IUBio

mind/soul (unloved babies, etc.)

Bloxy's Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Sun Nov 1 00:43:23 EST 1998


In article <71gmqv$6pa at sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:

>Well, just for starters, if you mean the poor unloved babies in the
>film which I saw decades ago, as a student (and perhaps eventually
>showed to my own students), I'm not so sure they did get everything
>except love; a significant degree of malnutrition was involved, as
>well.

>If you want to get a look at some exquisitely detailed current research
>oon the effects of early experience/maternal-infant interaction on
>brain fine-grain neurochemical neuroanatomy, see a series of papers by
>Michael Meaney and colleagues (working out of McGill).

What is the conclusion then?
What is at the very root of developement?
DNA or love?

What role does the energy play?
What role does intent play?

What determines what?

You think you solved the puzzle of life?

You see, with conclusions of dna dominance on development
of human intelligence, the next conclusion comes:
"well, if it does work like this in humans,
then why can't we make an artificial "intelligence"
on the same principle?"

The only question would remain:
But where would the giggle of the baby come from?

Where does amazement and amuzement come from?

Who is driving what?
DNA or the very essense of biological intelligence?

Ok, doc supporter of the dominant view,
can you explain the roots of creativity
by DNA?

Is there any evidence that suggests the DNA
activity is NOT affected by the electromagnetic energy?

What is intent?
Is it subject to dna, or dna is subject to intent?

>I am amazed at the vehemence of this fellow's attack on soomething he
>clearly does not understand very well.  Exactly what threat does he
>perceive?

Just stick to the issues at hand.

>Even when someone trying to explain the role of DNA in development
>concedes (as everyone in the scientific community readily admits) that
>the environment is involved, this is perceived as a lie,
>concealing--WHAT???

Concealing your blindness.

>  What on earth do these people imagine?

All sorts of things, if you don't mind.

>Let me put it more strongly: those in the scientific community working
>in genetics and development don't just "concede" a role for
>environment; rather, it is the painstaking moment-by-moment analysis of
>exactly HOW the DNA of the germ plasm and the DNA of somatic cells
>interact with other elements of the internal and external environments
>that is their life's work!

Ok, then WHAT is the cause of what?

>If this hysterical DNA-phobe

Just look at yourself, dr. sux.
Why are YOU getting so excited.
If what you know is ultimate sucking truth,
than why even bother?

> had any understanding at all of how this
>interaction works

And HOW does it werk?
Will you please explain?
Just make sure not to skip any significant issues,
that you yourself don't feel very comfortable with,
cause that would be a scientific dishonesty.

> to alter the signals too which cells and their
>constituents respond,

Now, you claim that DNA alters the very SIGNALS?
And which signals are there?
On what level?
Chemical?
Electric?
Electro magnetic?

> he would not demand to know why cells do not all
>react the same way because they all have the same DNA.

Well, at least you are real not.
At least we succeeded in one thing:
Taking off you plastic smile and a mask of personality.

We can talk now.

Ok, so you are saying that DNA is NOT the ruling element,
are you?

Are you saying here that DNA is just a part of the equasion?

WHAT are you saying here?

Can you exactly outline YOUR own position and understanding
on what rules what and what is the cause of what?

>Over and over again, in this newsgroup, I see ignorant people imagining
>that their special insight is something unique,

And YOUR insight is not even unique, doc.
And yet you claim it IS.

> having not the faintest
>suspicion that others (smarter

Fuck you, dr. sux.

Define smartness first.
Then we talk more.

> and better read

Depends on what you read.
If all your reading is reinforcement of the same dominant
ideology of outdated materialism, than it just does not
account for much.

Are YOU read that well?

So tell me, oh master-bator, do you believe there is
such a thing as multi-dimensional reality?
[to take your mind off of this dead end unprovable
dna rules ideology]

> than they, perhaps older
>as well)

Well, so far, you are just throwing the weight around.
That is not much of a scientific argumentation.
Being read as good, as you claim, your should be able
to stick to the essential elements of your own argument.
[instead of laying a guilt trip on Bloxy]

> have had these same insights, long before, and either accepted
>them as truisms

What bullshit truism are you talking about?
You have not even begun to address the issues of
overriding significance of electromagnetic forces
and fields.

> widely known,

What?
What is significance of electromagnetic forces?

> or elaborated on them and developed them
>further, or rejected them--depending on how the insight held up against
>experience.

What experience are you talking about?
Your very experience is dictated by the ideology
programmed into your stupid cpu.
Didn't you know that?

The experience by itself is not proof of ANYTHING.

>I append the whole pathetic exchange.

Yep, pathetic is true.

But what is YOUR OWN sucky position on this matter?

Can you stop jumping and humping around like a crazed
off communist and get down to business of outlining
YOUR own specific position on the matter?

What do you claim here?

You see, you have not said a single thing to clarify
your own position.

What is it?

>F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>New York Neuropsychology Group

Oh, sure.

Bloxy's is shaking real good now.
[in fear and guilt]

And you call yourself a scientist?
[while being utterly unable to even state your
own position on this sucky matter]

Ok, the rest of your post is retained in its entirety

---------------------- end of input -------------------

>In <71e581$nu0$1 at its.hooked.net> Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes: 

>>In article <3639c986.0 at ns2.wsg.net>, "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net>
>wrote:


>>>Jim Balter wrote in message <36395A34.4F58BF9F at sandpiper.net>...
>>>>Neil Rickert wrote:

>>>>> My disagreement is that you seem to have been making claims which
>>>>> discount the signal energy and put the DNA in charge of
>everything.

