Skarekrow's evidence of the spirit

How much the brain is affected by genetic transfer of knowledge is more controversial in humans than other species since humans spend more time in development outside the uterus than other animals. Nature vs nurture.
 
Grayman said:
How much the brain is affected by genetic transfer of knowledge is more controversial in humans than other species since humans spend more time in development outside the uterus than other animals. Nature vs nurture.
Click to expand...

Controversial but not necessarily insignificant.

Edit:
Also is there any particular scientific reason that this subject needs to be anthropocentric?
 
sprinkles said:
Controversial but not necessarily insignificant.

Edit:
Also is there any particular scientific reason that this subject needs to be anthropocentric?
Click to expand...

It gets touchy because then it brings up the issue of homosexuality and those who clearly make their stand that it a choice and not how someone is born.
(though we see it throughout the animal kingdom)
 
Skarekrow said:
It gets touchy because then it brings up the issue of homosexuality and those who clearly make their stand that it a choice and not how someone is born.
(though we see it throughout the animal kingdom)
Click to expand...

Well the thing is, looking just at humans is scientifically problematic. For example what if spirit for some reason doesn't exist in living humans, but could be found in living animals?
 
sprinkles said:
Well the thing is, looking just at humans is scientifically problematic. For example what if spirit for some reason doesn't exist in living humans, but could be found in living animals?
Click to expand...


It has been suggested that there are some humans who are nothing more than bio-robots following their programming…we all are to a certain extent, but the idea was that some people are more cognizant and conscious than others, and that such a person wouldn’t truly have free will, which was the discussion that brought us to this thread in the first place. ;-)
 
Skarekrow said:
It has been suggested that there are some humans who are nothing more than bio-robots following their programming…we all are to a certain extent, but the idea was that some people are more cognizant and conscious than others, and that such a person wouldn’t truly have free will, which was the discussion that brought us to this thread in the first place. ;-)
Click to expand...

Still, it could be useful to look at other species to know what is generally possible, so that if you identify something interesting you know who doesn't have it.
 
sprinkles said:
Controversial but not necessarily insignificant.

Edit:
Also is there any particular scientific reason that this subject needs to be anthropocentric?
Click to expand...

I did say "how much" and not whether we are or not. There are other species as well.

Let me make an example: A baby deer can walk as soon as it is born. No one can claim that it was taught to walk. A human child is born with under developed legs that cannot support the babies weight but as the baby grows and its legs get stronger the mother and father encourage it. Eventually the baby takes a few steps. How much was taught to the baby, how much was learned from watching and through practice, and how much was genetic knowledge? Suppose like deer humans were born with a more developed mind and body. Would they simply take that first step with only a small wobble?
 
Last edited:
just me said:
I must say that clutter is not much different from confusion.
Click to expand...

I can see the reference.

just me said:
I'll not read any of the tales of the scripts, as I am spirit-filled and have no need of causing unrest.
Click to expand...

I suppose if you cannot help but accept everything you read it might be better to read nothing. Personally, I am capable of rejecting things that are clutter.

just me said:
Be cautious what you allow others to place in your minds.
Click to expand...

I have a healthy amount of skepticism so no problem there.

Anyways, being a christian you might find the affects of prayer section to be interesting.
 
Mind you, the things of the spirit are not temporal, but eternal. I'm not trying to run down anything here. I spend my time filling it with the matters of the spirit, but do enjoy the world while I am here. I just feel it difficult to scientifically measure a spirit, if not impossible.

copy"I suppose if you cannot help but accept everything you read it might be better to read nothing."
end of quote

Who do you think you are talking to?
 
just me said:
Who do you think you are talking to?
Click to expand...

I don't understand the relation. Perhaps you can elaborate...?

Your posts are often abstract and the meanings and intentions are hidden by a sense of vague analogies and representations. You inject your wisdom throughout the forum and make every attempt to be subtle and no-domineering in their application. You vagueness seems to be how you do that but it results in uncertainty in meaning and at most it can be understood intuitively.

Determining who you are becomes as uncertain as reading your posts.
 
