplicable twitch of my thumb on the mouse caused
> > > > me to post, not just one, but two unfinished posts.
> > > >
> > > > Ken's posts are most definitely disruptive.  But he is not going to
> > > > stop just because we tell him that.  I don't know his problem, but I
> > > > can't help him.  My point is that I demean myself by getting nasty
and
> > > > vicious and it still doesn't solve anything.
> > > >
> > > > I further apologize for even suggesting that such nastiness had
> > > > occurred in this group.  I had not.  It is just that I read the
> > > > incredible flaming that goes on in groups like talk.origins and then
> > > > come here all riled up and overreact.
> > > >
> > > > Ken, if you are reading -- you are entitled to post your theories.
> > > > But you are entitled to do it just once and then stop.  You are
> > > > entitled to respond to other posts and queries.  But just once. It
> > > > really is an abuse of news group protocol to answer your own posts
and
> > > > do it again and again and again.  There are threads where you post
> > > > four, six, even eight, ten or twelve posts in a row.  If you have
> > > > something to say, say it once and stop.  If you think of more to add
> > > > later, too bad.  That means you shouldn't post anything until you
have
> > > > thought it through sufficiently.  I won't attribute psychological
> > > > pathologies behind your behavior but you should know at least that
is
> > > > not normal especially in a group that is supposed to be devoted to
> > > > science and not to advocacy or disputation.
> > >
> > > Sorry, Dr. Norman, what you've posted, quoted
> > > below, is B. S., and you should know that [by now].
> > >
> > > And, beside, what you've said about my replying to
> > > my own posts is contrary to the dynamics inherent
> > > in =all= non-trivial 'memory'-center-of-mass shifts
> > > [the dynamics of which I discussed in long-former
> > > posts [involves glial function, and derives in then-
> > > current globally-integrated 3-D energydynamics]].
> > >
> > > So, I'll 'follow the energy-gradient' to there's Worth
> > > in doing so, 'thank-you-very-much'.
> > >
> > > Think about it, a bit.
> > >
> > > How to you expect that New-stuff can be communicated
> > > if the only one who knows it is 'silenced' by arbitrarily-
> > > imposed 'rules'?
> > >
> > > I'm working on behalf of folks who Suffer - folks upon
> > > whom Neuroscience has 'turned-its-back'.
> > >
> > > And you propose 'rules' that, if I adhered to them, would
> > > have only the 'result' of me, also, turning my back upon
> > > them.
> > >
> > > Have I, in the past, given you more Credit than is your Due?
> >
> > The other thing is that, after the 33+ 'years', I'm a bit 'beat-up'.
> >
> > What do folks 'expect'?
> >
> > 33+ 'years' of seeing the Need, doing what's Necessary, but
> > being ever-more 'ostracized', is 'all-sweetness-and-light'?
> >
> > I'm Hurting, big-'time'.
> >
> > =Not= from anything that was inherent in doing the work, but
> > as a result of the intense 'aloneness' that the doing of the work
> > imposed, compounded by folks 'moving away from'.
> >
> > "But you have no idea what it's like to be alone." ["Lucy", in
> > =While You Were Sleeping=]
>
> Doing what needs to be done, in NG discussions,
> is orders of magnitude less-productive than is
> meeting to discuss in-person.
>
> Folks who miss reading this or that post, cannot
> go-forward in a NG discussion, but that problem
> just doesn't exist within in-person discussion.
>
> And in-person discussion has the advantage of
> diagrammatic accompaniment, in which direction-
> ality can be kept-straight, and even animated.
>
> Fact is, that not everything comes to ones mind
> during every msg that one posts [especially not
> when one has to try to 'balance' writing for folks
> who've been reading all along [are there any?],
> and the sort of 'onslaught' that's occurred. here
> in b.n. recently].
>
> All one can do is 'swim-up-that-current' - to
> 'spawn'-information.
>
> [And, yes, here, I've =deliberately= 'violated' the
> 'rules' that have been proposed. The 'rules' 'move
> away from' Truth, and would impose 'moving
> away from' Truth.]
>
> No one wants to be Finished with what needs
> to be done more than I do.

I went to bed, but, in my waking-consciousness->
sleeping-consciousness transition [a very-special
'moment', that I'll discuss [again] below], it came
to me that this "disruption" discussion is Falsely-
skewed.

