Apology to kkollins
kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Sun Nov 29 16:20:51 EST 1998
John, you need olny take what you've posted "to me", and juxtapose it against
your original post... talk about "obfusaction... you've left behind the entire
context of the thread you started :-).
I've been over, and over again, the constraints under which I've had to work...
I work as a computer programmer to earn the sustenance for my second Job, my
Science, which I do of free.
If, given the "Automation of Knowing..." ms. (AoK), one cannot follow its stuff,
through recourse to the stuff of the refs cited in it, one is "just" not trying
at all. I cannot "do the Vulcan mind-meld" and "poof" the understanding into
folks's nervous systems... =all= Learning occurs as a function of experience...
water is water... a thirsty horse is a thirsty horse... drink, or not... do the
work, or not.... everything anyone needs has been right in AoK, and the refs
cited in AoK, all along, hasn't it?
It's hilarious... I've been begging for 25 years to be allowed to subject my
work to any in-person "scrutiny" anyone might want to give it... "get a place
nearby a good Library, lock the doors, no one leaves 'til the 'dust's
settled'"... I'll even pay my own way.
I've also explained why it has to be in-person... folks've been ripping-off the
Science so as to "seek 'profits'", thereby, Withholding the Science from the
Children and from those who Suffer-Greatly... such is Totally-Unacceptable.
And I've all "two"-much Experience at the hands of folks like you who "demand"
that I do this-or that, even though they, seemingly, refuse to deal with what's
been right in AoK for so long.
So, as the Fonze says, "Sit on it", John... I've not the wherewithal to make to
Austrailia, so I won't beg an in-person opportunity of you. G'd-aye might. K. P.
> Walter Eric Johnson wrote in message <73qvlf$pgi$2 at news.tamu.edu>...
> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> in his usual ambiguous style
> Your perseverance is to be admired Eric. Kkollins thinks he is the process
> of some grand synthesis across various disciplines. I tried to point out to
> him (Is this pain thread) why such an endeavour is often hopeless and
> unnecessary but he mounted no challenge to this, instead making reference to
> the fact that I would not follow his path. My guess is he didn't have a clue
> what I was on about. He has made the most common blunder of autodidacts
> In any event, being Sunday arvo in Aus and me somewhat bored, I will attempt
> a little exegesis of Mr. Kollins writings ...
> >: <snip> ... but the page missed the whole
> >: point of "memory" formation... the necessity of all "memory" mechanisms
> >: maintain the topology of external energy gradients while bridging between
> >: sensory & motor dynamics...
> Not at all. To begin with, memory does not faithfully record anywhere near
> the requisite amount of data to maintain such a 'typology'. We select
> salient features of our environment, we do not mirror the same in our minds,
> we distort them.
> Sounds impressive though, "typology of external energy gradients" ...
> Stuff it, time for The Simpsons.
> May I suggest we direct our attention to more profitable endeavours?
> I wasn't going to bother posting this but finally I proffer the following
> for Ken's consideraton ...
> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote in message
> <3660D037.E1465AE7 at pop3.concentric.net>...
> >Clearly, you're disinclined to go in the only way I could lead you. Be at
> Peace "on my account". ken collins
> OK now I'm really pissed off ...
> As my previous post demonstrated I have gone many ways, which is not to say
> I will go any way. Clearly, you're completely resistant to going any way but
> you're own. So be it, but the challenge before you then is to convince us
> that your way is worth travelling. You can start by:
> 1. Recognize that autodidacts are prone to a very serious error: thinking by
> yourself for yourself leads you to thinking that your thinking is for
> everyone. Consider, "Unless ye become like little children ... ."
> 2. If you can't explain it simply or within standard jargonese don't bother.
> 3. People who make breakthroughs do so using the conventional jargon (eg
> Einstein relied on the maths of Hamilton and Reimann), only latter does the
> new jargon emerge. Until such time, the whiz kid must conform to the normal
> requirements of communication: make it clear.
> 4. Maybe not to you and many others, but good grammer, clear language, and
> lack of ambiguity are essential. If you can't meet these high school
> criteria then go back there, unless you're writing another Ullysses.
> 5. I will not be at peace with anyone who proclaims profound insights and
> obfuscates. For heaven's sake, I can follow Fodor, Crick, Edelman et al so
> why on earth should I bother to deconstruct your own personal language? If
> they can express themselves like
> common people why can't you? Ambiguity is also a very effective weapon for
> convincing the masses, a casual examination of many religions reveals the
> host of ambiguities that allows such misleading impressions to gain power.
> (Pop Psychology, Economics & Postmodernism are modern examples), You may be
> able to impress your associates but up against someone who knows their stuff
> and you're doomed unless you're right, as the physicist Alan Sokan so
> powerfullly demonstrated to the literary world.
> Ok, Edelman is an exception in the clarity department but we cannot doubt
> his intellectual power -Nobel Prize winner 1972 for immune system work and
> considered a possibility for his work on NCAMs. When you've have the runs on
> the board you can play that game Ken.
> 6. Don't throw that condescending attitude at me. I have sufficient faith in
> my intellectual capacities and will not tolerate "Oh, you're just can't
> appreciate what I'm saying" attitude.
> 7. If you so choose feel free to continue on your current trajectory but
> rest assured you shall remain the lonesome traveller.
> "In order to see much one must look away from one's self."
> Now, I have this pain in my tooth!
More information about the Neur-sci