mat wrote in message
<43525ce3.0208080221.1a133e73 at posting.google.com>...
>> >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.
That you assert that I don't is a Lie.
>The evidence as given in the paper
>led them to their conclusions and their broader theories explain the
>data.
My Analysis is that this paper, like many others, 'borrows' the work
I've done, without criditing the work I've done.
My Analysis is that the authors of the paper 'engineered' their
experimental design with specific respect to what's been in AoK all
aolong, in order to 'co-opt' the work I've done.
>All you are doing is saying you 'think' they are wrong and your
>story is the correct one.
I'm saying, as above.
>However you give no data to differentiate
>between the two.
I did. You're just 'blind' to all that's in what I've discussed
[admiditely, in 'poor-form' - couldn't travel directly-through the
'heart'-break inherent, to my own detriment, I understand].
>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.
It's relatively-easy to Verify that many folks comprehend what's been
in AoK all along [that they 'believe' me].
It's because it's relatively-easy to do so that no one will meet with
me in-person.
Such 'refusal' 'resolves' the problem by 'denying' its Existence.
I've tried to find a way around such, but, that's where I run into
folks who "don't believe" me. And, the more I try, the greater the
number of folks who come to realize their 'error', but the only
result of such is an equivalent number of folks
'burying-their-heads-in-the-sand'.
Then 2001-09-11 happens, and hope, itself, is Murdered, 'cause, after
that, everything became so terrifyingly-clear that no one wants to
touch-it with a 'ten-foot-pole'.
>> >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?!
Excellent calculators, I agree.
>> If a ball is blue, then a ball is blue, but does the ball bounce?
>>You may think this is deeply profound but...
Here, noting that you're skipping stuff in a way that alters context,
I Protest.
But I stand on what I posted.
>> >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.
"New Electron Microscope Is Developed at I.B.M. Lab", By JOHN MARKOFF
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/08/technology/08BLUE.html
"The technology, which employs a powerful desktop computer and an
array of magnetic lenses to minimize distortions that are inherent in
images made by today's electron microscopes, will also permit
researchers to peer deeply into materials and create
three-dimensional images.
The scientific advance, which the group will report in Thursday's
issue of the journal Nature, will make possible a new generation of
microscopes that can resolve subatomic images with an electron beam
that is only three-billionths of an inch wide."
"Progress is happening quickly in the electron microscopy field.
[...]"
[All quotes, in the section immediately above, Copyright 2002, by The
New York Times.]
A nervous system Saw what enabled the machine-design, See?*
>> >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.
In NDT, all that's in the 'engineered' paper, except the False
'conclusions', and much-more is tightly integrated: Creativity,
curiosity, volition, and, most-importantly with respect to the
Survival of 'humanity' [its becoming Humanity], prejudice, and still
yet mor, a partial list of which is given in AoK's Preface.
>> 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.
NTD predicts that folks'll 'move away from' that which is unfamiliar.
Before NDT is comprehended, it's unfamiliar.
Therefore, 'moving away from' NDT, before it's comprehended,
Substantiates this prediction that NDT makes.
I tell folks about such, not as a 'cudgel, but to try to help folks
not to 'shoot-themselves-in-the-foot'.
Deliberately(?) Falsified context [False juxtaposition with respect
to prior text, above], via 'snipping', deleted]
>> > it might be something verifiable by
>> >experiment but I guess you're somehow going to get out of stating
>> >anything concrete as always
As I've explained in another thread, over the years I've repeatedly
gone to the Library to collect refs, brought them back, but refrained
from discussing them, because I didn't want to say what I'd have to
say, if I'd discussed them.
Does such make me a Coward?
Does such make me one who wants to 'hold-open-the-door'?
That I've finally decided that I was Obligated to discuss, in a
generic way, what's correlated is 'heart'-breaking enough for me.
>> 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?
Sufficient details are given in AoK, and the refs cited in AoK.
As is stated in AoK's Preface, I discuss only stuff that was reified
for the first 'time' in NDT, trusting that those who've studied the
rest will comprehend the integration that NDT provides.
Why I do it this way stems from 'hassles' I got when I tried to
obtain permissions, back when I was writing AoK.
Just said, "OK. I'll discuss only what's original to my work, and
cite the refs to the rest.
It's Spirit-Fortress stuff.
And, anyway, folks who are so 'distant' from what's in the
Neuroscience stacks that they cannot see how NDT integrates it, and
yet refuse to go into the refs that're cited in AoK, are not, at
least, yet, good candidates for expenditure of the small resources
available to me.
I'm a working Scientist. I work at the 'edge' of what's known.
At least in my present circumstances, no one can say it's my 'job' to
reiterate what's in the Literature for folks who don't care to
find-out for themselves.
If you understood how much is integrated within NDT, if you
understood how much NDT's stuff has been 'borrowed', and if you
understood NDT, you'd understand the way I'm going at it, and why I'm
going at it in the way I'm going at it.
>> >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.
I stand on what I've posted, which has been in AoK, Ap5 all along
{"type 1" and "type 2" 'synchronization'].
>> 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.
No, I don't.
In fact, I deliberately, don't.
I'm not trying to 'dictate' anything to folks.
I'm deliberately working to Guard Free Will.
It's not my 'job' to 'dictate' to folks.
My 'job' is to give folks the opportunity to understand.
In the end, if folks 'move away from' NDT's stuff, that's their
Choice.
The thing I Protest is the way that NDT's understanding has been
'censored' - that it's not been allowed publication, and therefore,
many folks have had the opportunity to decide with respect to NDT's
understanding actively withheld from them - even while they
Suffer-Greatly due to stuff that's ameliorated by NDT's
understanding.
That NDT's stuff remains unpublished is =not= 'because' NDT's stuff
is not worthy of publication is verified by all the publication of
stuff that's been 'borrowed' from NDT.
The result is Ugly.
>> > 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?
err, every 'time' you say such with respect to NDT, which is
adequately substantiated in AoK and the refs cited in AoK.
Take a look at AoK, Ap3. It's almost entirely, a reiteration of
experimental results - the furits of the labors of Neuroanatomists
and Experimentalists.
And you say, "I can't see it"?
How can I respond to such without 'chastising' you for your
'blindness'.
And the rest of AoK is similar, but the experimental results, all
taken from the refs cited in AoK, are embedded.
I wrote AoK in about 2 months, because that's all the 'time' I had
available.
Given such constraint, it's a paper that does what it was intended
to do: disclose the Integration, point the way, provide guideance.
"Ho, hum"?
>> 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.
Here, you defend the 'borrowers' - you use their line, even though
the work they poured-out derives in NDT's 'grand-synthesis', and even
though their work, itself, continues only to verify NDT, they use the
line you use.
What can I say besides, "Oh well"?
If folks're going to do such, folks're going to do such.
When Truth Dishonored Dishonors right back, folks'll blaim that on
me, 'two'.
It's the way things've gone, repeatedly, already.
Savagery that NDT stands-against begetting Savagery that NDT
stands-against...
And no one can See where such leads?
k. p. collins
