In <358FDBF7.2C0D at postoffice.idirect.com> K C Cheng
<kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com> writes:
>>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
>> quality oof your thinking regrding it, However, you have several
>> 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
>> fact, not just a modest "guess") thoroughy misleading mixtures of
>> and nonsense. This makes me suspicious of the validity of your
>> "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!
Can you, in 10,000 words or less (preferably much less) point out to us
naifs the basis for judging it a "total" fallacy?
>I have no way of letting people read all my 19 volumes.
Have you any way (i.e. any wit) to write 19 ABSTRACTS? It has been
standard practice in scientific communication for many years to provide
an ABSTRACT so the reader may judge the relevance of the full text and
the likely value of reading the full text.
To the extent that your previous posts over many months (and, indeed,
your most recent) serve as a SAMPLE (if not a formal abstract) of your
knowledge and your thinking, obtaining and reading one of your private
texs (no doubt full of private thinking) does not seem worth the
In everyday language, "put up or shut up"!
However, I have
>several volumes published for private and public viewing. Before I
>have money to publish them all for a world wide evaluation, I
>to have several issues put on the Web. But, now, I have to buy a
>site just to show them.
Howabout buying postage to send ONE brief manuscript (covering just one
point of your 19-volume argument) to a peer-referreed journal? This is
the basic method for seeking an evaluation.
As you can see, the one at
>http://webhome.idirect.com/~kccheng>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
>comprehensive manner until all reasoable and scientific doubts have
>>>>> <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,
>> >> 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
>> >> 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
>> >> 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,
>> >om how far. Second, whether the electric fishes detect other
>> >oughts is not something we would ever know for sure. However,
>> >e fish can detect another fish's location, the possibility that
>> >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
>> >> polarization between contiguous or nearly contiguous neurons, I
>> >> believe.
>> >These are all only one part of knowledge re neuronal activities.
>> >rest has been discovered and proven by me. One should not close
>> >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,
>> >> 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
>> >> 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
>> >> 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:"
>> >for others to detect millions miles away. =
>> >> So, too, like radio stations
>> >> >having their own broadcast frequencies, man detects brainwaves
>> >> >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
>> >> someone whose DOMINANT frequency at the moment was 8-10Hz might
>> >> 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
>> >> being "on the same wavelength". PERHAPS two people in the midst
>> >> epileptic seizure might be on the same wavelength--not a good
>> >> communication, but might explain some of the productions of one
>> >> incessant discussants (partial continuous epilepsy? formerly
>> >> psychomotor or temporal lobe seizure??).
>> >That is why I used the term "similar" frequencies. =
>> >> >Detailed out in my "The Electric Fishes Speak" now being
>> >> =
>> >> Sounds like it needs a lot more work before you present it or any
>> >> its components in public. Sounds like you have not done the
>> >> groundwork in neurophysiology yet, even at a bibliographic or
>> >> level. =
>> >Basic work quoted only when relevant to proving a new fact or
>> >Just citing everything irrelevant is not having an idea at all,
>> >less an invention. Right, I only have bibiliographic dta for
>> >physics, chemistry, etc. , no irrelevant neurophysiological
>> >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(?).
>> >> >homepage is now difficult to see. Hope to have it fixed or
>> >> >have a new site.
>> >> >kccheng:=B9=BF=C2=F7=F7=F7=F7=F7=A5=BB=BC=A7
>> >-- =