Bloxy's Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 3 01:17:56 EST 1998

In article <71m0k2$do5 at dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>In <71goa3$73q$1 at its.hooked.net> Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes: 
>{in response to this from me:
>By happy coincidence, I was at the NYU Center for Neural Science last
>week, for a talk by Michael Gazzaniga (listed in the NYNG fall
>calendar, bytheway...), in the course of which he showed a series of
>slides of brain MRIs, identical twins paired with each other (side by
>side) and of course looking down the series of paired twins one could
>compare each with unrelated cases.  He flipped through them fairly
>quickly (they not being the main point of the talk), but evenso the
>similarities between each of the identical twin siblings and their
>dissimilarity from others was striking...)
>>Well, on what basis there are ANY dissimilarities then,
>>if DNA is a rigid program for development?
>Perhaps he wrote this impulsively, before reading the rest of what I
>wrote.  Neither I nor any neuroscientist I know would assert that "DNA
>is a rigid program for development", at least not in the sense he seems
>to intend by this statement.  It is at this point A TRUISM to say that
>while the "program" in DNA may be unchanged, it does not "program"
>development--the history of its interaction with ITS environment
>(chiefly other components of the cell and products thereof) "programs"
>it, or should we say the history is the program?

Fine, with this view, we can make some progress, hopefully.
But first, the idea of "DNA is the only thing there is",
and "DNA provides the very program for ..." need to be

You see, it is not even clea WHAT is the program,
who programs what, and what is a cause of what.

We [or rather people in YOUR profession] may observe
certain things and wonder about how amazingly flexible
and powerful it is, but once we start making assertions,
closing the doors, then we are nothing but the superpriests.

First of all, DNA is invloved in a complex process of the
growth of the organism on the PHYSICAL level.
The organism, in itself is merely a container
to facilitate the contained.

This has been understood literally thousands of years ago.

1. Body
2. Mind [that, which is capable of observing the body]
3. Consciousness [that, which is capable of observing the mind]
4. Turia [that, about which nothing can be stated]

This implies, that however amazing the DNA mechanism is,
it is there to merely facilitate the development of the
BODY. That is all.

Furthermore, the very activity of DNA related processes
are subject to various influences, not the least significant
of which is electromagnetic in nature.

It is not even clear at the moment that electromagnetic
processes could be classified as a "primary cause" of sorts.

The intents, the ideas, the thoughts, the laugther are
all subject to fields. You look at something, and you laugh.
DNA is still the same. Nothing has changed.
And you, without even coming to a physical contact with
the other oblect, laught.

If we could only look a little deeper into this single simple
occurance, we would probably learn something, we could never
conceive possible.

>He assumes he has a great insight which the scientific community is
>incapable if and blindly rejects, being naive (ignorant) enough to
>assume that (1) they never had such an insight, or (2) have heard about
>it and fight furiously against it.  Neither is true.  Those working in
>genetics and development SERIOUSLY (clearly this excludes bloxy or
>whomever) devote their lives to understanding the details of this

And the other people dedicate their life just as well.
Do you think the DNA maniac should rule the world
[of ideas]?

>  Perhaps this fellow thinks they should "study"
>development with no reference to DNA at all?

Where did you extract this from?

>I don't know how readers will characterize his response to this next
>statement of mine:
>Obviously (as Ray points out), experience fine tunes even the gross
>shape and size, to say nothing of the shaping beyond neuroimaging (e.g.
>underlying one twin speaking English and another speaking Italian if
>reared apart),

Well, the point here is that it is utterly unclear
what is the PRIMARY "cause" of what.
All you can state is that DNA does work wonders in
terms of generating body.

But all you are talking is body.

Look at jack sarafatti's threads.
Do you understand what he is saying there?
He is taking the modern physics and quantum theory
and expanding it with the concepts of NON-MATERIAL,
precognition, and other wild things of that nature.

Do you thing he is just under delusion of sorts?
Why don't you go and tell him about DNA?

>He replies:
>>Just the very term reared is ugly.

Yes, because it is completely unconscious repetition
of degrading idea.

The idea of rearing comes from animal world.
They just stand in the middle of the field and the
baby just falls out from the rear.
Thus, reared.

As an idea, it is utterly degrading.

>>Just like farting out those children from your output hole.
>>And even the scientists use it.
>>What does it mean - reared?
>What do other readers of this newsgroup think: is he just being cute?

