IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

a prediction confirmed

ken collins kenpc at banet.net
Fri Apr 9 00:01:38 EST 1999

F. Frank LeFever wrote:


> Do you mean Walle Nauta, the great neuroanatomist?  Or do you mean
> "nada"?

"nada", but i realized that i'd erred the other way, without
knowing the correct, "nada", when i reread the post.

> The combination of naivete and grandiosity in your proposal is mind
> boggling.  (Of course, the grandiosity comes as no surprise, given your
> belief--expressed in one other of your MANY posts back-to-back with the
> same heading today--that you can control the stock market.)(And of
> course I know why this has not made you rich: either too dumb to know
> how to buy and sell stocks or else too moral to take unfair advantage
> of the rest of us; I can guess which one you'll admit to)

well, for one thing, it's be illegal to attempt to steer the
market for personal gain, even though it's clear that many are
doing exactly that. and for another thing, although i've
purchased a couple of dozen lottery tickets in my time (most i've
ever won is $2.00) the idea of "making money" through any means
other than my own labor never quite hacked it for me... too many
deleterious effects attached... besides, there's not much life
left for me to be worrying about "money" in, is there? my unborn
Children will never need to go to college, will they?

> You have already had your chance at a presentation to SFN: 

i have? when was that?

way back, but with the theory already well-developed, i tried to
win an opportunity, but couldn't come up with any sponsors. i've
never been accepted by SFN. i did attend one of their annual
meetings, if that's what you're referring to. seems an extremely
cloistered group, no? plus, the "conferences" i have attended
were sorrow-times for me... so much work needing to be done, and
everyone running around as if they were at some circus, obviously
caring more about "being there and being seen" than the work that
needed to be accomplished.

> besides
> myself, I know of two other members who are regular participants in
> this newsgroup (I've met them at SFN); and surely there are a few
> others.  You have not stated any idea clearly enough to engage serious
> interest.

as i've explained, whenever i've tried to get a discussion going
(not only in this forum), i've always been innundated with
red-herring stuff.

NDT is a bit demanding because its stuff can only be presented
sequentially, but it's reality can only be comprehended when
everything's cross-correlated, and viewed, all-at-once, unified
within all of its cross-correlations. so if the discussion never
gets off of "point A", the cross-correlations can't be drawn
together, let alone there being no discussion of "point B",
"point C", "point D"... through thousands of "points".

all it takes is some "neuro-gunslinger", swaggering in, wanting
to do what ever it is that he wants to do, for whatever reason,
breaking the discussion before things're drawn together, and the
synthesis hasn't a chance of happening because the discussion's
context fades from view.

> Apparently you have some image derived from some movie as to what this
> important and dramatic presentation at SFN would be like.  

basically, all i have in mind is what's in AoK, and the
opportunity to hold it all together so that folks can grasp the
wonder inherent in the tightly cross-correlated whole.

> The reality is either

[...] i know the routine... it'd be insufficient, but i've never
refused an opportunity to present in person (i don't do poster
presentations anymore... they're a total waste, serving only as
"ego"-balms, and CV items for the "presenters"... i've no need
for either.

> Either presentation requires a discipline you have not yet exhibited:
> choosing a manageable chunk of your ideas, organizing and clarifying
> that chunk, then stating the point you are trying to make in clear and
> precise language, using commonly understood terms or (if necessary)
> explicitly defined new terms.

everything that's necessary is in AoK and the refs cited in it.
it's an easy read, written well enough. what isn't in there is
the work that's required, by the reader, to transform AoK's
sequential presentation into the tightly cross-correlated whole.
i'll never lose my willingness to do this work with folks

as far as "chunking" it goes, it can't be done that way because,
to lift up one's understanding in the unification, everything has
to be in-there, tightly cross-correlated, all at once, each thing
simultaneously "caressing" every other thing.
> We ae tired of your taking up so much space in the newsgroup with your
> posturing and hinting at your greatness, and tired of your complaining
> that no one will give you a hearing without ever doing the hard work of
> actually presenting an idea.

get used to it, Frank, because people are being slaughtered, and
more will be slaughtered, simply be-cause folks will not allow
the communication to occur. things've gotten my attention real
good, and while i've the strength to do so, i'm going to tell it
like it is... it's been 28 years, after all, and everyone,
including you, knows nothing of me other than the fact that if
they "poke a stick into the cage" into which my life has been
relegated that they'll get a "reaction" out of me... "duh".

i'm a decent enough fellow, and i love the work, and find joy in
doing that that others shy away from, and giving it to them
whole, gratis. and i've found increasing joy in the work as i've
continually learned, better, the degree to which the great mass
of Humanity is forsaken by those who are "in charge of things".
i'll not abandon them, and i'll not permit them to be misled by

> I stand on MY previous post, that you are
> >> unable to communicate your ideas clearly (neither the bizarre nor
> the
> >> mundane ones).  This in itself is adequate to account for your
> failure
> >> to win acceptance in the scientific community>

and i stand on what i've said that you don't understand the
demands of the unified understanding. you seem to want me to "do
things the way things are supposed to be done". can't you see,
Frank, that "the way things are supposed to be done" was a total
failure, and the chief impediment? it was. everything necessary
to comprehend nervous system fx was already in the books 30-40
years ago. yet, everybody was "two" busy kissing the butt of the
familiar thing to understand anything.

> - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - -
> Regarding your kind offer below: yes, you have permission to send me
> whatever.  I will not try to download huge files, nor risk computer
> virus infection by downloading whatever it takes to read them.  Send me
> an abstract, and if it looks worthwhile I'll ask you to mail me a hard
> copy. Indeed, you have my permission to send it even if I do not think
> it looks worthwhile.  I'd prefer to keep a buffer between me and the
> crazies ("present company excepted" I believe is the polite formula),
> so why not send it to me c/o the NY Academy of Sciences, 2 E. 63rd St.,
> NY, NY 10021; under my name write "Chair, Linguistics Section".
> F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.

it'll take me a while to make a printed copy, but i'll send one
along to you. please read it. pass it along to your colleagues,
and get together with a mind to finding "fatal flaw" in it. you
won't, but working to do so is the best way to come to understand
the theory... just remember, the stuff of every sentence in the
paper must be tightly cross-correlated with the stuff of every
other sentence in the paper. if you don't know the neuroanatomy
that's referred to in the paper, the refs which give the details
must be read.

since you talk of "work" and "discipline", i'm sure you'll not
skip anything, else, if you're so inclined, please tell me now so
that i can save the effort of preparing a copy that'll only go to
waste, OK?

ken collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net