<orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:84da9680.0312271132.2dbc056b at posting.google.com...
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<vNgHb.11379$IM3.8926 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > Hi 'orkeltatte'.
> >
> > <orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:84da9680.0312261033.626e33ab at posting.google.com...> > > "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<3ATGb.10009$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.
>> What are you talking about here - the homunculus?
No.
It's explained in AoK.
Please receive a copy, and read it, or 'go away'.
[I've been discussing it online for more than 15
years. I mean no offense, but I can't go back
and discuss everything, again and again, when
the fundamentals are right in a doc that I send out,
gratis.]
> >
> > And, as far as I Know [with certainty], no one other
> > than myself has ever actually read AoK.
> >
>> One can´t help wonder why?
I send out the doc, and then leave it up to folks.
No one's ever given me any [direct] indication
that they've read the doc.
And, although, as above, I do ask folks to read
it, I leave it up to them to choose whether or not
they do read it.
>> > 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.
>>> Just for the case of argument -have you ever considered the
> possibility that the "AoK does´nt hold water?"
>>> > Then, show me what you understand of "Neuroscientific
> > Duality Theory" [NDT], the basics of which are discussed in AoK.
>> I am just a simple clinician (specialist in Child and Youth psychiatry
> and General psychiatry) with some experience and knowledge in
> neuropsychiatry ( co-founder amongst 30 others ,of the Swedish
> Association of Child and Youth neuropsychiatry) and appointed expert
> in psychiatry of the National Board of Health and wellfare. I work
> with humans on a hole not just their neurons or the neuronal
> architecture , howere interesting and a must know of course .
:-]
You should read AoK.
> Good thing you have their answering questions with counterquestions.
Huh?
ken
