IUBio

mind/soul

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Mon Nov 2 23:25:38 EST 1998


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?

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

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),

He replies:

>
>Just the very term reared is ugly.
>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?
or is he confused by a term in a language not his native language?  Or
is this an example of schizophrenic loose association?  Normal people
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.   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...

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.

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
"control"??)

F. LeFever

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



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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