Humans: Good or Evil?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Does epigenetics have any theoretical relation to morphic resonance?

genetic markers . it'sthe possible restoration of Lamarckian evolution. Forefront of science though , and as such it's a bit premature to hang a theory's hat on.

btw what is morphic resonance?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yeah, yeah...I didn't want to say "round". Who won the match last night, Rotter?

United did (unsuprisingly). Didn't look sharp enough, though.

Originally posted by frogstomp
genetic markers . it'sthe possible restoration of Lamarckian evolution. Forefront of science though , and as such it's a bit premature to hang a theory's hat on.

btw what is morphic resonance?

I don't think I could explain, so here's a link to Rupert Sheldrake.

www.sheldrake.org

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The stars in the link I posted are being formed only 7000 light years away--not too long away even by human standards.

You seem to have a highly geocentric viewpoint. Do you believe that the earth is spherical, or isn't there enough proof?

So is there a laboratory 7000 light years away in which tests can be done?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yeah, yeah...I didn't want to say "round". Who won the match last night, Rotter?

Isn't the earth a spherical obloid?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The stars in the link I posted are being formed only 7000 light years away--not too long away even by human standards.

You seem to have a highly geocentric viewpoint. Do you believe that the earth is spherical, or isn't there enough proof?

Maybe you should ask the question "Is the earth moving?"

C'mon that can't be so hard... It's less than a meter away from most people... Not to speak about something 7000 light years away...

Originally posted by yousers
Psychology studies the brain, the material function of it. That is all that exists beyond the minds doing the studying. The evolution of the brain is perfectly scientific, but the evolution of the mind, conciousness, etc. is not. Psychology and all of science is incapable of studying ideas, concepts, religion, or morality to name a few. You cannot point to the evolution of something that science can't even describe.

Psychology studies far more that the material function of the brain.

Psychology - 1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=psychology

'Mental' refers to the mind. How did you get this idea that psychology does not study the mind?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Does epigenetics have any theoretical relation to morphic resonance?

I get the impression that the concept of morphic resonance might be part of what Valentinus was trying to say, but no,and maybe:
Epigenetic is biological and is they way information is passed to offspring through genome markers without changing the DNA code itself, thereby allowing a species to survive drastic environmental changes long enough for speciation to occur. At least, that's the present work in biology, and it's very promising.

Do you know who's doing this work? Any links to the groups working on it? Or names maybe?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Do you know who's doing this work? Any links to the groups working on it? Or names maybe?

a few sites ,, do ya?

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/plus/sfg/resources/res_epigenetics.shtml

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/thegenome/hg02b002.html

http://www.mcmanweb.com/epigenetics.htm

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-04-049.html

http://www.epigenx.com/epigenetics.htm

http://scienceweek.com/2003/sw030829.htm

http://www.hindu.com/seta/2005/07/28/stories/2005072800041600.htm

and of course there are references to tests here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Psychology studies far more that the material function of the brain.

[b]Psychology - 1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=psychology

'Mental' refers to the mind. How did you get this idea that psychology does not study the mind?[/b]

I have explained it to you twice before. I will be brief - it is impossible for science to have anything meaningful to say about something that is not material, e.g. the mind. That is the nature of science.

Psychologist look at behaviors (observable actions), physical brain activity, etc. to establish patterns and some level of predictability. From this, they attempt to conceptualize what is happening within the brain. Psychology can never, however, answer questions like 'what is the mind' or 'what is morality'. Science cannot tell us what morality is, let alone how it originated.

Originally posted by yousers
I have explained it to you twice before. I will be brief - it is impossible for science to have anything meaningful to say about something that is not material, e.g. the mind. That is the nature of science.

Psychologist look at behaviors (observable actions), physical brain activity, etc. to establish patterns and some level of predictability. From this ...[text shortened]... or 'what is morality'. Science cannot tell us what morality is, let alone how it originated.

