IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

I have a question

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Thu Dec 30 06:58:23 EST 2004

"Michael Olea" <oleaj at sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:BDF8B7C2.E471%oleaj at sbcglobal.net...
| in article 41d36b5a at dnews.tpgi.com.au, John Hasenkam at johnh at faraway. wrote
| on 12/29/04 5:59 PM:
| > There is a very rare condition when a person can no longer perceive
| > movement, only see a series of still shots. Don't know the name of the
| > condition, probably related to damage to the visual - parietal areas
| > (ventral stream?).
| Ramachandran, in "Phantoms in the Brain" refers to it simply as "motion
| blindness". He discusses the case of a Swiss woman who had bilateral damage
| to MT.

Hi Michael,

I'm not 'familiar' with the particular
visual dysfunction that Peter's brought-
up, but a subtle version of an alnalgous
thing occurs routinely within all 'normal'
nervous system function.

It's the main thing that I've been discus-
sing, all along, with respect to 'blindly'-
automated TD E/I-minimization.

As TD E/I-minimization occurs, folks
tend to "range", both cognitively and
behaviorally, within ever-'shrinking'
"worlds", and their cognition and be-
havior increasingly reflects the "still
shot" that "hovers"-around TD E/I-

This always occurs as a result of
global-system energydynamics, and
not as a function of innate nervous-
system capacities.

Which is why I'm always writing
about "removing the 'blindness' through
coming to understand how and why
nervous systems process information
via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-min-

All that's necessaryis to routinely
Choose to "range widely" within one's
external experiential environment, and
achieve TD E/I-minimization with re-
spect to what's in the "wide-ranging-
ingness" that's so-experienced.

The energydynamics are discussed,
sufficiently, in AoK. Ap7 discusses
the "key" energydynamic -- the "vol-
itional diminishing-returns decision"

Within routine circumstances, folks're
'maxed-out' by their "responsibilities"
that they are literally =driven= into
"ranging narrowly" -- in order to main-
tain their sources of income, their 'fit-
ting-in' within their peer groups and
Family dynamics, etc.

The costs inherent in such "ranging
narrowly" are Immense within the
general dynamics of Humanity. The
coercion inherent literally stands in
the way of Humanity's going-forward.

All of this is what Jesus was talking
about when He said:

"Do you think that I have come to
bring peace to the earth? No, I tell
you, but rather division! From now on
five in one household will be divided,
three against two and two against three;
they will be divided: father against son
and son against father, mother against
daughter and daughter against mother,
mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law
and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

He was saying, "Think for yourself, not
in accord with what you've experienced
within your "Familiar" circumstances."

And the only way such can be accomp-
lished it through "ranging widely" be-
yond one's 'familiar' stuff -- to achieve
TD E/I-minimization with respect to our
"neighbors'" external experiential realities -- 
you know, to "go the extra mile" [which
is literally what "ranging widely" is :-]

Else 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimi-
zation converges upon the "still shot"
stuff that's like the visual dysfunction
example that Peter has brought-up.

Jesus wasn't "kidding".

Jesus Knew! how our nervous systems

I cannot "explain" such.

I've just seen it with my own eyes in
the Experimental results that have
been accumulated by my Colleagues
in Neuroscience.

I understand, given the "still shot" that's
been converged upon [via 'blindly'-
automated TD E/I-minimization] within
nervous systems that 'move toward'
doing 'science', that my Honoring Jesus'
Priority is 'Hard-to-swallow', and that
I'll, therefore, be 'moved away from'.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just a
matter of Honor-in-Science. If I didn't
do it, I'd be a Plagerist.

"No contest."

I Honor Truth.


k. p. collins

| >
| >
| > <behdadm at gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1104189924.193906.161060 at z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >> Hi,
| >>
| >> I think you are wrong.
| >>
| >> "Handbook of Perception and Human Performance" page 16-8:
| >>
| >> "It is sometimes mistakenly claimed that the peripheral retina is more
| >> sensitive to motion than the fovea. In fact the threshold of motion
| >> increases steadily with eccentricity"
| >>
| >> Although the rods are more sensitive to motion than cones, there are
| >> many other factors that can influence the motion sensitivity of fovea
| >> and other parts of field of view. For example, each receptor is
| >> connected to one ganglion cell in the fovea, but at the periphery 25
| >> receptors are connected to 1 ganglion.
| >>
| >> What is your reference?
| >> Sorry but I didn't understand the meaning of "AoK, Ap6".
| >>
| >> Thanks
| >>
| >
| >

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net