🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 13, 1:46 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Sep, 16:13, 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.
>
> Great stuff! What, though, if all it is is a poor line! Double copulas
> are back in season, and fizzics sure ain't your Granny on the phone,
> boyo!
>
> Zook once asked me at what score are people just silly as opposed to
> shilly.
>
> What one finds is that genuinely stoopid people are emotionless,
> crass, ugly and subperior!
>
> So, what is the difference between nonsense and non-sense. Clue:
> Margaret Mead.
> --
> foolsrushin.

I'll tell ya, sock-puppet, it sure is a sad thing when a person has
the intelligence to understand the rim of reality but not the common
sense to put it to practical use or even believe what they understand.
Thats' what I call subperior.