Hi 'orkeltatte'.
<orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:84da9680.0312261033.626e33ab at posting.google.com...
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<3ATGb.10009$IM3.6218 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > <orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > It would be nice with some references to scientific
> > > studies (if any).
> >
> > I have a monograph, "On the Automation of Knowing
> > within Central Nervous Systems: A Brief Introduction
> > to Neuroscientific Duality Theory",
>> ................
> > It sufficiently substantiates the position that I've been
> > addressing - in terms of the proven Neuroscience
> > experimental results.
>> So what you are saying is that you have done a double-
> blind controlled study, with a sufficient number of
> individuals to draw reliable statistical conclusions from,
> and you did not get it published in a scientific paper?
I don't know whether what's discussed in AoK fits
nicely into a "double-blind" categorization because,
frankly, I've never considered it with respect to that
'fit'.
But the conclusions that are mapped out in AoK are
Deterministic, and not at all 'statistical' - be-cause they
derive in the neural Topology [fancy Geometry] that
has been Proven to exist ubiquitously within Human
nervous systems.
And, as far as I Know [with certainty], no one other
than myself has ever actually read AoK.
When I sent it out, it, typically, was back in my hands
in three days, which means that some Clerk in the
Journal's mail room turned it around in the Journal's
mail room, without allowing it to even be considered
for Review.
If it's taken longer than three days, I've still never
received any indication that AoK was read.
It's as above. I've never received any Verification
that AoK has been read. [One fellow did paraphrase
an excerpt from AoK in a post of his, and I've seen
a =lot= of stuff that's been 'curiously' evocative of
the position that's discussed in AoK, all subsequent
to my 'slf-publishing' of AoK.]
> Most common reason these paper don´t publish a
> contribution, is when the article don´t pass the
> qualitycontrol of the reviewboard. But you
> have another explanation :
>> > Finally, I realized that it was just too far ahead of the field.
> >
> > So I came online to 'fill in the gap', which is what I'm doing
> > here in b.n.
> >
> > Your reaction is pretty much the sort of reaction that I
> > routinely got when I was submitting my work for Publication.
>> I take this as a compliment.
>> orkeltatte
Then, show me what you understand of "Neuroscientific
Duality Theory" [NDT], the basics of which are discussed in AoK.
If you cannot show me anything, then you've based your
position upon your own presumption, not upon anything
that's in the work I've done.
Which is, I admit, a presumption, on my part - one that
derives in the fact that you've expressed no understanding
of NDT.
Which is your right to choose.
It's just that I've equal right to point out the 'Difficulties'
inherent in sustaning an opinion with respect to that
about which one knows nothing.
k. p. collins
