F. Frank LeFever wrote:
>> I'll write again, more succinctly: the bottom line is, if you cannot
> tell us HOW your have "proven" whatever it is you say you have
> discovered, we may doubt that you have "discovered" anything.
>> Not knowing what it is you claim to have discovered, I cannot judge the
> quality oof your thinking regrding it, However, you have several times
> in the history of this newsgroup commented on things I DO know
> something about, and so I know that you are capable of stating (as if
> fact, not just a modest "guess") thoroughy misleading mixtures of fact
> and nonsense. This makes me suspicious of the validity of your private
> "proofs". The remedy for this, in science, is too describe your
> prooofs pubolicly in sufficient detail too allow others to evaluate
> them and perhaps attempt to replicate them.
>> In <358D943B.4676 at postoffice.idirect.com> K C Cheng
Naturally, before people get to know the truth, they might consider
truth to be "nonsense," or vice versa: e.g. Darwinian evolutionary
thinking is a total fallacy, and yet people worship it like God!
I have no way of letting people read all my 19 volumes. However, I have
several volumes published for private and public viewing. Before I can
have money to publish them all for a world wide evaluation, I attempted
to have several issues put on the Web. But, now, I have to buy a new
site just to show them. As you can see, the one at
is allowed only few headlines---because it's free. I'll let all of
you know when the new(paid for) site is ready.
Thanks! That's science. It's for others to evaluate and criticize in a
comprehensive manner until all reasoable and scientific doubts have been
> <kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com> writes:
> >F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> >> =
> >> In <358A7B25.14CE at postoffice.idirect.com> K C Cheng
> >> <kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >Cijadrachon wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >In telepathy, therefore, we sense others' thoughts like we
> >> >> >sense our own.
> >> >> Never managed that one, and thought the cell numbers, connections
> >> and
> >> >> processings were far too different for that.
> >> >> How do you do that?
> >> >Re the above:
> >> >That is because we sense not by "connections, neuron numbers."
> >> Instead,
> >> >like in the electric fishes, their own electroreceptors detect
> >> neural
> >> >electrical impulses of the same species.
> >> =
> >> I'm not an expert in the area, but I believe
> >> your citing this in the context of ESP is misleading in two ways:
> >> to the inverse square law, there are limitations on the distance at
> >> which this detection can occur, AND apparently this is primarily
> >> information about location, POSSIBLY level of excitation (I'm
> >> here) but not necessarily anything more informative about what the
> >> other fish is THINKING...
> >>The inverse law has no relevance to whether ESP can be detected.
> When d=
> >etected, it is futile to deny detection just because there is an
> inverse =
> >law. The latter only further supports that it is being detecteed, and
> >om how far. Second, whether the electric fishes detect other fishes'
> >oughts is not something we would ever know for sure. However, since
> >e fish can detect another fish's location, the possibility that it
> >ally detects the other's "thoughts" cannot be excluded. =
> > There is an enormous body of data on the ways neurons communicate,
> >> classically by chemical messenger; apparently with some direct
> >> electrical influence also, but this is on the order of small changes
> >> polarization between contiguous or nearly contiguous neurons, I
> >> believe.
> >These are all only one part of knowledge re neuronal activities. The
> >rest has been discovered and proven by me. One should not close eyes
> >new inventions jusst because yesterday nothing was known about it. =
> >However, whether poeple accept new knowledge is their freedom of
> >choice. I only discover and prove. It's not for me to force
> >on others. =
> >> There is also a much smaller body of data suggesting influence by
> >> external electrical fields, natural or experimentally imposed, but
> >> power many orders of magnitude beyond what our brains generate.
> >> Consider: we need great electronic amplification to detect
> >> brain-generated electrical activity even when electrodes are right
> >> the scalp!
> >I agree. Yet, EEG is a way of detecting brain electrical impulses
> >requiring much amplification. =
> >> It is irresponsible of you to assert or even to suggest as a
> >> possibility that elecrical fields of one brain can influence
> >> in another brain several feet away--to say nothing of several miles
> >> away--without SOME indication that you have a well-developed
> >> for how this could occur; preferably a rationale with testable
> >> hypotheses (i.e. predictions).
> >I never suggested that. Instead, I used the term "boosted:" amplified
> >for others to detect millions miles away. =
> >> So, too, like radio stations
> >> >having their own broadcast frequencies, man detects brainwaves of
> >> >fellow men and women because their brainwaves are at the same or
> >> similar
> >> >frequencies.
> >> =
> >> Would you care to say what these are? Naively, I would think that
> >> someone whose DOMINANT frequency at the moment was 8-10Hz might not
> >> detect someone with a higher frequency (e.g. 40Hz?) or lower...
> >> =
> >> Anyway, what we normally exhibit is a complex mixture of
> >> with much variability from moment to moment. NOT exactly the same
> >> being "on the same wavelength". PERHAPS two people in the midst of
> >> epileptic seizure might be on the same wavelength--not a good time
> >> communication, but might explain some of the productions of one of
> >> incessant discussants (partial continuous epilepsy? formerly known
> >> psychomotor or temporal lobe seizure??).
> >That is why I used the term "similar" frequencies. =
> >> >Detailed out in my "The Electric Fishes Speak" now being worked
> >> =
> >> Sounds like it needs a lot more work before you present it or any of
> >> its components in public. Sounds like you have not done the basic
> >> groundwork in neurophysiology yet, even at a bibliographic or
> >> level. =
> >Basic work quoted only when relevant to proving a new fact or truth. =
> >Just citing everything irrelevant is not having an idea at all, much
> >less an invention. Right, I only have bibiliographic dta for
> >physics, chemistry, etc. , no irrelevant neurophysiological nonsense.
> >However, you'll find this volume rather indispensible.
> > I have read some of kccheng's earlier misleading replies
> >> to innocents posting inquiries in this newsgroup...)
> > Just like this one, any time you see me giving out "misleading" =
> >replies, please point out. I'll explain myself to avoid
> >the "innocent."
> >Blessed are those who are humble. Down with nuisance. =
> >> >Also, problems with my internet service provider's server(?). My
> >> >homepage is now difficult to see. Hope to have it fixed or soon
> >> >have a new site.
> >> >kccheng:=B9=BF=C2=F7=F7=F7=F7=F7=A5=BB=BC=A7
> >-- =