Thank you for your Thoughtful reply - =all= of it.
Basically, I 'agree', it's just that, here in b.n, I'm
pursuing communication, not Publication, hoping
that, as communication happens, a Formal Publica-
tion opportunity will open-up to me. When [if] it
does, then I'll do the work inherent in writing in a
Further comments below.
"NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:gypPb.5726$rW5.376194 at news20.bellglobal.com...
>> 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).
I understand. Basically, it's been an 'ordeal' for
me to just continue. I post in a 'whimsical style'
because doing so satisfies my sense of Obliga-
tion, while allowing me to endure the 'ordeal'.
It's a Survival strategy.
Plus, anyone who wants to, can just point to
my posting 'style', and no one can 'blame' them
for whatever it is that they choose to do.
So it's a Survival strategy all-around :-]
> The "publication" is one of the most difficult
> accomplishments to make in science.
I Disagree, here. Judging from the well-written,
but trivial stuff that's routinely published [often
over and over again], getting Published is, Veri-
fiably relatively-independent of information-content.
My case is a long-story. When I was in grad school,
I was told that what I wanted to do was "impossible".
So I quit grad school, and just did it.
But because I've no traditional Credentials, the papers
I submitted for Publication were never given any
consideration. [One guy did read a paper, and I'm
grateful for the work he put into that, but that paper
was not one that I'd written for Publication. I wrote
it in the naive belief that sending its contents to folks
would result in folks inviting me 'in from the cold',
after which I'd Formalize my work.
None of the papers that I did submit for Publication,
including the "Automation of Knowing..." ms. [AoK],
were ever Reviewed.
> 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),
That's one of the things that's funny with respect to
the work I've done - because the work I've done
explains why the Review Process is "questionable".
Yet AoK was 'rejected', repeatedly.
I'm just 'toughing-it-out'.
> 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.
I understand the premise, Disagree that that's what
> With respect to your theories regarding brain functioning,
> there are some extremely interesting components that you
I wouldn't ask anything of anyone if that weren't the case.
> The problem is how you present your ideas. Unfortunately
> they are presented in an extremely poor and unorganized
As above, it's an 'ordeal' just continuing.
Long ago, I Decided that folks who could understand,
would understand. and folks who 'cannot' would not.
My posting 'style' is my way of "cutting to the chase
scene" [leaping over trivialities, and folks who get
'bogged-down' in trivialities].
There's no 'judgement' inherent [at least none that's
without Honorable Purpose]. What it comes down
to is that I've been working for more than 32 'years',
and I'm =tired= of not being 'able' to Live a 'normal'
Life, so, since I can't 'quit', all I can do is 'trim' what's
'trimable', which is, mostly, 'pomp and circumstance'.
You know? It's been as if I've been Imprisoned.
My posting 'style' is my way of 'scratching notes to
myself on the walls of my Prison cell' - a way of
declaring the fact that, despite being 'Imprisoned',
my Spirit goes-on. [I don't expect anyone to un-
derstand this - unless they've Lived-through anal-
> (I stand corrected if a significant sample of
> readers from this group believes otherwise. )
It's obvious that some folks do. I'm Grateful to
them, but Guard their Free Wills.
> 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 revisions.
I Agree. Most-often, it's been deliberate. Folks who
cqan understand, will. Folks who 'cannot', won't.
And nobody can 'bash' anybody, either way.
I'm not writing for Publication when I write my
posts. I'm writing for those who've been reading
all along [15+ 'years', or continuous portions
I'm just working to 'touch' folks abilities to com-
prehend, a little bit here, and a little bit there, in the
Hope, that, if only I don't 'quit', the 'pieces' will
gradually come-together in folks' minds - a 'piece'
here, and a 'piece' there, becoming something that
'attracts' folks' further interests.
It's rather like fitting-together a big jigsaw pussle,
only the 'table' that the 'pieces' are spread-out on
is distributed among the nervous systems involved.
That's why I routinely comment in other threads -
in efforts to 'trigger' "TD E/I-minimization" [AoK]
with respect to NDT's stuff, within stuff in which
others are both 'familiar' and 'interested'.
Verbal pointilism :-]
Gradually, the 'big-picture' builds within folks'
> Your continual use of abbreviations confuse the
> material your presenting.
Peter long ago suggested I do a Glossary.
It's a Good idea.
But it 'requires' more than I've got left.
I'm really just holding-on to Life.
In my circumstances, as they have been for
'years', doing anything Formal, with no
'guarantees', =could= Finish me.
I don't want to allow myself to be prematurely
The other thing is 'funny'. Every 'time' I've
tried to do this sort of thing [going back to
the early 90s], the PC I'm working on 'blows-
It's why I dropped-back to doing all of my
Serious work in long-hand. [I'm waiting for
my breezy trailer to burnd-down.]
These comments are my way of saying what
has to be said in a way that Guards Free Will.
Truth, but Truth that can be used-against no one,
other than "me".
I'm =not= working to 'get' anyone.
I'm working to Eliminate the absence-of-under-
standing that has Ravaged Humanity.