>>They deny the very existance of electromagnetic influences,
>>that could be at the very core of it all.

>>The very energy, emanating from the mother is what?

>>This sucky doc, who seem to have forgotten the experiments,
>>going back almost 50 years ago, on babies, not being cared
>>for by the mother, and simply kept in well maintained medical
>>isolation chamber.

>>Now, those babies never got healthy, intelligent, and many
>>other things.

>>And why?
>>You see, dr. sux, they were kept in the best possible medical
>>conditions in the hospital. All they were missing is love
>>of another human being, caring for them.

>>And what happened to these babies.

>>You own these people here, dr. sux, aka ray scanlon,
>>to report the results of those many studies, you old cunt.

>>All your horseshit about DNA is just that, pure horseshit.
>>Stating of obvious, at the very best.

>>>>> However, you are also ignoring other sources of variation during
>the
>>>>> development process, which have effects other than through the
>signal
>>>>> energy and DNA.  For example, how well nourished the child is will
>>>>> also have effects on development, including neural wiring.

>>>>In fact there are cases of identical twins where one has a brain and
>>>>one doesn't.   Scanlon's claim that identical twins have identical
>>>>neural topology is a matter of quasi-religious dogma contrary to
>fact.

>>>Good Lord, did I say that? My mind must be slipping, I will be 77
>next
>>>month! I have never heard of a scientific investigation of the brain
>wiring
>>>of identical twins as opposed to fraternal twins or the population in
>>>general. I would very much like to hear if someone has done it and
>how they
>>>did it.

>>>I do suspect that because of the way in which DNA constructs

>>Utter horseshit.
>>To assert that DNA CONSTRUCTS the body, you must be an utter
>>idiot of a scientist.

>>DNA CONSTRUCTS?

>>And there is nothing beyond the DNA, right?
>>And there is no essense, standing at the very intent
>>of every moment of everybody's life, right?

>>Just a stupid, utterly programmed, completely idiotic
>>building block, that is all there is to it, right?

>>So, what follows from that, dr. sux?

>>>the body that
>>>the brains of identical twins would resemble each other in the same
>way that
>>>hair color, height, and body proportions resemble each other. But
>that is
>>>just idle speculation on my part. I repeat: idle, idle, idle
>speculation.

>>You can mental master-bate here till all yer DNA turns blue.
>>And yet, you won't prove ANYTHING of what you are trying to peddle
>>here with all your purely mechanical system of programmed
>>bio-robotic existance.

>>>In particular, I am not pushing any religious dogma, quasi- or
>otherwise.

>>Pure horseshit.
>>What you have is nothing but a pure religious dogma,
>>and that is why you and the others of your kind were called
>>"new superpriests of the age of corruption".

>>You replaced the religious priest, but you peddle just the
>>same grade of ideas.
>>At least the old priest was a little bit more humble and
>>allow for something greater, than a pure bio-robotic existance.

>>And YOU don't allow ANYTHING, but a completely brainless
>>existance.
>>How can brain develop into anything different, if it is all
>>already prewired?
>>Do you have ANY active neurons on line?
>>Do you realize that what are you peddling here is the lowest
>>grade of fatalism?

>>Russians have been through this problem hundreds of years ago.

>>>The nucleotides in DNA make codons in mRNA and the human body
>results,
>>>teeth, esophagus, and brain. I don't preach it, I just marvel.

>>Not the nucleotides MAKE, but USED [in order to make].

>>>Of course, the environment is part of the equation, I never said or
>thought
>>>otherwise. With a specific person, we may speculate on the relative
>>>importance of DNA versus environment and that too is interesting.

>>Then that invalidates your entire claim, dr. sux.

>>If environment has ANY influence, than the DNA is not the
>>predetermining factor.

>>And if you can not even assert the degree to which "environment",
>>which is a gross oversimplification on the first place,
>>affects the development of life, than on what basis are you
>>going to make a claim that DNA rewls the game?

>>What do you know of ANY significance in development of
>>intelligence?

>>> I do take
>>>exception when people say that the brain is fundamentally different
>from the
>>>pancreas, that DNA does not construct both.

>>>On the question of signal energy. Of course it is important,
>overwhelmingly
>>>so.

>>Sure, dr. sux. It is not even clear at the moment
>>what is the overriding factor in this entire process.
>>You have not outline the exact and specific steps in
>>development of organs.

>>On the fist place, the same DNA is present in ALL various
>>bodily organs. Then how is it possible?
>>If the same DNA has the same program, it should develop
>>one particular organ, and thats it?

>>On what basis certain cells in the body rush toward the wound
>>to save the entire body?
>>If DNA predetermines everything, then ALL cells should rush
>>toward the wound?
>>On what basis there is ANY discrimination or dedication of
>>"responsibilities".

>>And on, and on and on.

>>> The DNA sets up the rules

>>Horseshit of the lowest grade.

>>> for the general wiring and incoming signal
>>>energy alters the fine structure of the brain.

>>That signal energy directly affects the neural structure,
>>controlling vessels, and the rest of it.
>>Your DNA has no chance to even move unless the passages
>>are open.

>>> That's the way it works, is
>>>this preaching?

>>It is NOTHING, but preaching.

>>> Hubel and Wiesel demonstrated this over forty years ago,
>>>it's time we all accepted it.

>>First, you have to report the results of multiple studies
>>on babies, as outlined above.
>>Then you have to report the results of patients being
>>healed by the dogs and cats.

>>And then you have to admit that you know NOTHING.
>>[of which you speak]
>>But the most rudimentary and mechanical aspects
>>of ALL THERE IS.

>>>Ray




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net