So, you're saying that psychologists are liars? Or just really stupid? How about dictionary.com? Is it lying or were the authors just stupid?
What about Wikipedia? Are the authors liars or stupid?

Psychology (Classical Greek: psyche = "soul" or "mind", logos = "study of"😉 is an academic and applied field involving the study of behaviour, mind and thought...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Is an electric or gravitational field material? How about magnetism? These are immaterial things that we only observe through their effects on material things.

Anyone can answer 'what is the mind' or 'what is morality' by either going to a dictionary or making an arbritrary definition of their own.

You may have explained your point several times, but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong and your explanation is flawed.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
So, you're saying that psychologists are liars? Or just really stupid? How about dictionary.com? Is it lying or were the authors just stupid?
What about Wikipedia? Are the authors liars or stupid?

[b]Psychology (Classical Greek: psyche = "soul" or "mind", logos = "study of"😉 is an academic and applied field involving the study of behaviour ...[text shortened]... eral times, but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong and your explanation is flawed.

You, sir, are a fool. You think a definition gives anything the ability to be observed and predicted by science. I pointed out your contradiction to you directly, but you cling to some definitions in a dictionary. All the while, you are incapable of following my logic.

Why don't you explain to me, then, how science, by direct or indirect observation can tell us what the mind is? How can the observer remove himself for objectivity and then discover the essence of himself? What is your scientific explanation of morality?
Where is this evolutionary process of morality that you based your intial claims on?
Or do claim authority from a definition with the word mind in it?

Originally posted by yousers
You, sir, are a fool. You think a definition gives anything the ability to be observed and predicted by science. I pointed out your contradiction to you directly, but you cling to some definitions in a dictionary. All the while, you are ...[text shortened]...
Or do claim authority from a definition with the word mind in it?

Only a fool would try to short-circuit a scientific pursuit of knowlege with " It can't be done" unless they had more than just words to back that up. ATY's stance is not doing that, quite the opposite, in fact.

Originally posted by yousers
You, sir, are a fool. You think a definition gives anything the ability to be observed and predicted by science. I pointed out your contradiction to you directly, but you cling to some definitions in a dictionary. All the while, you are incapable of following my logic.

Why don't you explain to me, then, how science, by direct or indirect observation c ...[text shortened]... based your intial claims on?
Or do claim authority from a definition with the word mind in it?

I've already demonstrated that immaterial things can be studied by science. I've shown that psychology is the science of the mind, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Here's another relevant quote:

Psychology does not necessarily refer to the brain or nervous system and can be framed purely in terms of phenomenological or information processing theories of mind. Increasingly, though, an understanding of brain function is being included in psychological theory and practice...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

You seem to have this bizaare idea that the immaterial cannot be studied through science. You seem to have pulled this concept directly out of your butt. You haven't pointed out any contradiction of mine.

You claimed on page 10 that

Science has absolutely nothing to say about morality;

Well, I opened up my psych textbook from community college and went to the index. Guess what? Moral Development is on pages 111-113. Apparently, you disagree with psychologists. For some reason you refuse to address this fact.

You're a fool if you think I am a fool. You're pompous and you refuse to address my challenges to your "logic".

Why don't you explain to me, then, how science, by direct or indirect observation can tell us what the mind is?

Science does not tell us "what the mind is" any more than it tells us "what a rock is" or "what a potato is". These words get defined, and once the word is defined, scientists can study that which the words are referring to. Science is not a process in which we define words.

How can the observer remove himself for objectivity and then discover the essence of himself?

"The essence of himself"? What the heck does that mean?

You're hostile and you don't bother to try to understand my points, so I won't waste any more time on your idiocy. If you'd like to talk with me and try to understand what I am talking about I'd be happy to talk with you. If you feel I am the same way with respect to your position, that I am not understanding a legitimate point of yours, then I'd honestly like to try. For starters, why do you think the immaterial cannot be studied by science in light of the examples of immaterial things that are heavily studied by science I've given?