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

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Thu Feb 19 05:14:28 EST 2004


Aw heck...

"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:67a7305spe9460env17t7lp44ramobmo1h at 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:19:14 GMT, "k p  Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> } I stand on what I've posted, but
> } explain why, below.
> }
> } "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
> } news:lce4301koj1sp0n2p0c0gtsfbvoksuju68 at 4ax.com...
> } > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:21:42 GMT, "k p  Collins"
> } > <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
> } >
> } > } I =AGREE=, and not that, thus far, having received
> } > } ample opportunity to do so, you've not pointed to
> } > } anything that I've discussed as 'being in error'.
> } > ...
> } > } I Invite you to try to find Error in anything that
> } > } I've posted.
> } >
> } > In <AhvPb.17594$q4.2672 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, in response
> } > to a straightforward question about the correlation dimension of a
> } > time series, you responded with:
> } >
> } > } You're missing some crucial data that cross-correlates
> } > } your 'time' series to the cerebellar topology.
> } >
> } > Not only is that wrong, it's so far from logical that it calls into
> } > question your very intellectual and cognitive capabilities.
> } >
> } > The shape of a part of the brain has absolutely nothing whatsoever,
> }
> } Topology has nothing to do with "shape".
>
> It has everything to do with shape and nothing else. It is a branch of
> geometry.

Topology has nothing to do with shape.

Topology deals, exclusively, in connectedness.

It's 'hard' to interact with you, 'dynasoar',
because you 'think' you 'know' what I'm
saying, but you obviously don't.

And it's not my 'job' to set-you-straight.

In this instance, you asserted, a couple of
posts back, that I was referring to "shape".

I was not referring to "shape".

I was referring to [the neural] Topology.

Then, presuming that you 'knew' what I
was saying, you've gone-on to presume
to 'explain' how, in what you didn't under-
stand, I 'was wrong', but, how can you
assert such when it's obvious that you
didn't even know what I was talking
about?

You know?

All of your 'interaction' with respect to
my posts has been in this same way.

It's like you formed an opinion of 'me'
before you ever came here to b.n,
"and you're damn-well gonna prove it".

Everything you've posted, in reply to my
posts, has has this same 'quality' of 'pre-
sumptiveness'.

And you 'expect' me to actually do anything
in reply to such?

How can one?

You've built-prejudice right-into it.

All anyone can do is point that out to you,
because there's been nothing in your 'replies'
that can be responded-to Rationally.

> Whether it is the outter surface of a part of the brain, or
> the networked interconnections of neural pathways, it is shape and it
> is regading, in your statement, anatomy.

Not "shape".

Topology.

"Shape" can vary infinitely, while "Topology"
remains invariant.

Within nervous systems, "shape"

Big-Difference.

=HUGE=.

You've left something out, here,. I'll see if
I can find it for you.

>From your former reply:

"If you think it does, you're wrong. If you think
you have some "theory" concocted which shows
this, you're as wrong as a football bat."

Hmmmm... "shows" what? I'll have to dig
some more [are you getting what I'm getting-
at? You don't even maintain the context of
our discussion. You just 'rewrite' it,' presumptively',
and, then, 'presume' that your rewritten stuff
says anything with respect to what I'd said.
If you're so determined to 'rip-apart' anything
that I post, you have to leave what I've posted
in-there, else what you do doesn't even have
to be responded-to. It contradicts-itself. Get it?]

>From your former reply:

"Not only is that wrong, it's so far from logical
that it calls into question your very intellectual
and cognitive capabilities.

The shape of a part of the brain has absolutely
nothing whatsoever, even in the greatest stretch
of imagination, to do with calculation of cD from
an arbitrary time series. If you think it does, you're
wrong.If you think you have some "theory"
concocted which shows this, you're as wrong as
a football bat."

Not "shape".

"Topology".

Hmm... I still didn't extract enough of your prior
comments.

>From another of your former replies:

"} [ken] Topology has nothing to do with "shape".

[ds] It has everything to do with shape and nothing
else. It is a branch of geometry. Whether it is the
outter surface of a part of the brain, or the networked
interconnections of neural pathways, it is shape and it
is regading, in your statement, anatomy.

} > [ds] even in the greatest stretch of imagination, to do with calculation
of
} > cD from an arbitrary time series. If you think it does, you're wrong.
} > If you think you have some "theory" concocted which shows this, you're
} > as wrong as a football bat.
}
} [ken] One of us is Wrong :-]

[ds] Well, since I can calculate the correlation dimension of an arbitrary
time series, and despite knowing about brain structure, do not need to
use any of that information in order to perform the calculation, I
would say the evidence of data places the football bat squarely in
your hands."

