the literature with respect to HM is a perfect case in point. everyone was
saying that the hippocampi are 'involved in 'memory' formation', but that
misses Truth entirely.
the hippocampi are, as is described in AoK, intermediate-'level' supersystem
configuration mechanisms... =big= difference.
'memory' =is= dependent upon supersystem configuration dynamics, but so are
numerous other neural information-processing dynamics.
the concept that was replaced by NTD, and which is adequately treated in
AoK, leaves nothing out.
re. my two assertions: you've missed the point entirely. it is that, given
any published Neuroscience paper, using NDT (what's discussed in AoK), i can
=advance= the Science from the perspective of what's discussed in the paper,
or show that the stuff discussed in the paper is erroneous.
i've asked, dozens of 'times', to be allowed to demonstrate such, in-person,
and will do so if anyone ever accepts the challenge inherent (while i'm
unemployed, they'll have to cover my expenses... if i'm able to find
employment, they'll not have to.)
K. P. Collins
F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <7ngl3c$psb at dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>>Ah, at last, something testable. I don't have the time or the
>motivation for it, but someone who would like to do a quick survey of
>journals 1975-1983 can tell us how many people in this period were
>saying that the hippocampus was a place where memories were stored. If
>textboooks were no longer saying it, this would be a sharp refutation
>of Ken's prescience; if some were saying it was, I'd not take it
>seriously, because textbooks are always behind the times.
>>I don't know when poor HM had his surgery, but I kinda think it was
>before that period, and he is of course the poster boy for the case
>against hippocampus being where memories "are".
>>Meanwhile, what on earth is Ken saying near the bottom of this pathetic
>history? At first, I thought he was asserting that ALL Neuroscience
>papers were false; but on re-reading his two assertions, I have come to
>think that he is saying: "All neuroscience papers are false except for
>the ones that are true; and if they are true, I can find a differentt
>way to get the same resultts." Maybe he'd like tto cite one of each,
>and show us just exactly how he'd do both of these things (in 1.5Meg or
>less).
>>>F. LeFever
>>>>>>>In <esZfk4k1#GA.294 at cpmsnbbsa05> "Ken Collins" <KPaulC at email.msn.com>
>writes:
>>>>the incorrect view was solidly entrenched in the literature when i was
>in
>>'grad school' in 1975-6.
>>>>i definitely had it wrong in a 'comic book' i sent out, but don't
>recall
>>when i sent it out... (i did a 'comic book' in an effort to present
>the
>>ideas in a, hopefully, curiosity-invoking format).
>>>>i'd have to dig it out and reread it, but i think had it wrong in my
>1980
>>paper, _Why: Human Behavior_ (which was the precursor to AoK, and
>treating
>>the hippocampi as a 'recorder' was the only major error that i recall
>as
>>being(?) in that paper).
>>>>i had it right by the 'time' of my 1983 presentation at the Naval
>Research
>>Laboratory.
>>>>i'd have to check my papers to narrow it down more.
>>>>it might 'surprise' you, but i don't spend a lot of 'time' keeping
>track of
>>individuals who've 'borrowed' my work... and i'm not your 'research
>>assistant'. if you've a Q in Physics, which is what i've been working
>in for
>>the past decade, i'll be glad to provide refs.
>>>>i did what i had to do in Neuroscience. it's never been formally
>published.
>>>>i've thought more about my 'nausea' comments, the other night, and in
>the
>>past... it's 'just' a cop-out, 'dramatic' way of saying that i can
>say, with
>>certainty, that there will never be a Neuroscience paper with respect
>to
>>which:
>>>>1. i cannot redesign the experimental method, and make predictions
>that will
>>be verified.
>>>>2. or that i can demonstrate is incorrect.
>>>>by invoking the 'short-cut', 'nausea', i was just trying to convey the
>sense
>>of 'frustration' that i experience when i go in the Neuroscience
>stacks, see
>>all the disconnected stuff, know that it's all connectable, but
>'there's no
>>use' in working to connect anything in it... because no one will
>listen, or
>>understand, anyway.
>>>>ken collins
>>>>flefever wrote in message <7n8os6$l7o at dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>>>>Well, when DID you say the hippocampus was not for "storeing"
>memories
>>>and everybody else was saying it was. Was it in 1986? Before 1986?
>>>Can you ESTIMATE the date? What was the EARLIEST possible date?
>(i.e.
>>>when did you first start saying or writing this stuff?) How much
>>>longer DID everybody else persist in saying the hippocampus was for
>>>"storeing" memories? (can you name one or two of these people?)
>>>>>>F. LeFever
>>>>>>In <euMeIXA1#GA.274 at cpmsnbbsa02> "Ken Collins" <KPaulC at email.msn.com>
>>>writes:
>>>>>>>>beyond AoK, which was first circulated in 1986, i don't care to look
>>>through
>>>>my papers, Frank. I've preserved everything... anyone who wants to
>>>look can
>>>>see for themselves how the concepts developed.
>>>>>>>>i am certain that, when i started circulating AoK, it was as i
>stated
>>>in the
>>>>prior msg... to get folks in Neuroscience thinking-straight with
>>>respect to
>>>>it was one of the biggest battles i had to fight.... one doesn't
>>>easily
>>>>"forget" such, and the scars accumulated while doing it.
>>>>>>>>ken collins
>>>>>>>>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message
>>><7n677k$5j8 at dfw-ixnews16.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>>>>>>>>Just what was the date when you said the hippocampus doesn't store
>>>>>memories and everybody else said it did? (The theoretical
>statements
>>>of
>>>>>"the others" are publicly documented and dated; are yours?)
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
