Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield ?

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Mon Feb 16 10:07:13 EST 2004


In article <O3CXb.5675$hm4.5269 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, k p 
Collins <kpaulc@[----------].invalid> writes
>It's 'interesting'. Do you think that
>posting your replies twice makes
>them anything other than what is
>written in-them?
>
>K. P. Collins
>

No Ken.

I wrote the first one without proof-reading it carefully enough before 
posting, so I cancelled and re-posted. Looking at the re-post, there are 
*still* lots of errors (unclosed brackets, clumsy grammar etc) which all 
make what I say harder to read than it should be. I apologise for all 
that. What I said, though critical, was however, meant to be helpful.

Just consider the possibility that what you find reinforcing may not be 
so much the *content* of what you have to say (which clearly you think 
you are passionate about), but possibly the *form* which the behaviour 
takes (its intensity, rate and its consequences). Just consider whether 
*that* may be a problem all by itself. A lot of the time, you appear to 
be making connections which seems rather excessive and as a consequence 
perhaps, irrelevant.

Kind regards,


David.


>"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
>
>

-- 
David Longley



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list