Topology has =nothing= to do with "shape".

Topology treats =only= connectedness that's
=invariant= with "shape".

You 'presumed' too-much.

I still don't know "what", with respect to what
you've 'quoted' from prior discussion, immediately-
below.

Are you just trying to 'cover-up' your not
knowing what "Topology" is?

> } > [ds] even in the greatest stretch of imagination, to do with
calculation of
> } > cD from an arbitrary time series. If you think it does, you're wrong.
> } > If you think you have some "theory" concocted which shows this, you're
> } > as wrong as a football bat.
> }
> } [ken] One of us is Wrong :-]
>
> Well, since I can calculate the correlation dimension of an arbitrary
> time series, and despite knowing about brain structure, do not need to
> use any of that information in order to perform the calculation, I
> would say the evidence of data places the football bat squarely in
> your hands.

Here, I'm interested in what it is that you
'think' it is that your "calculat[ing] the
correlation dimension of an arbitrary
time series", supposedly, 'discloses'?

I =presume= your 'point' is that, if this
neuron manifests an action potential
before, at the same 'time', or after, that
neuron manifests an action potential, and
so forth, with respect to all the neurons
in "the" set of neurons with respect to
which you are "calculating", then, from
the resultant 'chaotic attractor", you can
say something that's "worth the price of
eggs in New York City"?

You're saying that 'because' there's this
correlation in 'time', that you can use
what you've "calculated" to, say, "pre-
dict" with respect to "the" set of neurons
with respect to which you've "calculated"?

Sorry, 'dynasoar', Truth is that there is no
"the" set.

In any neural dynamic, "the" set of neurons
involved, their relative activations, and their
interconnectedness, varies as a function of the
activation that actually occurs.

There is no "the" set.

So, unless you "calculate" 'the' set of neurons
involved, their relative activations, and their
interconnectedness, your "calculation" can be
plotted to give a 'pretty-picture' but it can't
be used to =actually= Predict anything.

I can count the steps I take to get from here
to there, but what do I do when I get-there?

I can count the pennies in my jar, but how
does that tell me what to do with them?

You know?

Your "correlation dimension" is similarly
useless with respect to saying anything
that's going-on within nervous systems.

[This's not True with respect to all
'time'-sequences, BTW. Any 'time'-
sequence that tracks unigue-onsets
yields an ordered-set that is, in fact,
Deterministic with respect to "onsets".]

You need to learn more Neuroscience,
'dynasoar' - before you 'presume' any-
thing about what's 'in' a "calculation".

>
> } > That was just the first one. I could continue, but that could be
> } > construed as purposefully humiliating you.

Fire-away. I'm 'taking-a-break', to give
folks opportunity to 'chew-on' other
stuff that I've discussed, anyway.

Please "continue".

> } While you have manifest all manner of
> } Falsehood against my Person, you've
> } not yet done anything that 'humiliates'
> } me.
>
> It's part and parcel of your thinking on the matter that prevents you
> from facing the fact that you have.

Who is it that you are you talking about?

> } > I will not do that in
> } > response to a direct or implied question. However, if people,
> } > presumeably students whether formally or informally, ask specific
> } > questions, and you respond to them with information that is so
> } > obviously disconnected from the subject matter that your response is
> } > confusing at best and quite irrelevant,
> }
> } That's just it. Nothing in anything I've
> } ever posted is either.
>
> What happened to standing by what you wrote? Does that only apply when
> it's convenient for you?

Unless I explicitly CLARIFY, RETRACT, or
CORRECT, I stand on =everything= that I've
ever posted.

> I just gave you a concrete example.

You 'presume' too-much.

You 'gave' me a great-big "nothing".

> The same sort of thinking obviously applies here.

Hey, we agree :-]

Only, to whom are your comments applicable?

It's a 'mystery' - just like in your "correlation
dimension" :-]

> Frankly I don't care whether that thinking is
> just wrong, ignorant, or delusional. Regardless of the reason, you'll
> be held accountable for it.

Hold me Accountable, =Please=.

I suggest that you devote less of
your energy to 'proving' your 'pre-
sumption', and more to both learn-
ing Neuroscience, and Thinking.

At least in interaction with me.

Deliberate-Hurtfulness is an Enemy
of mine.

There are very-few things with re-
spect to which I'm not Obligated
to take-it-on-the-chin.

Deliberate-Hurtfulness is one of them.

So, I'm asking you to leave such out
of anything further you post to me.

k. p. collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list