DC lesion? - a lesson?

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Mon Feb 23 06:04:51 EST 2004


I've rarely read anything as Genuinely-Hilarious
as are your Cheap 'efforts', below, Neil.

Let's have some Fun.

"NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Yuc_b.3216$Mo4.100812 at news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > My view is that Jesus refused the drug-laced
> > 'wine' because He refused to allow His Sacri-
> > fice to be less-than-Perfect [which is what
> > accepting drugs would've made it].
> >
> > And the fact that He did, completely-
> > undermines Peter's 'suggestion', doesn't
> > it?
>
> No, not necessarly.  The point was regarding
> the sponge, containing some unknown bitter
> tasting substance, that was placed to the lips
> of Christ during the crucification.  Which has
> been a hot topic of debate for many many many
> years.  Especially since after it was placed to his
> lips Christ died shortly after.

You're 'rewriting' eye-witness acconuts, Neil.

The eye-witness accounts are that Jesus
Refused it.

I stated =my= interpretation of what was
in Jesus' Refusal.

Attack my interpretation, but, gees 'louise'!
how can you 'deny' the eye-witness accounts,
without, simultaneously, disclosing that you
have to 'ignore' the facts stated in the eye-
witness accounts as a starting-point of the
position you state?

> > In a Ravaged 'state', everything else is
> > commensurately-weakened, so a 'drug-
> > addict' would've tended, strongly, to
> > welcomed the artificial 'solace' with
> > which he was familiar, not Refuse it.
>
> You have know evidence that he wasn't
> a drug addict.

I do. I gave you the evidence, and my
Analysis of what's in-it.

> Your evidence is derived from the scripture,

The New Testament is all founded in eye-witness
accounts. I Believe the eye-witness accounts be-
cause the eye-witnesses were so moved by what
they'd witnessed with their own eyes that they
remained True to what they'd witnessed even
through their Ravaging Persecutions.

Their's wasn't some group-think, "Jonestown",
kind of circumstance.

The went out, alone or in pairs, to the far-reaches
of the known world. And, even in these places
far away from their homeland, and all of their
'familiar' stuff, they remained True to what they'd
witnessed with their own eyes.

You 'deny' what's flat-out Obvious in-such, and,
more-significantly, because we're discussing in
bionet.neuroscience, you 'deny' even what's the
Experimental evidence of Neuroscience says
about the Rigors of experience, and how be-
havior derives in that which is experienced.

You know? It's like what a former Prof of mine
said to me when I visited him 'years' after being
his student [he was a =Excellent= Proffesor, BTW],
~"When we stop rewarding a monkey's behacior,
its behavior extinguishes. What's going on with
you?"

It was [and remains] that I'd just seen what was
in the Experimental data with my own eyes.

So how can it "extinguish" without the only 're-
sult' being that I'd be left 'disconnected' from
my own eyes? :-]

My 'point' is that, yes, of course, behavior "ex-
tinguishes" in the face of negative-reinforcement.

Of course.

But this "of course" just didn't happen in the cases
of the eye-witnesses of Jesus' Presence in their
Lives - even though they were 'alone', in foreign
lands, separated from virtually all else with which
they were 'familiar'.

Neuroscience, itself, points-directly-to that which
is behaviorally-Extradordinary in-there, doesn't it?

Yup :-]

> which leads to you to the conclusion that Christ
> did not actively participate in drug use.

My Conclusion is founded in Neuroscience, Neil,
as is quoted below, in what you've quoted of my
prior post. It's a matter of the Extraordinariness
of the behaviors manifested by the eye-witnesses.
Their Extraordinary behaviors =requires= Extra-
ordinary experience, and if Jesus had been 'pre-
occupied' with drugs, there'd just be no possibility
of there being the Extraordinary experience, as is
Evidenced in what I discussed above.

But what's Genuinely-Hilarious is that, here we are
in bionet.neuroscience, and you're posting stuff
that 'holds' that 'drug-use is inconsequential'.

You know? Why study Neuroscience if one is
going to 'hold' to stuff like that? :-]

Forgive me, Please, but when I read what you've
written I ROFLed. I can still barely continue
composing my reply - what you wrote is so Funny.

> Moreover, I have no evidence, directly, that
> shows Christ was a temporal lobe epileptic.  However,
> when evalulating the evidence presented in the New
> Testament there is considerable suggestion that he
> could have suffered from limbic epilepsy. Christ is
> a prime example of temporal lobe personality.

