ken's work

ken kpaulc at [remove]earthlink.net
Tue Mar 30 21:26:27 EST 2004


Typo alert.

"ken" <kpaulc@[remove]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ERP5c.25217$%06.25104 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Matthew Kirkcaldie" <m.kirkcaldie at removethis.unsw.edu.au> wrote in
message
> news:m.kirkcaldie-5218A1.11073817032004 at tomahawk.comms.unsw.edu.au...
> > [...]
> > In article <sBz5c.42793$aT1.7153 at newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >  "ken" <kpaulc@[remove]earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > [...]
> > [...]

> > As I said, these are not generally brand new ideas,
> > and required no grandiose jargon.
>
> Everything listed in AoK's Preface was Reified, for
> the first time, in NDT.
>
> If you 'doubt' it's so, then show me anything in that
> list that had been Reified prior to its Reification in
> NDT. [Anyone who has AoK, feel Free to join-in.]
> [...]
> > This is the problem with working in isolation and
> > refusing to engage with the scientific community:
>
> "refusing to engage with the scientific community"
>
> :-]
>
> > your mental effort is impressive, but you have
> > expended it in reaching conclusions already
> > reached by many others.
>
> It's the way it is with Solid Work.
>
> Everyone 'thinks' they 'knew' it all along.
>
> Why, then, was none of the stuff that was declared
> as being Newly-Reified in AoK's Preface [...]Existent <- typo fixed
> in the Literature prior to the 'publication' of AoK?
>
> Again, if you 'doubt', show me anything that you
> feel Contradicts my statement.
> [...]

The Challenge remains.

Someone, Please, select an Experimental result
[replicable, Formally-Published, preferably with
respect to the functional Neuroanatomy, and pref-
erably from =Nature Neuroscience] with which to
put NDT to the Test.

I'll Research it's stuff all the way back to 1970,
be Forthright with respect to what I find, and will,
then, show folks what's not in the Paper that's
been in NDT all along.

NDT can do this with any Replicable Experimental
Result, because the TD E/I-minimization Principle
has =Generalized= applicability with respect to ner-
vous system function.

Then, after this's Accomplished, we can, =Together=,
Lift Humanity Up out of the self-Destructiveness
in which it has 'existed' since the Beginning.

I Understand that this seems to 'be too-much', but
folks won't see that, rather than 'being too-much',
all that's Necessary to =BEGIN= is already Done, un-
less they take their best-shots at Disproving NDT.

This Goal =needs= an Explicit Challenge in-Experi-
ment.

I can go to the Library and select Papers, ad infin-
itum, and folks'll just say that, "He selected pa-
pers that he knew would sustain his position." [I
refer anyone who 'doubts' such, to all of the Ex-
perimental results that're Cited in AoK -- there
are =thousands= -- all of Carpenter and Sutin is
Cited. All of Kandel is Cited. All of Nieuwenhuys
is Cited. Etc., yet, despite all of those Experi-
mental results, everybody 'thinks' I'm 'analogiz-
ing' with respect to the TD E/I-minimization Prin-
ciple? See what I mean? So the Challenge has to
come from other-than-me. No matter what I do, folks
just 'ho-hum' it.]

So the Challenge has to come from the Community of
Neuroscientists, and it has to be Public - nothing
that can just be 'swept-under-the-rug' if folks,
on either 'side' of the Challenge, "don't like" the
outcome.

NDT's stuff need's someone who's Willing to 'invest'
themselves in the Challenge -- so they'll stand-and-
'fight' -- in-Detail, "until the dust settles".

K. P. Collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list