ken's work

ken kpaulc at [remove]
Tue Mar 16 05:12:18 EST 2004

"NMF" <nm_fournier at> wrote in message
news:m0u5c.1918$Q16.115715 at
> Matt,
> I think Ken's ideas have unique insight and I
> totally agree with your comments regarding
> the difficulty with his approach in generaliza-
> tion to different discourses. As I have stated
> earlier, to bring such vague non-measurable
> constructs that possess great distance between
> the discourses being described can lead to
> erroneous conclusions.  Some phenomena
> do not lend themselves well to being discussed
> from the prespectives of other models.  For
> example, assessing biological function of the
> cell at the subatomic level brings interesting
> insight into aspects of the functionality of the
> cell, however, the methods, models, measure-
> ments, and conceptual frameworks employed
> in these situations are so different between
> these two types of phenomena that the trans-
> lation and interconnection between the dis-
> courses ultimately take the form of descriptive
> tactics rather than quantitative comparisons.
> This has been the trend I have seen in Ken's
> posts.  They are insightful, creative, interesting,
> and compelling - yet they remain as analogies.
> And as I stated before, "The entire theory lies
> heavily upon metaphor and qualitative compari-
> sons, a procedure that allows just about all sets
> of general phenomena to be associated in a
> superficial manner."

My use of analogies is always with respect to
assisting folks' seeing-more-deeply into why
NDT's synthesis of Experimental results is as
it is.

I await the Opportunity to stand-before-folks
to take NDT's stuff to any 'level' of Detail at
which they want to see it.

Presently, I've got to Choose between driving
to a Neuroscience Library and eating.

Seems to me that I should eat, and continue to
discuss, from memory, here in b.n, in the Hope
that I'll be allowed to stand-befor-folks to, using
their Neuroscience Libraries, take NDT's stuff
to any 'level' of Detail at which they want to see

Eating has the higher-Priority, because the pos-
sibilities of both contingencies derive-in-it :-]

> I'm not saying that anolgies between known
> phenomena and new or unestablished processes
> are negative, quite the contrary.  But what I
> am saying is that as long the probationary nature
> of the comparisons are maintained such ap-
> proaches are valid.  Let me give you an example,
> comparisons of human memory to the domains
> of ferromagnetic materials and hysteresis loops
> can be beneficial to determine not only the limit-
> ations of a model but also to evaluate extrapol-
> ations derived from quantifiable and validated
> data (magnetism) to more vague processes
> (memory).  However, any relationship between
> these two processes must be considered correl-
> ational, otherwise the ultimate conclusion is that
> human memory is ferromagnetic crystal domains.

"Hysteresis" is 'just' WDB2T in a 'magnetic' phen-
omenological realm, so, by taking everything down
to WDB2T, one can, in fact, cross-correlate Bio-
logical and ferromagnetic 'memory' =Exactly= in
terms of energy-flow :-]

This is =not= to say that Biological 'memory' "is
ferromagnetic", BTW.

> From this logic, we could conclude that an
> apple is an orange simply because they similar
> characteristics, i.e. seeds, a core, and a skin.

"Apples" and "Oranges" can each be taken-down
to the 'level' of WDB2T, which enables one to
cross-correlate, =Exactly=, between the Biologies
of the two Flora.

This, in and of itself, doesn't "make an apple the
equivalent of an orange".

It will allow some 'fruity'-Engineering, though.

Uniqueness is =in=, and occurs as a function of,
3-D energydynamics, not external appearances.

The tastes of the two Fruits, their nutritional
'values', their colorations, their smells, their masses,
their everythings, are 'just' 3-D energydynamics.

And, when we experience "Apples" and\or "Oranges,
our nervous systems go right to work in 'knowing'
them, in the 3-D energydynamics that Uniquely-under-
pin their physical Natures.

> I find Ken's work quite refreshing and interesting.

Thank You, Neil.

> And my comments are not to be taken as a direct
> attack against him or his work.  In any case, could
> you please send me a copy of this 'infamous' text.
> Thanks.

I've got to get around to Fixing my eMail's "Send"

Cheers, Neil, ken [k. p. collins]

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list