> you know, Peter, taken by itself, NDT's reification of the phenomenon of
> "decussation" is the most-significant result that's ever been produced in
> all of Science.
do you actually know what decussation is?
>> it's easy to See that there's Prejudice operating in-there.
You claim to respect the peer-review process, then slam it when it
doesn't find positively in your case! Thats the whole point of the
process - everyone who gets rejected believe in their ideas, but few
others do.
>> which is where it becomes very-important to acknowledge Jesus, because the
> 'problem' that's 'stymied' the coming-forward of this Precious understanding
> exists 'outside' the realm of traditional Science, but, nevertheless,
> Dictates to folks who work in Science what it 'is' that they 'can' and
> 'cannot' do.
>> Jesus addressed this Dictatorial stuff.
>> and when one follows Jesus' lead, one escapes the Dictatorial stuff, and,
> voila, one is able to just do Science.
>> you'll note that i've never tried to 'explain' how it could be that ~2000
> years ago, Jesus Knew how nervous systems process information, all i'm
> capable of is seeing that it's so.
Please enlighten as to how you know this? Given his supposed
omnipotence I would have thought that knowing how the brain works
would not be hard, especially as he is also supposed to have been
amongst those who designed it.
>> i've Seen such with my own eyes, right in the experimentally-verified neural
> topology and it's functioning.
>> for instance, the need for forgiveness is built-right-into nervous systems
> because they learn through experience, and experience most-often misleads,
> but such only becomes detectable subsequently.
>> without Forgiveness, one is 'trapped' within the mis-take.
This is just yadda-yadda stuff - like saying well brakes are built
into cars otherwise they crash. Profundity itself. This doesn't tell
you the detail of how it works but you go right ahead and just claim
everything is some illdefined concept of excitatory/inhibitory ratios.
>> Jesus also addressed the way old-familiar stuff is unlikely to give-way to
> new-unfamiliar stuff ["new wine is for new wineskins"], which, Darwin
> lamented in his _Origin of Species_ [Darwin's lament is quoted in AoK's
> 'Short Paper' section.]
>> and it goes on and on like this.
>> when one 'allows' one's self to See it, one's jaw, flat-out, hangs-down.
>> to me, it's just a matter of Scientific Honor.
>> yeah, i could've long-ago 'gotten-rich', if only i'd've 'put on blinders'
> with respect to Jesus' Priority ['moved away from' it].
>> but it was already old-long-since that i'd come to understand the
> Consequences inherent in 'moving away from' Truth.
>> to the degree that one 'moves away from' Truth, one becomes incapable of
> actually doing anything Real.
>> 'moving away from' Truth, in fact, to the degree of such, cast one outside
> of Reality [i don't expect anyone to understand this. it's Deep.]
lol. its so very very deep. I profess not to understand. some ego
ken.
Your ideas are just 'romantic' whimsy (i.e. daft) for instance, you
claim not to move away from truth. How do you know beforehand what
truth is, since by definition you cannot know otherwise you wouldn't
need to do any science. How do you differentiate truth from
non-truth? In short, how can you know you are moving toward the true
answer without a priori having the truth known?
> it's why i can accept any peer-reviewed, replicable, experimental results as
> Tests of the work i've done. it's why i can enhance any such experimental
> results and predict the yield of the enhanced experiments.
Cite one published paper that confirms any of what you've said
(without abstratcing to a infinitely higher level). Or are all
neuroscience papers somehow proof of your ideas, since of course your
ideas are the truth.
