ken's work

ken kpaulc at
Wed Mar 31 22:55:52 EST 2004

"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <m.kirkcaldie at> wrote in message
news:m.kirkcaldie-3C8C0E.11084201042004 at
> In article <sBIac.10208$lt2.1702 at>,
>  "ken" <kpaulc@[remove]> wrote:
> > And, for the sake of avoiding 'conflicts of
> > interest', =no= TMS.
> Done a little searching, huh?
> That was my initial topic for
> a PhD but I have moved out of
> that field.

I'm Glad for you.

Glad for me, too, 'cause I didn't
want to have to discuss it.

> Must have taken some finding,

Not really. You're Famous :-]

> most of my web presence stems
> from music journalism I did when
> I was an undergrad!
> OK, if you're serious, I will
> provide you with an article whose
> methods and introduction section
> are intact, including references,

Thank You. I understand that folks
think I just 'make it up', but all
I've ever done, here in b.n, is
work from memory with respect to
the Studying I did during the "Ter-
rible Times".

I never guess. Require myself to
work Problems all-the-way through,
so your providing the Refs will
give me a place to start. [Won't
get me to the Library, though.
With gasoline prices as they are,
it'll cost me $20 every trip, and
my way is to 'live' in the Lib
while I work a Problem.

I'll have to adjust. Can't afford
more than one trip, and can't af-
ford to photocopy much.

> and you'll let us know how NDT
> applies to the problem under study,
> and how it predicts the experiment
> would turn out.  Correct?

I'll do that, and much-more than that.

> It will take a little time to locate
> a paper which you can't simply look
> up and find out the results ahead of
> time,

Don't worry about that. What's in a
paper is 'gravy'. I'll show you what's
in the stuff of the paper, but not Rec-
ognized as being in the stuff of the
paper, and design Experiment[s] that
will Verify what I'll discuss.

It's no 'big-deal' to me. I had to do
this sort of stuff, routinely, while
developing, and Verifying, NDT.

Folks' Papers were my "Colleagues".
Their Papers were my "Collegiality".

Their Papers 'talk' to me - 'whisper'
their secrets to me, sharing them
with me.

I Love 'listening' and 'seeing' the
Papers' secret stuff.

And the Papers Love me right-back.

I understand that this must seem
"weird", but I Needed the Papers'
secret stuff like one Needs air -
like food - like shelter.

It was Life, itself, to me to 'see'
and 'hear' what the Papers had to
'show' and 'say'.

> which means a pre-publication
> or something obscure, yet still
> peer-reviewed.

I'd prefer something more-substantial,
like a well-known outstanding Problem.
Something that everyone sees, but every-
one agrees is not yet understood.

A "mystery" - like the phenomenon of
"decussation" was, before NDT's Reifi-
cation of it -- any feature of the neur-
al Topology.

Fully 90% of the work I did, back dur-
ing the "Terrible Times", has never been

I hope the thing you choose will open-
the-'door' to some of that stuff.

> If anyone has any suggestions along
> those lines, please feel free to
> contact me via e-mail (there is an
> obvious spam block to edit out).

Choose the "burningest" Question.

The thing that most Needs to be Done.

>       Cheers,
>          Matthew.

Cheers-right-back, Matthew, ken [k. p. collins]

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list