🚀 go-pugleaf

Benj wrote:
> 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.
> 

Good word!