More Hilarity, as I'll show you, below.

> > The "Essenes" thing is nothing but routine
> > Slander through which folks who 'move>
> > away from' Jesus attempt to 'justify' the
> > directionality in which they 'move'.
>
> No.  It is derived from historical suggestion and
> extreme similarities between Jesus' teaching and
> the teachings from the "Essenes".  They are
> strikingly similar.  However, that is not evidence
> but rather speculation.

You give too-much 'credence' to the TV shows
you've viewed.

If there's such "striking[...] similar[ity]" then, where
is the 'church' of the Essenes" :-]

> There are many cultural and historical examples
> of Christ-like figures throughout history that predates
> Christianity.

It's Hilarious :-]

Why =in the world= would it be otherwise?

Do you 'think' that Jesus, would teach
folks with respect to anything that was not
applicable in their experience? Maybe Jesus
should've taught folks about "Star Trek"?

Why =in the world= would One who is
come to lift-Humanity-up not address that
which held-Humanity-down?

Forgive me, Please, but your position, above,
is devoid of Logic, isn't it?

Yup.

> Consider the parallels between Siddhartha
> and Christ.

I'm not 'familiar' with Siddhartha, but, I only
have to look in any American Ghetto to see
the Cruelty in Jesus' Experience in the Lives
of forsaken Children, isn't it so?

Yup.

And, look and see, Jesus held even those
Children, abandoned, forsaken and 'alone'
in his 'Heart', didn't He? I mean, even 'today' -
even of all 'times'.

Yup.

Jesus Went-First with respect to what is,
even now, acting on behalf of the Children,
to lift-them-up out of their Sorrows.

You know, Neil, you lend too-much 'cred-
ance' to what you view on TV.

I've seen those same shows. Before I had to
give my video Library away, I owned copies
of those shows.

They, 'two', are Genuinely-Hilarious.

Do you 'think' that =anyone=, knowing that
what needs to be done will result in his being
Ravaged by the Prejudice that's just blatently-
Obvious-plain-to-see, can just 'blend-in', do
whatever everyone else is doing, and 'expect'
to have any Effect?

It's Hilarious, but the 'argument' you've stated,
above, says just that, doesn't it?

Yup.

"Anyone who behaves [this way or that] that's
not the same as the way everyone else behaves
is "ill" :-]

How, then, does anything that changes anything
ever happen? :-]

I'm being a bit 'hard' on 'you', in this reply, be-
cause, what I've read, thus far [I enjoy this sort
of thing, more, when I don't read-ahead, and
haven't] of what you've written is all squarely in
the dynamics of the Tyranny-of-the'familiar' that
is Prejudice's 'henchman' - which is what NTD
stands-against.

So 'your' comments [your [Graciously?] repeating
the comments of others] do =only= one thing -
they heap-Substantiation upon NDT's position.

=Of course=, Jesus could not conduct Himself in a
"business-as-usual" way.

And the 'premise' that calls such "illness" is Ludicrous,
isn't it?

Yup.

But not "ill". 'only' 'blind'. Which is more of what's
Genuinely-Hilarious in what you've written, isn't it?

Yup :-]

> The Christ figure and story is not all that
> novel or unique. Even a quick glance of the
> history of the Middle East during that time of
> Christ, especially in and around Judea and Galilee,
> would reveal that there were many Christ-like
> cults that operating at that time.    These cults
> and followers were not all that different from
> typically accepted Judeo-Christian Christ cult.

Where are their 'churches'?

Where is all of the Extraordinary-Stuff that
I've been discussing, with respect to them?

:-]

> > The three 'years' of Jesus' Teaching are
> > thoroughly accounted-for in the facts of
> > the behavioral Transfomations that oc-
> > curred in The Apostles. If Jesus were not
> > devoted to being with-them, their "biological
> > mass" and "behavioral inertia" would not
> > have been such that they all [except Judas]
> > were Faithful even in the face of their own
> > horrible Deaths [except for John, who was
> > Faithful, but died of natural causes]. And
> > Judas, realizing his Error, took his own
> > Life.]
>
> You are  presenting your own theories to this
> topic.

Gees 'louise'! You want me to 'deny' what I've
seen with my own eyes in the Neuroscience
Experimental results?

You want me to be able to, somehow, 'think'
'outside-of-my-own-experience'?