Hey, thats a secret!

>or is he confused by a term in a language not his native language?

Stop laying out the foundation for a guilt trip.

Just state what does it mean reared.
Where did the term come from?
And who uses it in what context?

Then we talk more.

>  Or
>is this an example of schizophrenic loose association?

Oh, mr. suckazoid.
Finally, you are showing me your real face.

Ok, keep sucking.

>  Normal people

Fuck all these "normal" people,
engading in mass destruction of global proportions,
and that are standing on the brink of SELF destruction
at this very moment.

What have these "normal" people produce, but the violence

Look at your idiot box
[the tool for mass programming, you call tv]
What do you see there all day long on all the channels?

Any active neurons on line?

Is ANY of it "normal"?

Come, suck more.

>with a moderate level of education and familiarity with English will
>interpret "reared" in this context as meaning "raised" or "cared for
>during childhood", etc.

Uhu. And the implication is?

Open your sucky mouth, you manipulator and twister
of reality to fit the needs of the fat cat at the
"top" of the food chain.

Tell me the holey sucking truth about the meaning
of life, willya.

What is the root of the word?
Rear is the BACK part of anyting.
Look up your dic-

First of all, do the children come from the back?
Do you educate them by turning your ass toward them?

Where does the term "reared" come from,
but the animal farm?

And you, claiming to be a scientist, use the same
sub-conscious, derogatory terminology, invented
by the sub-morons, while talking about that,
which those of your camp call "the rule of everything".

Can you reconcile it it?
Can you find a SINGLE reason for the term reared
as applied to education and upbringing?

Youe eyes are in front.
Your nose is in front.
Even your pussy is in front.

How do you REAR children?

>   I HOPE it is just a cutesy joke that he
>asssociates to "rear" in the sense of "rear end" and associates further
>to scatalogical implications of this perverse and bizarre
>interpretation, and not a clue as to how his mind works...

"Perverse, bizzare interpretation"?

How does you idiotic CPU work, if you use the concepts
of rear, while ALL the significant work is done from
the front.

Furhtermore, you take this "rear" thing as a significant
point of YOUR argument?

And YOU are talking about "scatalogical implications"?

Why don't you go suck a dead donkey's ass for a change.
May be you can get some education afterall.

>Clearly, something very strange is going on, or else how can one
>account for the vehemence and--what?--projection?--and whatever it is
>that describes the diatribe that follows.

Going on where?

>Another puzzle I leave to other readers: a few lines below, is it a
>mis-spelling (of WHAT intended word??) or is it a neologism, and if the
>latter what does that imply?  i.e. "concure" (clang association with
>F. LeFever

You see, sucker, instead of proving the theory
of "DNA rewls everything", you engaged in destruction
of other individual.

Well, even if that other individual is completely 
insane, what does it help YOUR sucky theory
of fatalistic materialism?

Does it VALIDATE the "DNA is the cause of everything"

>>You see, at the moment, dna is the only thing you see,
>>so, being as blind, as you are, you blame everything
>>on dna, because you just can't feel at rest if you
>>don't know something, as you have no limit to your

What is not clear here?
Can you admit that you don't know the most essential
aspects of the life force?

>>You need to control everything. 
>>You need to concur everything.
>>If something remains unknown, your ego feels hurt,
>>and yet that very unknown is a forever impetus to
>>your very existance.

And what is specifically wrong with that?
Do you comprehend that the known is not a stimuli
or impetus for existence as such?

What is the basis of growth and development?

>>It is not known that drives you, but unknown,
>>you see.
>>Why do you need to know everything?
>>And if you don't know something, can you just admit it?
>>Instead of saying:
>>Yes, we found an amazing mechanism, facilitating
>>growth of the physical body, but the joury is still
>>out as WHAT is the very cause of what,
>>you just come here, and perpetuate the same ideas,
>>we have heard many times already.
>>You refuse to address the blind spots in this
>>"dna is all there is" theory.
>>You fail to comprehend that dna does not explain
>>love, intuition, feeling, creativity and many other things
>>that are on the level of the very essense of it all.

Can you give analysis of this point here?
Or all are you REALLY interested is invalidating Bloxy's?

Hey, good luck, or rather, good lick.

>>And all your talk is not a final judgement on the matter,
>>as you have not even begun to comprehend the most
>>essential aspects of it all.

And that is the holey sucking truth.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list