What to do with Brad? (Yet another Brad McFall topic)

YOus dont get it! IT IS NOT WORD PLAY.Temperature decreases overvoltages.
Macrothermodynamics has an acutal biological UPPERLIMIT due to paritions of energy intensitivity and maximul warmbloodness.
Smalhausen DID NOT USE MOLECULAR INFORMATION.
Cornell did not teach the relation of adaptibility to overvoltange potentials.
THE THEORY IS COMPLETE.
Kant reads differnently GIVEN this AS evolutionary theory.
C/E tends to exist THUS MORE THAN E/C.You just dont know.I dont need banishement yous need to lear WHAT IKNOW.This is like WISDOM to me know and WAS ONLY POSSIBLE BY TALKING HERE WITH YOU ALL.If I canT be free then ions wont be either. Liberation and liberty are different. Feyman left earth thinking of Capicitance and I will in thermal currents affecting current density in electroLYSIS of the CELL REINTERPRETED. Dont want to KNOW what I KNOW. DONt but dont blame me. Blame your teachers. I try. OH YEah for RUssian readers the most important info is that overvoltages tend to COMPLETE electrolytic processing (oxidation/reduction).This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-20-2004 09:54 AM

That all I can do when I try to compress FROM a conclusion. Ok, yes the reference to RUSSIAN WORK DOES NEED MORE, explanation, please wait and know that while we did not hear these sounds in Zaire in 86, JUD apparently was able to get these fish to sound off. The lab was the the first to get them to breed. This species came in buckets full.
Page not found | Department of Neurobiology and Behavior
All I got to hear there were catfish. I went there with JDCRAWFORD.I took moust of the comments as positive, but I was concerned with what Percy might have been leaning on(to).This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-20-2004 03:40 PM

I have not one mark on any paper this Fall. I was away in JERSEEY this weekend, and didnt do school work, so this might change this week, but instead I was offered a job there to educate at 200$ a session, people, about herps. I live in NY not NJ.

You mean something that has already been read, graded and returned?Well, I am not taking an "essay" based classes just now and I would have loved to have copies of written material of mine from Cornell from classes such as the Philosophy of Mind, Can Computers Think, and Science and Natural History (forget the name of this class exactly ( I wrote a paper on NORMS OF REACTION) which got me "promoted" into the COLLEGE SCHOLAR PROGRAM). I still have fragements of my application into this program where I described a desire to study downward causation. These works got lost during my period of illegitimacy and frequent movings around the East Coast. I had argued THEN that biology containing a diversity beyond any computer divided class implies that computer scientists will never artifically construct devices supersetable onto biological levels of selection. Now the reading has refined this to a concerned subset of such ontological confidence.I would be happy to WRITE a PHD QUALITY T-H-E-SIS on electrolytic cell division above overvoltage as THE CAUSE of the difference in continuous vs pulse electric fish species approving the probability therein that higher frequency fish have a LARGER supramolecular level of organization seperation in whatever sets of depolarizers/polarizers molecularly are involved. There is a logarithm relation between SVL and frequency in some fish which would CONSTRAIN the covalent bonds revolved inonically( from the electron's perspective) (not the photon as in Einstein's thought). The geographic differences might even become fully explained (SA vs Africa) by phenomenological thermodynamics graph relations but the work would have had to have been completed to see if the difference in process completion falls in clade division bifurcations or not. I do KNOW that Hopkins at CORNELL dismissed my 80s query that IT DOES MATTER how the ions flow (current density) outside the fish as well as in the Knollenorgan if one is to explain the behvaior of the critters. At that time he said THIS thought was Schizophrenic. I now have all the physical information to show that he confused behavior with ecology even if the thesis failed to be defended.No one here is "paying" for this. As you still think there needs to be a position of communication. I AM COMMUNICATING WITH YALL even IF YOU DONT OR CANT RECIPROCATE.

Yes, I am well aware of this difference.I am however not interested in yousall getting to know ME more than my ideas so rather than typing off pages OLD essays of mine from the 80s, I would rather anyone here, find the time, to incorporate this cognition in their own thinking.

