Consciousness

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Wed Jan 21 06:45:56 EST 2004


Hi Dag,

"Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in message
news:bulc2s$nc9$1 at oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> In bionet.neuroscience k p  Collins <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net>
wrote:
> > Hi, Dag.
> > I stand on what I've posted, Dag.
> >
> > So, since the topic has become
> > 'suggesting' to others what their
> > 'shortcomings' are, I 'suggest' that
> > you spend some 'time' working at
> > extracting information-content
> > from dynamic visual imagery.
> >
> > Somewhere in that effort, you'll
> > come to understand the position
> > I've discussed :-]
> > ...
>
> I am used to lecture to medical students on
> this topic, trying to make it comprehensible
> to normal brains. What you write is far out.

That's why I discuss it - to drag it in from
the 'fringes' of what's known, to the center
of what's known.

> I also suggest you read Neil Fournier's
> (NMF) kind advice to you in another
> posting very carefully. I agree with him
> on the main issue, athough I am not
> confident that you are going to change
> your way of writing. But if you took his
> advice, and changed your approach, it
> would be very good indeed..

I replied to Neil, in reiterative-detail.

My reply has not yet appeared in b.n.

Of course I Agree, Dag, but I'm holding
on to Dear Life, and what's left of that
is 'slipping-my-grasp'.

I don't accept that no one will allow me
to stand before them, in-person.

But, if that's to be the case, I'm doing
what I can do, in the way that best
sustains staying-alive. [I'm not asking
anyone to understand this 'weirdness',
but there's nothing I can do about it,
either. The 'decades' take their toll.]

> I am also rather tired of having to scroll
> through all of the previous discussion just
> because you do not care to clip off
> everything except the very essentials to
> show what you are commenting. Those
> who want to read the whole previous
> posting can go to the previous posting.

Obviously, although folks can, folks
routinely don't.

It's what Neil was addressing in his post.

I do the 'inclusiveness' because there are
always new folks 'stumbling' upon this
or that, in a post, that interests them.

Damned if I do, and damned if I don't :-]

NDT's reification of the phenomenon of
decussation is the single most-significant
'event' in the entire History of Science.

I didn't ask for the Responsibility inherent,
but it fell to me, and I was brought-up to
meet Responsibility head-on.

So I do.

Cheers, Old Friend, ken [k. p. collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list