I routinely comment, =with substance= in Neuro-
science, when a post 'opens the door' to something
that's Worth discussing - when a post by someone
else presents the opportunity to discuss something
that remains needing-discussion from NDT's per-
spective.

I do this routinely. All the regulars who meet in b.n
know this, and they also know that I =just= work
to discuss the Neuroscience [which =includes= the
necessity of integrating everything with respect to
its ramifications within behavior, which I most-often
do via personal 'annecdotes', which are always
literally calculated to give folks who consider them
useful Insights with respect to their own experiential
dynamics. OK?]

But look at what's transpired recently, here in b.n,
and, while you will see that there has been a veriti-
ble Onslaught of "Disruption", you'll see that it has
not been me who has been doing the "Disruption".

The =only= comments from anyone else that have
been in-Neuroscience have been those of Matthew
Kirckaldie [to his Credit]. =Everything= else posted,
by anyone else, in reply to anything that I've posted,
has been completely-absent Neuroscience content.

And look at the title of this 'side-thread' - "About
Ken". It's a perfect example of "Disruption", isn't it?

Yup.

So, there has been "Disruption", and it's Important
to keep-straight whence it's coming, and to see, at
least, what it's doing to my working-through the
Errors that exist within what has been the accepted
approach to Neurophysiology.

Try to see all of this from my perspective.

=Everything= that I've been discussing, and everything
that I will discuss, with respect to my current focus
upon the Neurophysiology, has been tightly-integrated
within NDT since the late 1970s. It's what "TD E/I-
minimization" is.

Try to understand from my perspective.

I did the work that folks're, now, finding to be 'Difficult',
integrated it, and gave folks the integrated-synthesis
in AoK.

If folks find what I'm discussing these 'days' to be 'Difficult',
then =use that= 'sensing'-of-the-'Difficulty' to 'measure'
what I had to go-through to do the original synthesis. And
try to have a little 'respect' for the fact of the work, inherent.

This "Disruptive"-Onslaught that's 'scattering' the stuff I'm
discussing is a Savage 'moving away from' Truth that's
=outside= of Science, and which has a 'purpose' that's
outside of Science.

It's Reprehensible.

Go back through the threads and see for yourselves. Must
be 60-70 msgs that do nothing other than "Disrupt" the
very-fundamentally-Neuroscience stuff that I've been try-
ing to discuss.

Why has it been so?

Is it 'just' 'blindly'-automated 'moving away from' the TD E/I(up)
that my beginning to Correct the Errors that have existed within
the standard approach to Neurophysiology?

Or is it something more-collectively-sinister?

Are folks 'just' unwilling to learn, or are folks actively pursuing
another 'goal' with all of this "Disruption"?

I won't 'judge' it to be the latter, but, even if it is, most of what
it actually is is the former.

Which, if folks who have AoK take a look, will be found to
be the main 'point' that is addressed in AoK - the way that
'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization 'blindly'-and-auto-
matically induces folks to 'blindly-and-automatically Ravage
others Illogically.

Do I need to 'hold this mirror' up for folks to look-into?

Anyway, the waking-consciousness->sleeping-consciousness
transition 'moment' is an extraordinarily-special 'moment'.

In it, waking-consciousness "supersystem configurations" [AoK,
Ap5] are dis-integrating, but sleeping-consciousness "super-
system configurations" have not yet begun to integrate. This
'moment' is 'on the cusp' of this great "supersystem [re]configur-
ation", and, in it, if one trains one's self to capture it, virtually-
always, one is able to gain break-through insight with respect
to the information-content that one has been carrying within
one's waking-consciousness.

This happens be-cause, 'between' these two great "supersystem
configurations", a =global= "tuning-precision void" intervenes,
in which the waking-consciousness "supersystem configuration"
is, literally, ramping-down - in a way that's quite analogous to
a tide flowing out of an estuary. And as this "supersystem con-
figuration" "ramping-down" occurs, TD E/I is increasing, which,
if one trains one's self to "sieze this 'moment'", virtually always
imbues this or that in the 'waining'-of-waking-consciousness of
information-content with new insight.

When it's worth it, I get back out of bed, get dressed, and
explore the newly-gained insight.

As I've done with respect to clarifying this "Disruption" stuff.

Anyway, too, I've shared stuff, with folks here in b.n, that's
Verifiably more-Significant than anything else that's ever been
done in Science. [Forgive me, Please, but it's True.]

So, be that as it, Verifiably, is, how, then, can anything I do
be "disruptive"?

ken [K. P. Collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list