Last edited:
Grayman said:
How much the brain is affected by genetic transfer of knowledge is more controversial in humans than other species since humans spend more time in development outside the uterus than other animals. Nature vs nurture.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with studies that tackle this for knowledge, but I know the GWAS studies tackle this for personality traits.

This is copied from the lecture slides from my personality psych class:

N > 63,000; tested 6.9 million SNPs
— Extraversion (van den Berg et al. 2015)
- All non-significant
— Neuroticism (de Moor et al. 2014)
- One significant; didn’t replicate
Click to expand...
I didn't want to bother getting the studies, but I'm sure you guys can find them if you want them. They are referenced in the post. If you can't, I can dig for it.


This doesn't say that genetics don't effect personality. Rather, no individual gene effects personality. The infentesimal model, proposed by Fisher, suggests that traits are affected by a large number of variants, and this is intuitive. Twin studies are used to demonstrate approximately what part of our personality is driven by genetics, and Plomin & Caspi, 1999 demonstrated that it is about 50% genetic and about 50% environmental.
 
Last edited:
Skarekrow said:
Yeah, I think we are done with our misunderstanding.

There is replication though for many things such as the above posted link to the meta-analysis of precognitive studies.
Our own military and many militaries around the world have had or maintain PSI programs mainly focused on remote viewing.
But I also recently published an article on my thread some months back (I’ll look for it) taking about harnessing people’s intuitive reaction almost into the realm of precognition (without actually saying it since it was a release by the Navy).

Found it!
http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27025&page=132&p=816490&viewfull=1#post816490
It’s an interesting prospect anyhow.

I would like to read those studies you mention if you find time later, thanks.
Click to expand...

Here's the second one I was thinking of. It's about consciousness as a state of matter:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
I don't understand almost any of it, lol.

I couldn't find the first one though, sorry :(
It was a slide that was extra, so she didn't publish it online
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Evidence for a non-physical power requires searching for a non-physical effect.
Click to expand...

But we shouldn't assume paranormal facts are non-physical. Even the soul isn't non-physical. We should discount those possibilities before talking about non-physical entities. Further, even if these entities are non-physical, we might still tackle questions of these entities by searching for physical effects IF the non-physical entities are not causally closed. If there are causal interactions between the physical things and the non-physical things, then we should be able to notice that :)
 
dogman6126 said:
But we shouldn't assume paranormal facts are non-physical. Even the soul isn't non-physical. We should discount those possibilities before talking about non-physical entities. Further, even if these entities are non-physical, we might still tackle questions of these entities by searching for physical effects IF the non-physical entities are not causally closed. If there are causal interactions between the physical things and the non-physical things, then we should be able to notice that :)
Click to expand...
I don't think we should assume anything, even that paranormal activity is actually anything more than coincidence.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I don't think we should assume anything, even that paranormal activity is actually anything more than coincidence.
Click to expand...

We have to make assumptions to think about the issue...seeing as we are lacking fully compelling evidence. If we assume that something is there, then we can question what that thing might be. Then we might have a better idea of what or where to look for this stuff. We must at some point test our assumptions, but I'm not sure we are there yet.

I personally am very skeptical of paranormal activity. However, given simply the number of similar stories from very different people, then that is compelling evidence that something is going on. It is a pretty unlikely coincidence that so many people will have so many similar stories when they are completely separate. That thing that is going on might be as simple as an artifact of the architecture of our mind, but that in itself is an interesting result.
 
dogman6126 said:
Here's the second one I was thinking of. It's about consciousness as a state of matter:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
I don't understand almost any of it, lol.

I couldn't find the first one though, sorry :(
It was a slide that was extra, so she didn't publish it online
Click to expand...

Thanks!
Hahaha…I saw who the Author was and laughed…of course you didn’t understand it…I sometimes have a hard time understanding him when he is speaking clearly, because some of his thoughts and ideas are so far into the realm of mathematics and quantum physics that you have to pause once in a while and go - WTF did he just say?
Hahaha…funny.
Here…try the video for the same subject and see if it makes more sense -

[video=youtube;MjhEtqhUZkY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MjhEtqhUZkY[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top