Although in VRML there exist some ways to do real-time animation,
although some people developed PROTOS to control the production of time
events routed to interpolator nodes, until now there is no way to
describe historical worlds with time referenced geometries and events in
VRML and no technique to navigate in the time dimension, i.e. to go
into the past or into the future and see how the world looks like and
behave at that specific time.
From time referencing:
http://www.geovrml.org/archive/msg00250.html

It is not that I DONT CARE TO write slowly and accurately ( I had meant to take out the "K" above, but because I AM ALWAYS WILLING to respond ad nasusem, I am tired of not being understood as to the effect of concepts on what is said, so no, I don't have a problem with changes. If you think that by me writing in a different style will enable access of any others(who?) to these ideas, no, I dont think so, not so long as one does not THINK in terms of cardinalsANDordinals when considiering any quantity of biological objects, it wouldnt matter till then. Qualitatively we all have our own hobby horses and I am hoppy that some here do stick around for the inversion.

The issue with understand "biology by brad" is not so much that I can find my posts in many places as it is the failure of urban man to have SEEN what I already saw, in the woods, under water, flying by. Sure I should not be allowed as anyone to simply 'post away' and I was surprsied when this particular thread arose but as I will soon put some geography into the baramin thread it will be clear that even if baramins DO NOT EXIST and some of Croizat over takes creation and biology (I will be still doubting this) the spatial seperation of my material is material nature's fault not my own minds'.
Click for full size imageBecause I was able to envision this. You are supposed to imagine the background grid in the form of a cylinder (not a plane) and this is due only to publication design not reality of the cellular automata behind its construction. Wolfram found what may be the metric behind squamate head shape but the geometry would rather look like the second pic below. If someone wants to give me some recommendation on relative size of pics and formatting suggestions so as not to take to muck bad N witdth I would like the suggestion! (including how many relative to text you would like or not like from me let me know. formated img width to fix page size- The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-16-2004 09:21 PMThis message has been edited by Admin, 01-03-2005 11:14 AM

I could have given you the tail end of the pics but instead it's time for me to leave this thread so I'll leave you with something you will not find ANYWHERE ElSe. You heard it first at EVc/e.

Ah, just you wait. I was given a JAVA class for next semester even though I dont have the prereqs and ought to be in a programmatic postition to use that to figure a simulation of phenomenological thermodyanmics in VRMLHIS
http://www-winfo.uni-siegen.de/.../docs/partVH/concepts.html
story. At least I will be able to write, eventually, about the probably nonacademic x3d divisions like have already negative invasive virtual reality. The top is an attempt to figure the butterfly catastrophe in genetic variability wich seperated out might enable entropy to approach the adaptive landscape IN THE SIMULATION. That is after the new year. God Bless. See you on the other side of the Louis and Clark dropped ball.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-16-2004 09:29 PM

I have been somewhat lacking in making the source attributions prominent. A few times I did post without them and then later put them in. I guess I should never do that. Making a quote box near each pic would be a fine recommendation. As to making a list of points, for each pic, well, I might prefer to leave that to the text itself. I would certainly write much more throughly about something if I knew people were really that interested. Sometimes by saying less I might be able to retain a larger "viewer share" since my words might detract less from what I send visually through. I dont really know. I will try the points"" thing and defintely put the attribution in quote lines or a 'qs' box if that is preferred. Let me know of any other suggested changes,please.I did not like the thumbs all going down the center when I first posted. If there was some way to string 'em along it would reduce the size my posts and enable me "declutter" them to some extent.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-16-2005 04:35 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-16-2005 04:42 PM