I wouldn't have to work in the way that I
do, if I could earn a Living through the work
that I do [which, I understand, is some of why
I've not been allowed to earn a Living through
the work I do - folks 'think' that, if I'm allowed
out of my 'Prison', I'll have nothing better to do
than 'trash' them. Actually, if folks choose not
to Exist, they, literally, do not Exist, as far as
I'm concerned. It's in Guarding Free Will.]
> (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.
My way of doing so is to use simple analogies.
Like the water-and-dam macroscopic 'atom'
analogy of SSW<->UES harmonics.
> 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.
I Agree. But the concepts I discuss are
To do what you say, I could only post a single
msg, over and over again, and, in so doing,
I'd lose the folks who already understand
what's already been discussed.
Those folks are =Precious= to me. I write
for them, offering AoK to any who want
> That is your responsibility as a scientist
> who is presenting your own data... not
The Data that substantiates everything I
discuss has long been in the Published
All I do is 'knit-it-together', and, because
that's what I do, there's always a =lot=
of Data involved [being drawn-together].
> 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.
I always respong, usually in more than
sufficient detail, when anyone posts a reply
asking about an "abbreviation" [and/or any
The biggest part of the 'problem' of such
'terms' is that there just were no words
available that addressed the concepts that
I'm discussing when I use them - because
I Discovered or Invented the concepts,
which, formerly, had no Existence.
Anyway, it's clear that others are taking
care of the translation to Formalism :-|
> Because you attempt integrating concepts
> in theoretical physics and neuroscience,
> you really should explain what you mean
> by certain concepts you evoke.
Please give me =three= 'for-instances'.
[Direct quotes from discussions I've posted.]
> 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 tend, strongly, to only discuss stuff that
was Newly-introduced in my own work [of
course, having to discuss the way that the
work done by others substantiates the New
I really don't want to presume what folks
understand, one way or the other.
If folks want a 'glossary', all they have to
do is post a msg with a bunch of "What is
this?" questions in it.
Then, maybe, I could repost that, period-
ically - like a FAQ.
> 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 fixed)
It's because I'm usually 'watching' TV while
composing my posts :-]
I understand the problem inherent, but it
gets me through the 'day'.
If I don't get through the 'day', there'll be
So I Choose to get-through the 'day'.
And, there's the Bonus in-it of Guarding
Free Will being built-right-into it, as above.
> 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.
The QBASIC[tm] apps that I've posted,
and to which I routinely refer, are 100%
Other than that, the data that underpins
this or that that I discuss is all in the Published
Literature. Basically, all one needs is =Human
Neuroanatomy=, 8th Edition, by Carpenter
& Sutin, 1983.
> (You never provide citation from the work
> of others that support your theory).
I do, but only implicitly. I came to be this way
after some considerable experiencing of folks
'regurgitating' stuff that's in the books, and
'thinking' that that amounted to anything.
If folks want to know what's in the books, the
best way is to get, and study, the books.
The other thing is that, because my own work
has been 'borrowed'-from so profusely, I'm
extremely-'sensitized' to =not= 'borrowing' the
work of others.
> 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).
As far as I'm concerned, all of the above is
taken care of in AoK, which I send, gratis,
to anyone who wants it.
Creativity, curiosity and volition [and much
more] are =nailed= in-it, in a way that will
stand for all 'time' [or until evolutionary
dynamics fundamentally alter the neural
Topology [roughly, the 'neuroanatomy'].
The Physics ["Tapered Harmony"] is nailed-
down in the "Compton Refraction" QBASIC[tm]
> "Arm chair" theorizing is great and I encourage
> you to continue to do this;
Thanks, I'll do so while Life remains in-me.
> but without any real measurable evidence
> to support your concepts, what does
> the reader get at the end of the day?
> Unfortunately nothing.
Only if the reader has not read AoK. [It's
an old MSDOS[tm] hypertext 'book' that
also runs under Windows[tm].
> 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.
Yeah, that's why Science resorts to Experiment.
But NDT's ["Neuroscientific Duality Theory"]
Fundamental position stands Verified. This
Verification can, in fact, be literally =Read=
in the Neuroanatomy.
What AoK actually is is a guide to such Read-
ing of the Verification of NDT that's right-there
in the Neuroanatomy.
> Your dedication to your ideas and concepts
> is something that is actually quite remarkable.
Thank you. Most folks just 'think' I'm 'ill' :-]
> Even in the face of some quite negative
> responses posted by others previously,
There's often more to these than meets the
> 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.
When I use superlatives, they are always
The rest is probably just an 'artifact' of the
fact that I'm usually 'watching' TV while
composing my posts.
> With a few corrections I think many
> more people will be able to appreciate
> your contributions. Continue with your
> work on your theories.
Yeah, I often 'cringe' when I go back to
read my posts. I used to go back and
correct them, but, for a long 'time', have
relied upon folks' understanding of the
stuff I've discussed in this post.
(I apologize for the long response).
I Thank you for it, in its entirety.
ken [k. p. collins]
>>> "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]