Thinking without language?
kpaulc at earthlink.net
Tue Nov 23 11:23:35 EST 1999
i agree with your delimited (taken-to-extrema) statement. it's 'just' that
the wrold is not, inherently, so-delimited.
in the position i'm discussing, taken to an extreme, the conditions in which
a Mother-to-be exists, for instance, can impinge upon "_all_ DNA"
energy-transformations, with ramifications that're deleterious within whole
as an Infant grows to maturity, gaining 'autonomy', the person becomes more
and more able to choose in ways that determine more and more what energy
transformations will occur within its DNA (through drug use, and other
'reckless' behavior). of course, a lot of such choices are equivalent to
"planting a rose bush where there's no light", and all's lost, but it's
still as i've discussed.
it's just good to recognize such Truth, and carry such recognition forward
through decision-making processes... "an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure" (invest in Loving the Children, not "prisons").
it's 'just' wrong that folks're left 'blind' with respect to these sorts of
things. Societal choice, which perpetuates individual 'blindness', is 'just'
so much 'moving away from' Truth.
Please Forgive me, Dag, for 'mining the Treasure' inherent.
cheers, ken (K. P. Collins)
dag.stenberg at helsinki.nospam.fi wrote:
> In bionet.neuroscience kenneth Collins <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > sorry, Dag, it's subtle, but i disagree.
> > via learning, born of experience, behavior selects environmental stuff
> > that gets right down into the realm of DNA's energy-transformations.
> I do not contest that environment may influence the expression of genes,
> nor that environment may let some individual's genes survive and thus
> select DNA. At the level of the single living individual, however, it is
> not true that _all_ DNA functions can be dynamically configured.
> Dag Stenberg
More information about the Neur-sci