John H. wrote in message ...
>You understand perfectly well. The comparison with Sarfatti is apt,
he too
>has absolute confidence in his particular view of the world and
refuses any
>correction to the same. I don't know how such people can entertain
such
>confidence in knowing, I much prefer flaming balls of doubt. Their
>psychology reminds of the work of Anthony Storr, "Feet of Clay", a
very
>insightful look at gurus and movements.
>[...]
"gurus and movements"
:-)
the closest i've ever gotten to anyone saying anything 'positive'
about the work i've done is back about a dozen years, in a msg posted
to someone else that i inadvertently dropped-in on.
it referred to AoK and said, ~"Pretty good, huh?"
in 31 years, that's it.
the rest has been, at best, folks pokin' sticks in my 'cage', and, at
worst, folks trying to have me 'committed' :-)
what i'm holding-out for is some genuine "why-nots".
it doesn't seem too much to hope for.
that failing, then, i'd hope that folks'd explore the worth of NDT,
at least as it reifies the phenomenon of "prejudice", as a rational
thing to do with respect to all the Savagery that derives in
'blindly'-automated "prejudice".
then there's NDT's reifications of "creativity", "curiosity",
"volition", memory storage, retrieval, and cross-correlation.
among a lot of other stuff, all of which is strongly-substantiated
via the proven Neuroscience experimental results.
is it too much to ask that 31 years of work [September, next] be
hammered-upon, and not just 'dismissed' without any reason, in the
Neuroscience, ever having been given.
you know, like i was on the phone with a guy [who i'll not identify,
so [all], don't ever ask]the other day. he said he wouldn't consider
my work because he'd been working on the problem of prejudice all his
life, and hadn't been able to lift anyone up in understanding, so,
'obviously', i'd not be able to, either.
"prejudice" chasing its own tail.
there're many experimental results dealt with in AoK, none of which
needs anything that's out of the range of what's supposed to be
mastered in first-year Graduate courses, and most of which is within
the grasp of undergraduate Phys-Psych students.
why doesn't anyone say, "Yes" or "No", in the Neuroscience, and
explain?
is that too much to hope for?
i have worked hard, and devotedly, John, but i've worked with an eye
to do the drudge-stuff that nobody else wanted to do, in order to
just =contribute= something to the overall effort. i never have
expected anything other than anyone's 'respect' for having done this
unglamorous, unfundable, but needing-to-be-done stuff.
and, no, although i've not come across anythig of his since back in
the 90s, i don't think Sarfatti and i have much in common. if i
recall sufficiently, he was into microtubules as being the seat of
consciousness, a la the guy who wrote _The Emperor's New Clothes_,
['tile' guy; Penfield?] which just ain't it. [i've given the solution
to the 'binding' problem in msgs i've posted since i've been back
online this 'time'. probably still on the board. i gave the same
sol'n before logging-off the last 'time'.]
i'm being 'stubborn' because it's clear to me that NTD's
understanding can make a difference with respect to the
'blindly'-automated Savagery that's wreaked havoc throughout the
course of Human History.
i'm Obligated to insist on there being a Rationale, founded in the
proven Neuroscience experimental results, for 'dismissing' its hope,
and NDT's Promise with respect to folks who'll, otherwise, be
needlessly Slaughtered, or reduced to 'lives' of vicious suffering.
i just need a "no" that's commensurate.
and i cannot 'give up' until such happens, or the understanding is
communicated.
for me, the folks on whose behalves NDT was developed are all
=right-there=, like the Somerset 9, trapped down in theat flooded
coal mine in Pennsylvania, and i'm the guy on the drill.
i'll Die-trying before i 'give-up' on Hope for them.
Each of their Lives is Equivalent to mine.
i can't 'abandon' them.
not without Reason, founded in Science.
Please Forgive me, if i've too-much taken advantage of the
opportunity to discuss made possible by your post.
Cheers, John, ken
