Backward propagation

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Nov 4 14:02:37 EST 2002


Kenneth Collins wrote in message
<_p4x9.22885$VJ5.1332777 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>[...]
>As I've explained in the past, I don't like citing the work of
others
>because the ramifications of my doing so are 'heart'-breaking.
>
>I don't 'normally' use PubMed, etc., because I did all that, in a
>long-and-steadily-devoted way decades ago. I continued until I was
>able to completely-verify that the simple principles that're
>discussed in AoK are all-encompassing with respect to nervous-system
>function.

Truth is that all the information necessary to resolve the nervous
system as an information-processing system, to a 'level' that's
commensurate to Isaac Newton's work in the old Natural Philosophy,
was sitting in Neuroscience Stacks, collecting dust, 50-35 years ago.

It's the synthesis of that information that's discussed in AoK - and
the refs cited in AoK.

If it's the case that the 'idea' of this thread was as a 'test' - to
see if I'd claim stuff that's not in AoK - then I consider that
totally-unacceptable. As I've discussed in the past, other than a few
trips to the Neuroscience stacks, to collect articles for discussion
because folks were routinely 'buzzing' me because I 'refrained' from
such, I haven't read in Neuroscience since AoK was written.

Other than responses to refs posted by others [like the so-called
"Oscillations" stuff during the summer], I've only been discussing
stuff that's been in AoK all along. And the resolutions that I've
discussed have all been in AoK all along [the so-called
"Oscillations" stuff is a case in-point - it's all in AoK, Ap5.

The 'problem' has been that folks couldn't comprehend what's been
right-there in AoK all along because folks didn't study widely enough
in the Neuroscience stacks - folks left what was in the Neuroscience
stacks 50-35 years ago 'collecting-dust'.

I will Forthrightly [if Sorrowfully] Demonstrate this actuality to
anyone who 'accuses' me of 'constructing-NDT-backwards-in-'time'.

You know, in my trips to the Library, to collect refs, I saw with my
own eyes where the "Backward propagation" is. I didn't seek any
specifics. I just pulled Journals at random.

I've still got all the refs hanging-around somewhere, along with a
good number of instances of the same stuff that were sent to me by
others over the years when I've been online.

With only one exception that immediately comes to mind, I've
refrained from discussing it, in all but generalized ways, but, if
folks're 'accusing' me, then it seems to me that there's a need to be
Forthright with respect to any "Backward propagation" that has
occurred. [In my 'refraining', but 'pleading' way, I've referred to
it in the past as 'borrowing'.]

Is this what's 'necessary'?

Will NDT's stuff be 'ignored' until this approach is taken?

Everyone, please speak-up, Forthrightly.

I will do it.

The Burden of it's being done is 'yours'.

I don't need it for myself.

What I need is for folks to stop acquiesing in the face of Savagery
that's Slaughtering Innocents all over the place.

But if it comes down to 'accusations', and their being set-straight -
if that's what folks deem 'neuroscience' to 'be' - then lead-on.

Of course I'll have to make use of refs that've been published after
NDT was written [to Demonstrate the 'borrowing'], but I'll
Demonstrate that their stuff has been in AoK, and the refs cited in
AoK [which, if no one has yet noted, were, then,
sufficiently-'comprehensive'], all along - the gist of it being that
there's somehting 'amiss' if stuff that's been in AoK all along is
published long after AoK was written, submitted for publication,
and, that failing, diseminated, if AoK was not allowed to be
published.

Publication-al "Backward propagation", eh?

Yup. Execpt the backward-links've been 'dropped'.

I'll do it in-person, before the most-'angry' group that can be
mustered. [The group has to pick up my expenses for as long as it
takes, and I determine how long it takes [probably about six months
to a year for this 'mud-slinging' way].]

Word of Honor, "I'll take no prisoners."

The matter will be settled.

As things stand, the 'dangling-inuendo' is, itself, a Dispicable,
Cowardly thing - folks might as well load their guns and go on
shooting rampages, because, if such nothingness is allowed to turn
NDT's understanding aside, then the result is the same.

You know, it's similar with respect to a lot of the work I've done in
other fields. There's one Big-Difference, though. My other work
doesn't directly-address the Savagery.

I just shrug-off the 'borrowing' with respect to my other work.

But how does one 'shrug-off' =anything= that functions to sustain the
Savagery?

So NDT's stuff is something with respect to which I've unavoidable
Obligation, so if this's what it takes, then set the date.

I'll be-there.

K. P. Collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list