it's wrong because it's =impossible= to say anything further without first
having fully accounted for all the activity-dependent stuff.
one cannot say this or that with respect to chemo factors, etc, without having,
first, fully accounted for the activity-dependent stuff... which goes all the
way down into the DNA energy transformations which underpin all the chemo
stuff.
i'm not saying that there cannot be anything non-activity-dependent (i've
recently had an experience that i cannot explain in terms of such). it's just
that doing so, presently, is like a cave man coming upon a space shuttle and
thinking it's some kind of animal that's good for eating.
all the activity-dependent stuff must be sorted out first, before folks can
move on to stuff that's, hypothetically, not linked to physically-real energy
transformations in an activity-dependent way.
one must be Gallileo before one can be Newton, and Newton before one can be
Einstein... and nobody seems up to the work inherent in that... so everybody
just makes "mudpies", not caring that what they propose ignores the vast
majority of the already-proven activity-dependent reality.
it doesn't compute.
k. p. collins
