Explain this SERENDIPITY and these COINCIDENCES?
john at faraway.com
Fri Jul 25 00:50:47 EST 2003
I didn't say 24 hour circadian cycles, there are circadian cycles but they
are not entrained to 24 hours, just slightly off strangely enough. So read
some research and appreciate that circadian clocks do exist in humans and
these have sometimes profound effects on physiology. For example, drug
administration at specific points in circadian time can have very
significant effects on side effects and efficacy. Circadian cycles are
definitely not random. Do some searches on Per, Clock, Bmal, genes. Note the
title "Clock gene". Suggest something to you? And understand that circadians
are something quite different from the sleep\wake cycle. Circadians
influence everything from heat shock proteins to growth factors. Never rely
on a single study. Go to Scirus.com and do a search on circadian cycles and
humans, then you'll start to see what is going on. But be warned, this is a
dizzyling complex subject and no-one is claiming to understand it all.
Semantics is the last refuge of the desperate. Scientists in the field use
the phrase "circadian cycles" repeatedly, but then "The Sage" knows better.
Read, "Feet of Clay" by Anthony Storr, then you'll learn something about the
psychology of those who set themselves up as sages and gurus. You fit the
bill rather well.
As far as I'm concerned "conscious" and "unconscious" classifications are
misleading. Some things we can be conscious of some of the time but not most
of the time. People have demonstrated that they can alter their autonomic
nervous system, this is documented. I'm not interested in such
classifications, they only cloud the issue.
Sages and gurus, they all claim to be all knowing, never admit error, and
are usually on a crusade (like your webpage). You are a pup nipping at the
heels of a wolf. Now go away boy you bother me.
johnYYYcoe at tpg.com.au
remove YYY in reply
"The_Sage" <theeSage at azrmci.net> wrote in message
news:78auhvko22fndkir68nr74lmncctgfljs8 at 4ax.com...
> >Reply to article by: "John H." <john at faraway.com>
> >Date written: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:28:31 +1000
> >MsgID:<3f1e2aa9 at dnews.tpgi.com.au>
> >>>>Unconscious has no concept of time? Ever heard of circadian cycles?
> >>>Since when are humans circadias?
> >>>Do you mean to say that you have never heard of circadian cycles?
> >>Haha! You think you are so smart, but I'm about to prove just how
> >>'smart' you really are...
> >>Humans have never demonstrated any 24 hour (circadian) CYCLES but they
> >>do have demonstrated 24 hour RHYTHMS. The difference between a cycle
> >>and rhythm is that a cycle is a mechanical process whereas a rhythm is
> >>when they become accustomed or ADAPT to an external cycle, like the
> >>cycle of sunset/sunrise. In France in the 70's they did experiments on
> >>three men in caves and they didn't demonstrate any circadian cycles.
> >>When scientists attempted to reproduce that experiment using a more
> >>proper sampling size, again, no circadian cycles were demonstrated.
> >>People would just randomly start sleeping and waking at all different
> >>times of the night and day.
> >Not set precisely to 24 hours,
> No one said it had to be precisely 24 hours so stop inventing strawmen
> and face the fact: no circadian cycles have been demonstrated to exist
> in humans. When left to themselves with no alarm clocks and no way to
> know if it is day or night outside, humans sleep and wake at random
> times -- and random is the opposite of CIRCADIAN.
> >you need entrainment, and again you missed my
> >central point. You stated that the unconscious has no concept of time. It
> I got your point exactly, hence the reason I pointed out that nothing
> you covered has anything to do with the unconscious mind but instead
> with the AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM of the BRAIN. Which word didn't you
> understand? Obviously you don't understand what "unconscious mind"
> means because nothing you've covered is even remotely related to the
> unconscious or conscoius mind.
> But as usaul, you are taking a small post and turning it into an
> off-topic mountain. That is your way of trying to dodge and evade the
> original subject, so let me snip the bullshit and get back to that
> topic and see if you answered it or not...
> <Snip the BS>
> >> The odds of getting a royal flush are irrelevant, it is the odds of
> >> your dream causing or predicting that you would get a royal flush,
> >> since the odds of a dream being able to influence reality in this
> >> manner is zero, since no conceiveable way is known that could
> >> explain how dreams cause or would predict that you would get a royal
> >> flush.
> >> From a subjective point of view, synchronicities are paranormal or
> >> magical and therefore not in the realm of science, especially since
> >> there is not one valid, properly documented and publicized case of
> >> someone writing down a dream or foreknowledge of an event way in
> >> advance of the event, and then having the event occur just as the
> >> dream or foreknowledge predicted it would. All we ever have are
> >> after the fact storytales where we have to take somebody at their
> >> word that it happened. Jung was no exception to this. But what is
> >> most significant about synchronicities isn't that they don't exist
> >> outside of our imagination, but that so many people want to pretend
> >> they exist and want to pretend that they are 'special' enough to
> >> have a few here and there. The reason for people wanting this tells
> >> us alot about the psychology of humans.
> >>Now either give an intelligent reply to that this time 'round or just
> >>admit the obvious: that you have nothing intelligent to refute it
> Yep, you took the cowards way out again. There is no such thing as a
> spooky universe except in your poorly thought out imagination.
> The Sage
> My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
> "Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you still
> exist, but you have cease to live" -- Mark Twain
More information about the Neur-sci