🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 13, 6:13 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 9:29 am, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Recapitulation theory, the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
> > is quite conventional. If you decide, however, that phylogeny is
> > causal or, rather, interactive, not only an abstract noun, then you
> > are suggesting that individuals are partly instances of external
> > templates rather than mere 'mechanical' genetic simulacra.
>
> Yes, but the question of "external templates" was one more of mental
> memory rather than of genetic memory although the same principles
> would obviously apply there. The clear indications being the mental or
> radiative alteration of DNA. Right?
>
> > 'Sheldrake goes a step further by arguing that bodily forms and
> > instincts, while expressed through genes, do not have their primary
> > origin in them. Instead, his hypothesis states, the organism develops
> > under the influence of previous similar organisms, by a mechanism he
> > has dubbed morphic resonance'. - Wilkipedia
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake. You will find a decent
> > summary there.
>
> In essence an extension of what I've suggested above. In this case
> he's saying that those "influences" may or may not be reflected in DNA
> chemical structure.
>
> > He thinks that memory is stored not just in every cell in the body but
> > also in reciprocating universal fields, indeed expressed through genes
> > but yet independent of genes, be it that they are, of course,
> > constraining, at least in the short term.
>
> Clearly "SOME" "memory" is retained in genes as each cell contains all
> the information needed to construct the entire body. Whether or not
> ALL personality traits are recorded there remains to be seen.
>
> > Practically, he needs to show, at least, as far as the body itself is
> > concerned that memory is non-local.
>
> Yes he does. Unfortunately most research shows that we have no idea
> what that non-local storage mechanism is nor how to detect it for
> study.
>
> > There is intriguing evidence that if you acquire a donor organ, you
> > may also acquire some of the characteristics of the donor - diet, life
> > style, attitudes, for example. There is quite a bit of perhaps better
> > than ancdotal evidence, for example:
>
> >http://www.med.unc.edu/wellness/main/links/cellular%20memory.htm
>
> Which are interesting stories, but do not shed light upon the question
> of genetic vs radiative storage of such characteristics as the love of
> chicken nuggets and beer.
>
> > He also need to demonstrate, of course, that mind, too, is not merely
> > epiphenomenal but in some sense independent of the body.
>
> > In a number of simple experiments, I belive he has shown this to be
> > the case.
>
> > The Staring Experiment, for example:
>
> > The feeling of being looked at from behind is remarkably common. So is
> > the experience of looking at someone from behind and finding that they
> > turn round. Surveys show that about 90% of the population have
> > personally experienced these phenomena.
>
> However, such data does not exactly show that mind is not
> epiphenominal of the brain, in that as I have suggested, the radiative
> transmissions of "ESP" could indeed originate from the brain. But
> virtually all mystical texts on the other hand suggest otherwise, with
> a separation of mind from body. And that theory immediately raises
> troubling questions of life after death etc. "Near death experiences"
> seem to suggest, however, that epiphenominalogical explanations of
> such experiences are not adequate.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Others can be found at:
>
> >http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/
>
> > Sheldrake is a scientist with a sophisticated knowledge of statistics,
> > conducting elegant yet low-cost experiments.
>
> > I'd add just one little episode. My former business partner (IQ 225),
> > TJ, physicist and chemist, worked as a trouble-shooter for a big
> > electronics company.
>
> > 'One day, walking two overseas colleagues from my lab to the canteen,
> > all of us chatting happily, I found myself looking down on the three
> > of us for a matter of three or four seconds oly, yet it changed my
> > view of the world!'
>
> > I only l learnt of this shortly before his premature death from a
> > wasting disease called inclusion body myositis.
>
> > I asked him what it meant in general, if veridical, though he knew I
> > did not doubt his words. He said: 'You know the answer, John: we'll
> > need a new physics.'
>
> Obviously your former partner hit the nail squarely on the head. Which
> is all the more reason for those well established in the old physics
> to ridicule any movements in a direction toward a new physics. Allow
> me to further suggest that in exactly the same way as your friend's
> "out of body" experience radically changed his viewpoint, the
> experiencing of valid ESP phenomena can be equally as epiphanic an
> experience.
>
> The general argument by "scientists" is that since the phenomena is
> transitory and unreliable it therefore must be imaginary. Obviously
> such a view is nonsense. The point being, that IF one experiences
> information transfers of the ESP type in which the statistical
> probability of that transfer happening by chance is so many orders of
> magnitude beyond credible that extra-cranial radiative transfers
> remain the ONLY reasonable alternative, then it should be obvious to
> anyone with even moderate science training that a "new physics" is
> clearly being pressed upon science.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree! we carried out Work in this area some 10 years ago and
statistically proved that the effect exists. The problem is, Sad to
say, those idiotic entrenched Muppets Some of which call themselves
(scientists )  WOW, You know, those ones who live in ivory towers, who
also don’t happen to like the proverbial boat to be rocked came up
with some completely unbelievable reasons why it was not valid! Yes
there’s a flying PIG!      It was I saw it!!!!!