No, I have not Buzz.My knowledge is pretty well focused on how to gain an understanding of how to extract energy from organic formations. I read whatever science and philosophy I need to gain information in this respect. The only IQ test was one I took with Carl Zimmer in Jersey. I think he scored higher. I was 129. The thing is is that I think I now understand the difference, between his and my approaches to the field of evolutionary biology. I do not think it is any consequence that we both started out in central Jersey and I went west to Upstate while he stayed "local" at Yale coming back to stay in THE CITY while I continue to go in the direction of Buffalo instead.Neither Carl nor I saw the Hunterdon Plateau differently. I actually saw more of the land and he saw more of the buildings (his Dad was in State government, mine worked for ATT in Manhatten) but the writing of EVOLUTION is reversed compared with the environment outside. Carl simply assumed it was not and let the words of modern scientists speak for themselves. Thus he did not have to worry if the tower of Pizza was in Jersey or was just a joke leaning somewhat one way or the other nonambiguously. I did have to worry because the salamanders found at the top of the crick were not the same ones below the plateau springing forth.Of course we both escaped our Jersey shirt. I stepped up and he over. Carl's PageThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-17-2005 04:00 PM

Well, of course that is what I am working towards. This takes time. Eventually I will be able to "write" less, here, but then I might hear people saying that they want direct conversation rather than reference to other pages, like Para suggested, a downloadable bra-bsm-chat featureD. That would be better. Perhaps that too can be attained beyond the simple use of an external site. I still would like to see the EVC store develop first.

Well that's the question (to me)isnt it?It was always very curious to me why Darwin had placed as much stress on artifical selection to justify natural selectionas he did. Did Wallace or Mendel write like that?? If I assume that Darwin WAS influenced MUCH by Malthus then it is OBVIOUS how one can populationally think from artifical to natural selection.Let's assume that was history.During the so-called "synthesis" period, Mendelism was applied to versions of combined natural and artifical selection that have been supported up to the present day where we have ENDLER et al showing natural selection in nature and Wright concluding his last book on the need to move from theory and lab inferences to environmentally based confirmationing.If by "evolution" we mean simply the defensive attidue that attempts to think from artifical selection to natural selection for any imainged rate of morphological change I would say I AM NOT SUCH an evolutionist. That is the type of evolution that Will Provine for instance holds to (without changing any views as far as I can tell over the past20yrs).I am an evolutionist who thinks MORE like Croizat than Gould (that the Earth and Life evolved together (but I have not decided on the time element explictly))and hence likely more like Wallace and Mendel than Darwin and his Grandfather, perhaphs even more like Lamark or Osborn etc(that is hard to say generally) AND that this view of translation in space and form-making can use artifical selection OF natural selection in a logical arrangment THAT IS CURRENTLY only supported on the ID/Creationist side of the "ledger".You see, if it is historically true that defensive evolution arose from reasoning TO natural selection FROM artifical selection then these "evos" would be prima facie against MY VIEW TO artifical selection FROM natural selection. This is the only explanation I can give for Will Provine's failure to engage me as a student or as a person despite my clear consciousness, interest and knowledge in understanding the reproductive connections of reptiles and amphibians. Carl Zimmer was not this bad.I think evolutionary theory written AFTER the synthesis was too focused to defend against niave creationism that it failed to see how logic itself was not practically structured for its own benefit. There are just not enough mathematically inclined biologists for any serious critical mass to change things even within the outlines I keep trying to scratch over. Some day... some day.I went to college TO BE A PURE EVOLUTIONIST. I am back to PURIFY the APPLIED MATH involved and write an organon where the stochiometetry is suitable to the vision of any possible instructable transition among forms imagined even if some are not as likely as others (creation ex nihilio is not strictly "teachable")and if it turns out that baramins and IC are the only FORMATIONS of the body of descriptive horizons able to retain a larger communicable vision of natural selection of evolutionists artifically selecting clade inertial representations, then evolutionists will be the dinosaurs as man's population increases. I just am not so sure that human population increases will simply reach equilibrium by development of culture without changes in agriculture to biomass productivity where we live off nature artifically selecting prior natural selections.It is this view of applied evolution to a future state of mankind that causes the problem of deciding how to categorize me. If I figure out how to extract energy directly before I write how to test if ecosystem engineering is viable it might be possible to avoid the extreme of restricting the human appetite to nonluxuray items and perhaps development of the world society will sufice to inhibit growth. That seems probabilistically less likely to me, but that is only my educated guess, and we all know these things are only worth the price of a cup of coffee.I hope that answers your question. BEst, Brad.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2005 03:33 PM

YEC it was. and it continues to be more of that than TOE.