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
> > > > >} and respectful, I find truly appalling the level of civil
> > > > >} all too often practiced on news groups. (Not this one so much).
> > > > >} think I made it pretty clear that neither I nor anyone else in
> > > > >} universe believes his theories. But I didn't feel it necessary
> > > > >} 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
> > > > >to their questions. I think they deserve the chance to find the
> > > > >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
> > > > >material on, he posts it. He's been doing this for 15 years on
> > > > >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
> > > > >he done the equivalent to what goes on here, such as answering
> > > > >question by claiming it's related to motion (because after all, all
> > > > >energy and matter are in motion) and then relating it to Bob
> > > > >"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
> > > > >his behavior, not his material) for all of those 15 years. No one
> > > > >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
> > > > 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
> > > > 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
> > > > thought it through sufficiently. I won't attribute psychological
> > > > pathologies behind your behavior but you should know at least that
> > > > 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
> [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-
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-
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
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?
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-
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
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.
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
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
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
ken [K. P. Collins]
More information about the Neur-sci