> >right, so you eliminate any apparent contradictions between your
> >theory and experiment by just dismissing the conclusion of the guy
> who
> >actually did the work. very 'scientific'.
>> the conclusions drawn by the researchers are False.
>> What do you want me to say?
well, lets see, you might give one datum of evidence to support your
conlcusion as opposed to theirs. The evidence as given in the paper
led them to their conclusions and their broader theories explain the
data. All you are doing is saying you 'think' they are wrong and your
story is the correct one. However you give no data to differentiate
between the two. Falsifiability again. Its easy to claim your theory
fits all the evidence, but to get anyone to believe you you'll have to
provide evidence which falsifies others' ideas while corroborates
yours.
>> >
> >e.g. 2
> >> think about it. would you want some 'crystal'-controlled frequency
> in-there
> >> while you were trying to think a 'point' through?
>> >> "hmmmmmm..."
>> >> "bzzzzzzzzzz..."
>> >> Nope.
> >
> >this is a real nugget! you are suggesting that if oscillations did
> >occur they would be annoying becuase they buzzed and hummed??
>> what i was actually addressing is that, to the degree that there's
> 'steady-state' stuff in-there, such'd controvert the possibility of
> information-processing.
>> One of the reasons why Von Neumann architectured-computers are
> flat-out Dumb, relative to nervous systems, is that they invoke
> 'steady-state' stuff in a way that predetermines everything that the
> computers can do.
But they are rather good at information processing?!
> If a ball is blue, then a ball is blue, but does the ball bounce?
You may think this is deeply profound but...
>> >Its as dumb as saying I can see atoms, when the very
> >apparatus (eyes/brain) that allows me to see is also made up of
> atoms.
> > Its worse than wrong.
>> I Agree - worst than Wrong.
>> It's not the eyes that See, See?
Thanks for reiterating my point and helping my argument against your
previous post.
>> >
> >Anyway, why should what you/I/anyone want make a difference? I
> don't
> >want to have eyes only in the front of my head, doesn't mean I've
> got
> >them in the back too.
>> I'd tell you to 'give-up', but, instead, I'll challenge you to find
> anything in AoK that doesn't reduce to the proven experimental
> results.
Fine, but why is your theory any better than the current, which also
'reduces to proven experimental results' by definition since the same
people actually did the work.
>> So, I suggest you ponder the short discussion in AoK, Ap10, that
> discusses how 'moving away from' NDT before NDT is comprehended
> substantiates NDT.
>
So those who don't believe in the theory prove the theory. hmmm and
you said it wasn't tautological.
> Yup. And there's currently a paper offered, here in
> bionet.neuroscience that discusses it with respect to dendritic
> trees. [It's 'funny how that happens :-]
I know, I've read it. have you?
> > it might be something verifiable by
> >experiment but I guess you're somehow going to get out of stating
> >anything concrete as always
>> As far as I'm concerned, the discussion of "microscopic trophic
> modification" in AoK is sufficient. The purpose of AoK is to be an
> integrative-guide with respect to what's in the Literature, not to
> 'say it all'.
oh come on! just one little detail, one change that should occur
during a process you theorize. Surely it can't be that difficult?
> >Actually its to do with epilepsy, when the proclivity of cortical
> >circuits to excitation due to richly interconnected pyramidal cells
> is
> >revealed. Annals of Neurology (2000)
>> Way to go!
>> Cite malfunction and call it 'function' :-]
Just another statement that actually exemplifies your lack of
understanding.
> This abrupt departure from what's 'normal' induces relatively-novel
> activation to the Golgi tendon apparatus, which would result in the
> occurrence of TD E/I(up) at higher-'levels', which would be
> detectable in the 'time'-courses of the TD E/I-minimization inherent
> in the act of typing, which 'time'-courses would be observable, along
> with correlated error-counts, relative to the pre- and
> post-enhancement experimental designs.
>> And, if you can't find that ref, just look at the Same-Stuff as it
> exists within my own typing, with respect to correlates of
> sleep-deprivation [which can be calculated from my msgs posting
> 'times'].
>> tiredness(up)-->typos(up) :-]
This is exactly my case in point. Such a statement could be taken to
support any kind of theory of lower level process. I could postulate
that little men ran around in your head and still come to the
conclusion that tiredness=typos. Its not enough. You have to provide
incontrivertible evidence that current theories are false and yours
are correct. Otherwise its just faith. Since you don't do any
experiements you can't do this.
>> > not only do you
> >dismiss data/conclusions that do not suit you, you provide no
> evidence
> >of your own or anyone else's in favour of your ideas.
>> No, that's what you do, mat.
err no, when have I dismissed the conclusion of people with the data
to substantiate it?
>> I've been fairly begging that you select something from experiment
> through which to challenge NDT.
You've got it the wrong way round! Since you don't give any concrete
predictions at the cellular/molecular level, how CAN anyone test the
theory. Its like asking to test the difference between two theories
of gravity when one only says 'things fall' but gives no predictions
of velocity etc.. Its trivially correct but is not open to
falsification and thus should not be considered.