And we're discussing in bionet.neuroscience? :-]

Now, that'd be some pretty-'fancy' 'thinking'
that'd probably fall right into the 'categorizaation'
into which you tried to stuff Jesus, above.

I discuss what's entailed at the climax of AoK's
"Short Paper" section - in the talking-to-unseen-
others-before-and-after-the-invention-of-radio
example.

You just are not 'familiar' with The New Testament,
so you're making all of these comments that 'move
away from' what's in-It, be-cause it's 'unfamiliarity'
elevates TD E/I within your nervous system, and
your nervous system, 'blindly'-and-automatically,
converges upon TD E/I-minimization with respect
to what it is that you are 'familiar' with.

It's the thing with respect to which NDT's stuff
lifts-folks-up.

Behavior Declares-itself.

That is, there's nothing 'hidden' in-it.

When there's 'blindness' in-it, the 'blindness'
Declares-itself [to anyone who just follows
the directionality inherent in folks' TD E/I-
minimization dynamics.

[Which is =WHY=, while teaching folks NDT's
stuff, I've reiterated, "Don't Respond." I wanted
=not= to 'take-advantage' of folks. I wanted =not=
to see the directionalities inherent in folks' TD E/I-
minimization dynamics - until folks, first, had suf-
ficient opportunity to attain understanding of NDT's
stuff. "I Guard Free Will."]

> First of all your theories on "biological mass" and
> "behavioral inertia" are not even accepted by
> anyone other than yourself.

You 'presume' too-much :-]

> Thus, citing them as evidence of proof is not all
> that valid.

False.

I've Verified both "biological mass" and "behavioral
inertia". I've offered to meet with folks, in-person,
so that folks can receive that Verification.

No one's accepted my offer.

The Verification is not Hard-to-see, but, there's a
=lot= of Experimental Evidence that must be inte-
grated. To do so, it's Necessary to have ready-
access to a Good Neuroscience Library, be-cause,
each Person that would meet with me, in-person,
would bring her/his =own= 'familiar' stuff to the
discussion, and I'd have to ascertain what's in their
'familiar' stuff, and then go into the Library to get
stuff that'd allow them to see "biological mass" and
"behavioral inertia" through the 'lenses' of their own
'familiar' stuff [their Research emphases].

But it's not Hard to see "biological mass" and "be-
havioral inertia" in a =generalized= way.

It's easy to see that behavior alters post-learning,
and, unless one 'believes in fairy tales', that consti-
tutes an observable change in "behavioral inertia".

Q. E. D. for the =generalized= case re. "behavioral
inertia".

And, again, unless one 'believes in fairy tales', a
change in "behavioral inertia" =must= be the
result of a change in "biological mass".

It's only in 'fairy tales' that anything can occur, ob-
servably, 'without' there being a Cause for its ob-
servable occurrence.

Q. E. D. for the =generalized= case of "biological
mass".

> They may provide interesting conceptual
> suggestions regarding the nature of the
> behavioral change associated with the Christ's
> followers, however, they are not appropriate
> as evidence in this discussion.

Ho, ho, ho :-]

It stands Proven. Sufficient Proof is given
above, and if anyone wants more, all they
have to do is meet with me, in-person, so
that I can give it to them in ways that will
be meaningful with particular respect to
that with which they are 'familiar'.

> (I am aware of the whole behavioral inertia
> theme from TM Stanley's economic work.

I've never heard of the guy(?). All of the
Econ stuff that I had to go on before I
undertook to develop NDT, was from
a Macroeconomics class that I took as
an undergrad, and which used Paul
Samuelson's Text. The "diminishing-
returns" principle, in AoK, Ap7, was devel-
oped after my reading of Samuelson's
treatment of "diminishing returns" from an
economics perspective. NDT explains
why there's a "diminishing returns" in econ-
omic phenomena.

["Everything is Neuroscience" :-]

> Even now the use of behavioral inertia in
> psychology and learning comes from this
> original work.

When did he write it?

It doesn't matter because he's probably
just addressed the generalized case(?),
and not taken it into the neural Topology.

I developed =all= of the concepts that are
in NDT from first principles in Physics, the
first thing being the way that folks' clinging
to that which has merely become relatively-
'familiar' to them during the courses of their
experiences is a "least potential energy" dyn-
amic.

