I have been following some of your posts for the last month. Unfortunately
it is the manner regarding how you present your work which is the real
reason why you haven't published anything. (That isn't meant to be taken as
an insult and
but more a constructive criticism that will help improve your chance of
publishing your data).
The "publication" is one of the most difficult accomplishments to make in
science. And I say the accomplishment because it really is. Although the
whole peer-review process is in itself extremely questionable (and this
could be discussed as an entirely different thread topic), for the most part
the difficulty for having your data published ensures (at least hopefully)
that only the highest quality of work (and even the highest quality of YOUR
own work) gets set in print. Any person who has went through the
publication process will attest to its difficult.
With respect to your theories regarding brain functioning, there are some
extremely interesting components that you advocate. The problem is how you
present your ideas. Unfortunately they are presented in an extremely poor
and unorganized manner. (I stand corrected if a significant sample of
readers from this group believes otherwise. ) The topics you have written
are presented in an extremely poor and often incoherent manner. They are
not at the appropriate level for publication and require significant
Your continual use of abbreviations confuse the material your presenting.
(I am not familiar with the hundreds, perhaps, even thousands of posts that
you have presented earlier on these topics, nor do I care. The mark of a
good scientist is someone who can convey their data and interpretations in a
clear and concise manner. A person who is "new" or "fresh" to your concepts
should at least be able to understand the vague concepts that you have
presented in your post. That is your responsibility as a scientist who is
presenting your own data... not ours.) The continual use of abbreviations
that have been either defined some years ago by you, do not mean anything to
anyone who hasn't read any of these previous posts. Because you attempt
integrating concepts in theoretical physics and neuroscience, you really
should explain what you mean by certain concepts you evoke. The definitions
you employ should at least or attempt to be consistent with the labels
employed by the particular methodologies you are using. (In other words,
don't re-invent the wheel unless you have too. And if you are going to use
a concept that is entirely new and presumably has never been considered
before, provide at an extremely simply definition that is not clouded with
unnecessary technical "jargon". )
I have found on numerous occasions that you often employ extremely vague and
arbitrary terms to define the processes you are discussing. They are often
presented in a pretentious fashion that tries to sound extremely intelligent
but falls quite short. With the continual appearance of spelling and
grammatical errors littered throughout the entire argument it becomes
extremely difficult to follow your argument. (All of these things can be
The next problem is that I have never read in any of your posts cited
empirical (measurable) evidence that agree with the arguments you bring up.
(You never provide citation from the work of others that support your
theory). Nor have you provided a mathematical argument that relates the
concepts you propose with the actual normal neurophysiological data that has
been observed to take place. This is the biggest weakness in your
arguments. Perhaps you have done the math and cited the references before.
That's fine. But without any data linking your concepts with the physical
observations of brain functioning your theories become meaningless to
everyone else. You haven't answered, "how and why curiosity, creativity
and volition arise within nervous systems, all in a way that reduces
directly to the Neuroscience experimental results". Your missing the most
important thing. (DATA).
"Arm chair" theorizing is great and I encourage you to continue to do this;
but without any real measurable evidence to support your concepts, what does
the reader get at the end of the day? Unfortunately nothing. Trust me on
this, actually measuring the phenomena in the laboratory yourself and
comparing it to what is seen in texts and published papers often produces
quite apparent disparities. In other words, the presumably wide held
"truths" found in textbooks, more often than not are quite different from
what you seen in the laboratory setting.
Your dedication to your ideas and concepts is something that is actually
quite remarkable. Even in the face of some quite negative responses posted
by others previously, you continue to present your concepts. It is apparent
to any one that reads your posts that you most likely extremely excited as
you typing messages. With a few corrections I think many more people will
be able to appreciate your contributions. Continue with your work on your
theories. (I apologize for the long response).
"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fIWFb.10161$wL6.3008 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Alex Green" <dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:42c8441.0312230217.3979c378 at posting.google.com...> > > [...]
> > [...]
>> > So, as a theorist in consciousness studies, what
> > new prediction about consciousness are you
> > making and how might it be tested? Give us
> > your best shot.
> > Best Wishes
> > Alex Green
>> Thanks, Alex.
>> I've explained how and why curiosity, creativity
> and volition arise within nervous systems, all in
> a way that reduces directly to the Neuroscience
> experimental results.
>> Would submitting a paper that explains that much
> be sufficient with respect to publication?
>> I've explained a lot more, all in a way that reduces
> directly to the Neuroscience experimental results,
> but part of what's been the problem is that higher
> level discussion is necessary dependent upon the
> lower level discussion, which has not yet been
> published. When I try to discuss the higher level
> stuff with folks who don't comprehend the lower
> level stuff, they don't gety it.
>> I expect that, if there's an Editor who will accept
> the low level paper, I'll be able to fill as much
> space as that Editor is willing to give me for at
> least a decade.
>> And I'll stick with the Editor who gives my work
> a chance.
>> Cheers, Alex,
>> ken [k. p. collins]