IUBio

Budding neurologist

K C Cheng kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com
Sun Sep 27 19:57:41 EST 1998


F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> =

> In <360BCF19.2E5 at postoffice.idirect.com> K C Cheng
> <kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com> writes:
> =

> - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> =

> >I never said memory stored as electrons.  Instead, they are taken in
> and
> >stored as stimulus-specific electromagnetic particles. As I  said, why=

> >do you think you know anything to criticize me when you don't
> understand
> >anything relevant to that field?
> =

> And just what field might that be?  Evidentally it is (besides not
> being neurology or neuroscience) not electromagnetics.  Not the English=

> language, either.  in passage above, what is referent for
> "they"--memories? electrons?  Memories stored as "stimulus specific"
> electromagnetic "particles"? Electrons stored as "stimulus specific"
> electromagnetic "particles"?
> =

> Never mind that "particle" is just one metaphoric way of describing
> some aspects of electrons...  What is this, the static-electricity
> theory of memory?!?
> =

> How does such a "particle" become "stimulus specific"?  How exactly
> does one tell one electron from another? (Even assuming the
> preposterous notion of this mythical "particle" being transported into
> and preserved within some bodily tissues...)
If you are genuinely interested in knowing how I proved it all,  there
is hope: because I have proved it all to the satisfaction of the
strictest scientific criteria.  Let's say it is like reading Planck's =

hv conclusion.  Before understanding his whole proof, none could say he
is right or wrong.  =

So, now as an illustration, the stimulus-specificity of stimuli input is
given by the external stimuli themselves.   For instance, green light
seen as green gives off green photons of the green frequency.  That is
how this electromagnetic particle becomes stimulus-specific to be so
sensed as green, etc.  =

If you have read all of my proof, you would not be calling me "lack of
self-criticism."   I do criticize myself, but only according to
scientific requirements.   If Einstein proved  electromagnetic particles
incapable of entering electrons,  I would have abandoned my own
conclusions to the contrary.  But, the reality is that he first proposed
that an electron can contain one or more quanta(or photons), etc.  So,
scientifically, nothing requires me to correct myself.
How could I show humility when you have been blasting me without first
knowing what I have or who I really am, coming out with all sorts of
criticisms based on prejudice: the prejudice that memory cannot be
electromagnetic particles?
As I have said, we have to wait for those international committees to
make a comprehenseive review of all my volumes before saying anything
else.  I can always tell you the truth, and yet, you can always
disbelive me.  That's because you don't know me.  But, let us get on
with frank discussions instead of name-calling.  Professional, not
playing personalities. =

I asure you, if you had been friendly to and objective toward me  like
those truly trying to understand my work, you would not have been
talking to me like that!
Have you ever thought whether when you are my friend, you would have
given me a totally different opinion? =

kccheng =BEG=ABa=B8s
http://www.easyhosting.com/~kccheng



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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