I've explained, repeatedly, that I deliberately
Chose not to read other theoretical syntheses
[after taking an undergrad course in theories of
'personality', and finding the 'theories' to be
lacking substance], be-cause, if the other theories
were Correct, then other folks would already
be way ahead of me, and better positioned
to champion thos theories. I deliberately Chose
to 'look-elsewhere', because it was apparent
to me that the 'theories' that I studied in that
undergrad class were 'bogus'. My first Formal-
ization of what were to become NDT's princi-
ples was done during a 6-credit independent
study entitled, "A Theory of Personality" :-]

> So I really don't know what you are
> discussing here and how it relates to
> Christ and his teachings).

Probably because you've commented, above
before reading what's below(?)

> > If Jesus had been 'dallying', away from His
> > Disciples, they'd not've found the stuff of
> > what was, obviously, their Faith in Jesus.
> >
> > So the "Essenes" stuff doesn't compute
> > [except in a completely-arbitrary 'time'-
> > series way - sort of like saying that, "be-
> > cause I am alive at the same 'time' that
> > others, here in b.n, are alive, we know
> > one another". Fact is, we don't, and
> > probably never will.]


> Once again I suggest to consult the literature
> on the topic.

Aw, come-on, fess-up, you mean the TV shows
you watched :-]

> There are extreme similarities regarding the
> teachings between Christ and the Essenes.
> They are uncanny.

Where is their 'church'? :-]

> Did Christ spend time with Essenes?
> I don't know.  Was Christ aware of the Essenes
> and their teachings?  The answer is probably
> yes.

I agree, but my position is that Jesus Knew!
how nervous systems process information.

I can't 'explain' this. I can only Demonstrate
that He did.

> One does not have to know someone without
> being influenced by them.

Yeah, I know that from my own experience in
the Neuroscience stacks.

> It is the unstriking parallels between both
> cult's teachings that is of real interest here.

Naw, what's of 'interest', with respect to this
"Essenes" stuff that you've brought-up is where
is their 'church'? :-]

If there's all of this 'striking similarity', then, if
behavior is, in fact, rigorously-correlated to
physically-real stuff, then the Essene's physically-
real stuff obviously resulted in "behavioral inertia"
that's Extremely-different from the "behavioral
inertia" that resulted from the Teaching of Jesus,
isn't it so?

Yup, it is.

> The issue is that we know very little about the
> life of Christ.

You're just not 'familiar' with The New Testament.

>  The New Testament is nothing but synopsis of
> his life.

Ho, ho, ho.

It's a Behavioral-Neuroscience 'textbook' that
still has me, with jaw hanging down, at what's
in-It.

> For example, the book of Matthew is no
> more than roughly 32 pages. (I checked my copy
> of the NT just now).

Oh, that's a 'real-good' way to 'know' what's in-It :-]

> There is a lot of what Jesus could have done
> and may have said that is missing.

I'm sure there's a lot of stuff that Jesus did, in His
33 'years', that's not in The New Testament.

But it ain't any of the stuff you've brought-up,
because, if it were as you've said, the Disciples
would've not received "biological mass" sufficient
to carry their "behavioral inertia" through their
awesomely-'solitary' Travails, with them never
denying what they'd seen with their own eyes.

If it were as you've said, then Jesus' Church
would've ended-up in the same no-place that
the Essenes' 'church' ended-up 'in' [if what
you've alluded to, with respect to them, is True,
then probably for the same 'reason' :-]

But, obviously, Jesus' Church, not only Survived,
but it's Thrived, despite the Scandals that She
endured when 'the papacy' was bought-and-sold
by folks who filled their pockets by 'selling indul-
gences', etc.

Why?

The "behavioral inertia" that Jesus Instantiated is
Self-Perpetuating - a Young Girl studies it, and
it so grows in her 'heart' that, later in her Life,
in a way that's exactly-analogous to the 'solitary'
reaching-out of the Disciples in far-away lands,
leaving everything with which she is 'familiar' be-
hind, she goes to administer to "the Poorest of
the Poor", in Calcutta, because she sees the
Sufferings of Jesus in-them.

She is Mother Teresa.

All the Wonders, inherent, are right-there, in The
New Testament, plain-to-see - if only one looks.

[If you've taken the position you've taken in order
to elicit my position, then, Thank You for doing so.
And Please Forgive me for finding it to be so Funny.
I'm =not= laughing =at= you. I'm Laughing at the
way folks 'move away from' stuff because it's
merely 'unfamiliar' be-cause folks never bother to
become 'familiar' with it. I'm Laughing at the self-
'fulfilling' stuff, in-there.]

K. P. Collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list