|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 27, 2024 18:27:40 GMT
DNA memory would explain it . We pass down traits through genetics why not memories ? Humans, and probably all animals are hard wired to be wary. It is this piece of DNA that triggers feelings mainly related to the presence or absence of actual or perceived danger. In this way the non-logical sensory system (that works at a faster speed than the logical mind) is learning and remembering things about the world and its experiences starting even before the logical brain is formed. In short, AFAICS, we are who we learn to be. Again I disagree, we are who we are programmed to be by our genetic make up. That may make us capable of changing under learning to a full or limited extent but we will probably react to external stimuli according to our programming. It is the Hawks and doves and alpha males and the eternal battle to procreate as often as possible with the least expense to one's own well being. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 27, 2024 20:16:46 GMT
Not sure what you know about frogs. My uncle has a pond, lots of frogs and frogspawn. We wanted some frogs in our pond, so as soon as the frogspawn was laid he gave us some. At this point the spawn is just an egg. A few weeks after being placed in our the spawn hatches, tadpoles emerge, and start to grow into frogs. 3 Months later the tadpoles are becoming fully fledged frogs. As soon as they entered the adult frog stage we started losing a few frogs each night. At the same time my uncle (lives about 250 yards away) starts seeing an influx of "new frogs". Including three of four that had very distinctive markings, and that had previously been in our pond. The egg-stage frogspawn has no learned or programmed behaviour, it is an egg. But the adult stage frog somehow knows how to get from where it is, to where the egg it emerged from was spawned. All The Best to build an adult frog that will behave in a certain way both from external stimulus and its own innate programming. Where? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 27, 2024 20:27:36 GMT
The fertilised egg has all teh information programmed into it to build an adult frog that will behave in a certain way both from external stimulus and its own innate programming. Where? All The Best In the DNA. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 27, 2024 21:38:49 GMT
So Genetic Memory. Thank you for finally, in a roundabout fashion, admitting I was correct. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 28, 2024 8:58:26 GMT
So Genetic Memory. Thank you for finally, in a roundabout fashion, admitting I was correct. All The Best Then I graciously accept your thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 28, 2024 9:13:58 GMT
I remember driving through anglia when i was very young to the seaside, we passed through a village and i said to my parents that i used to live there, i knew it inside out. They of course ignored it, i watched the village dissapear from the back window, i remember thinking i was happy there. There is an article in the Mail about such. Such experiences do seem to be geographically orientated, that we are born into the same areas. Then there is near death experiences, ghosts, spiritualism, clairvoyance, remote viewing.....etc. Is it hard to think there is more? That the human brain, that thunks.....that to poo poo such means that you know it all? You do not. The universe is a huge organism, connected, like the internet. No sparrow falls unnotivced. By god. All those things - remote viewing. ghosts etct ect - if real, suggest we have a model of the universe that is inside out. The primary fact being experience and 'the material world' being a vision or interpretation of that experience. If real, these things would turn everything upside down |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 28, 2024 16:22:41 GMT
I remember driving through anglia when i was very young to the seaside, we passed through a village and i said to my parents that i used to live there, i knew it inside out. They of course ignored it, i watched the village dissapear from the back window, i remember thinking i was happy there. There is an article in the Mail about such. Such experiences do seem to be geographically orientated, that we are born into the same areas. Then there is near death experiences, ghosts, spiritualism, clairvoyance, remote viewing.....etc. Is it hard to think there is more? That the human brain, that thunks.....that to poo poo such means that you know it all? You do not. The universe is a huge organism, connected, like the internet. No sparrow falls unnotivced. By god. All those things - remote viewing. ghosts etct ect - if real, suggest we have a model of the universe that is inside out. The primary fact being experience and 'the material world' being a vision or interpretation of that experience. If real, these things would turn everything upside down Interesting. However, the things that are observable, measurable, repeatable etc tend to conform to the current view of the universe. It would be idiotic in the extreme to turn our view of the universe inside-out based on things that are not observable, measurable or repeatable. Because, if we followed that inside-out world view we simply couldn't have further scientific progress having abandoned the scientific principles of "observable, measurable, repeatable". All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 28, 2024 16:53:04 GMT
All those things - remote viewing. ghosts etct ect - if real, suggest we have a model of the universe that is inside out. The primary fact being experience and 'the material world' being a vision or interpretation of that experience. If real, these things would turn everything upside down Interesting. However, the things that are observable, measurable, repeatable etc tend to conform to the current view of the universe. It would be idiotic in the extreme to turn our view of the universe inside-out based on things that are not observable, measurable or repeatable. I didn't suggest that we should. To be real something would have to be observable, but repeatable suggests you know all variables required. If people could get information they shouldn't have, even if it couldn't be repeated reliably, one hypothesis would be that their consciousness (or consciousness in general) is not limited inside the brain. This would be the 'inside-out' situation i describe. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 29, 2024 13:18:33 GMT
To state that god does not exist is not science ….. Actually, the decision to proclaim the necessity for the existence of a rational, detectable, observable scientifically explicable reason for all things observable but until now attributed to an immortal, invisible, omnipresent, omnipotent supernatural being is EXACTLY the start point for the scientific method…. |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Jun 30, 2024 9:23:45 GMT
Indeed, that our ability to detect and observe is highly likely to be of a primitive nature, thats provable. There are many things on earth and in the heavens that we cannot explain.
But we measure such by using methods that do not do the job, and cannot, and then believe what it tells us.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 30, 2024 10:04:05 GMT
Indeed, that our ability to detect and observe is highly likely to be of a primitive nature, thats provable. There are many things on earth and in the heavens that we cannot explain. But we measure such by using methods that do not do the job, and cannot, and then believe what it tells us. You seem to be under the illusion that John's comments are of the "sky-fairies did it" type. I think you are wrong; I think John's John's comments are of the "once we stopped looking for sky-fairies we started looking for the real causes" type. The Scientific Method does not yet have the answer to everything, and logically it never can until the universe ends; but it is a million orders of magnitude more correct that "an invisible sky-fairy did it". All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 30, 2024 13:33:21 GMT
Indeed, that our ability to detect and observe is highly likely to be of a primitive nature, thats provable. There are many things on earth and in the heavens that we cannot explain. But we measure such by using methods that do not do the job, and cannot, and then believe what it tells us. You seem to be under the illusion that John's comments are of the "sky-fairies did it" type. I think you are wrong; I think John's John's comments are of the "once we stopped looking for sky-fairies we started looking for the real causes" type. The Scientific Method does not yet have the answer to everything, and logically it never can until the universe ends; but it is a million orders of magnitude more correct that "an invisible sky-fairy did it". All The Best That is pretty much it. Society starts with the concept that something divine did it. Science starts with an idea that something far more down to earth may be at play The irony is of course just because the science comes up with an alternative that doesn't need a sky fairy, doesn't mean it wasn't a sky fairy that did it.... |
|
