Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield ?
k p Collins
kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Thu Feb 19 09:18:51 EST 2004
"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:re87301286bi82dr3d5l6atljcs751jrnf at 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:26:29 GMT, "k p Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
> } I stand on what I posted.
> And I intend to see you continue. However, you'll also be responsible
> for it.
> } Your 'criticisms', quoted below, would
> } only have validity if everything was already
> } known.
> False. It is not necessary for everything to be know for some things
> to be known. If you actually believe your statement, you are engaging
> in irrational thought.
Here is the original context [my comments
are added below]:
| I stand on what I posted.
| Your 'criticisms', quoted below, would
| only have validity if everything was already
| While Humanity is short of that mark, it's
| not only 'appropriate' to add connections
| within scientific discourse, if one can, one
| is Obliged to do so.
| Science differes from 'social-correctness'
| in this way.
| K. P. Collins
| "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
| news:2vc430ddq71qnfl40o2mhjimv1q6anjil0 at 4ax.com...
| > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:10:17 GMT, "k p Collins"
| > <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
| > } "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
| > } news:r7lu20pj0ecl6sb09e6eatdm7ie55agftj at 4ax.com...
| > } > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:36:11 -0500, r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net>
| > } > wrote:
| > } >
| > } > } Ken's posts are most definitely disruptive.
| > } >
| > } > As I've said elsewhere, I don't expect (and definitely don't demand)
| > } > he stop posting. I only request -- no, honestly I insist -- he stop
| > } > answering straightforward questions with irrelevant material whether
| > } > from his "theory" or not.
| > } > [...]
| > }
| > } Who are you so so Dictate what will be within scientific discourse?
| > I don't, and I have said as much. Carry on with as much discourse as
| > you like. But don't bother others by posting it in threads where it
| > doesn't belong. Responding to all specific questions with material
| > that has nothing to do with those questions is not discourse, it is
| > automatic, if not compulsive, monolog.
| > } You presume too-much when you presume to know what is "irrelevant".
| > You presume too much when you presume that statement is correct.
| > Specific questions have specific answers. Responding to them with
| > material that is not related to the question at hand is in fact
| > responding with irrelevant material. It requires no understanding of
| > science at all to grasp that fact. I don't know just what it is that
| > makes people steadfastly refuse to grasp that fact, and don't really
| > care, but the problem is obviously not due to a lack of scientific
| > understanding. There are a lot of people without scientific
| > understanding and for the most part they don't do this.
| > It's a big newsgroup, Ken. In fact it has no realistic size limit that
| > would mean anything to people posting text messages. There's plenty of
| > room for everyone. That is not the same as saying every single thread
| > is fair game for anyone who wants to add anything. Technically they
| > can, but it is considered rude to do so, just as it is considered rude
| > to barge into a conversation and hold forth on whatever one wishes
| > without regard for the topic of the conversation in progress.
It is the above paragraph to which I was referring
when I wrote, "Your 'criticisms', quoted below, would
only have validity if everything was already known.
Of course I was saying this with respect to this
or that contents of this or that post.
But, since you've pushed the point, I stand
on what I posted with respect to all of physical
reality. Infinity extends from everything.
We 'navigate' within this infinity of infinities through
the Brilliant 'engineering' of our nervous systems,
not because we know anything with Absolute-
If you 'think' you know anything with Absolute-
Certainty, run it by me, and I'll show you that
How about "1 + 1 = 2"?
Seems pretty straightforward, no?
The 'traditional' view on it is, but it's
"1", "+", "=" and "2" are representations.
It requires doing work to converge upon
Doing work always dissipates energy.
So, although folks can 'agree' on the
'meanings' of "1", "+", "=" and "2",
not once, within any nervous system
are the underpinning energydynamics
ever the same.
Every instance of every Person's "1 + 1 = 2"
is not even close to being "the same".
It's the same with respect to everything
within physical reality.
"1 + 1 = 2" just 'ignores' the underpinning
Truth, saying that "1 + 1 = 2" is "known",
but it isn't actually "known". It's 'just'
So, there's a lot of work to do in Science.
| > Imagine doing that in person, Ken. I can't conceive of you doing so.
| > As to why you insist on doing it here is up to you to care about or
| > not, and determine or not. We will all continue to deal with the
| > results in our own ways.
You're right about my private Life.
I mostly use my 'brilliance' to lift-folks-up,
without their knowing that I'm doing so.
Just wish someone would do it back, a bit.
Especially "Her". [Only kidding, I'm too old.
But I did have a dream about Rene Zelweger[sp?]
last 'night' :-]
[It's getting close to Spring 'time', you 'know'.]
Anyway, in the future, please retain the entire
context of any post of mine that you intend to
Everything, in all my posts, is in-there for a
Reason that has to do with the "representation"
stuff that I discussed above.
Changing what I say, and saying it's 'what I said',
is inherently Problematical with respect to your
intended 'purpose', no?
K. P. Collins
More information about the Neur-sci