Dear Mr Collins,
The argument below sounds rather construed and confusing.
Could you please be more precise as the points you raise are worth
discussion, but are presented rather disorderedly.
As for activity dependent work, there is a volume available now...do look
around a bit.
Hoping to hear from you on the matter.
cheers
S Chakrabarty
ken collins <qxcjk at aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990708135848.24110.00012099 at ng-ca1.aol.com...
> 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
