Hermann, I have seen quite a few studies on twin cognition and development, though I can't recall any particular one off-hand. So I did a quickie web search, and found a few references. For example, here's a pretty extensive list of publications on old twins (unfortunately, you'd have to go to a library to get these...): http://www.cdhg.psu.edu/octotwin/OCTO-TwinListJune2000.htm Here's another page with lots of references; just load it up and use a "find in page" function in conjunction with the string "cognit". All the references also point to journals, and not web sites: http://www.mep.ki.se/twin/publications_en.html For some online content (these are not exactly scientific papers, rather the media's take on them): http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/whatsnew/pr_049.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981023073445.htm http://www.nih.gov/nia/new/press/oldgenes.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990310053751.htm Here's some reading on a little more professional level: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/plomin.html http://www.apa.org/journals/hea/hea1817.html http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/sec6.html What I have presented is but a very limited glimpse of the magnitude and breadth of research happening in the field of biological psychology. But it should give you enough of an idea... ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 01, 2001).]
Stretch, Regarding the brain and its perceived realities, I've got a little story for you. It's about a dream I had this morning when my alarm clock woke me up. The dream was so bizarre that I still remember it. As I recall, I was trying to persuade cream cheeze to get onto a cracker. The two were bickering about how incompatible they are, and that they had better things to do than listen to my pleas. I was telling them something about them being made for each other, and that I was getting so hungry that if they don't listen I would go and eat something else. Now, if that's a glimpse of afterlife, I'm not sure I want to go there. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Hermann - Well.. a magnetic 'field' is basically just a mathematical abstraction to help us understand the effects of objects. And since the force itself is transmitted through the use of particles, there is really nothing 'intangible' about it, at least, no more so than any given concept, and I'm sure Boris can tell you of the tangibility of thoughts. Boris - Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. Funny dream. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Maybe they just needed counseling.. FyreStar
Hiya Boris He he he ... "to sleep ... perchance to dream" ... next time I want to dream about a lovely vindaloo curry, and wake up and I am awake! He he he … But what do you think the value or point of dreaming is, as per evolutionary value? As Cris pointed out, is dreaming just defragging the old hard drive, or does it have a survival value? Take care
Boris, Thanks for your references, where I read up to now the ones from the internet. I found by myself also a quite interesting article under: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twins/twins1.htm Even "identical" twins (monozygotic), which should be more similar to each other than clones, feel, that they are quite different and reject the idea that they are almost copies of each other. The researchers see the reason for such thinking in the individual environmental development, because it can't be the genes in this case. But generally, you will find between researchers some kind of ping pong game by seeing the source for certain behaviors either in genes or in environment, but nobody considers even the influence of an additional factor (soul), because this is not regarded as serious. Let me ask you two questions regarding NDE. There are quite many reports, where during NDE the people have observed events on other places (outside the hospital), which where witnessed from the involved people afterwards. Would you say, such stories are just lies, because this is impossible? Would you be interested to check the quality of the reports and witnesses by yourself - or is all of that so far out of your thinking, that you would not even like to touch this field?
Hermann, What you are describing is part of what's typically called ESP (extrasensory perception). People claim to have had such experiences during NDEs, but also as a matter of normal life. There are so-called psychics, and "remove-viewers". With respect to all these phenomena, it's hard for me to make a final judgement, mainly because of a lack of systematic descriptions of what goes on. However, I tend to lean very strongly toward a position that such events are explainable in mundane terms. My conviction in this matter is not 100%, and that's why I've stated before that my estimation of the likelihood that computational neuroscience will develop a complete description of human cognition, is close to unity -- but not exact unity. As part of my position, however, I am convinced that the Materialistic approach is the best way to move forward. After all, if it succeeds then there will be nothing further to discuss. On the other hand, if it fails it will in essense write its own death sentence. This very possibility that the approach itself may suffer termination of its own making, was one of the main reasons I have chosen Materialism early in my life, even before I could give it any detailed consideration. It strikes me as a very straightforward and honest way to proceed. I am aware of those accounts you mentioned. The possible explanations I can currently offer include after-the-fact confabulation (perhaps not unlike deja vu), coincidence, and functional sensory perception even while comatose. The latter could account for the patient recounting the conversations and activities that went on around the room while he or she was supposedly clinically dead. Additionally, while such "miraculous" accounts are preserved and publicized, there is no record of how often the NDE accounts are simply wrong and thus disregarded. If we had such statistics, then perhaps it would be possible to make some sort of judgement on how likely it is that NDE ESP is only an observer illusion driven by chance and selective attention. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the purported NDE accounts are reported intact, and that there is not some (perhaps even unintentional) editing or embellishment of the stories when they are matched up with real-world events (such 'innocuous' editing and embellishment, or creation of "false memories" is quite common, and well-studied in the context of crime witnesses trying to recall what they experienced; the recollections can be significantly influenced by after-the-fact knowledge and intentional steering by the interrogator.) False memories do not even have to arise due to after-the-fact knowledge; prior knowledge also plays a powerful influence in how we perceive and interpret events. This could explain the fact that people of various religions tend to report NDEs that include elements of mythology contained in those particular religions. And of course, there is always a possibility that a fraction of NDE accounts are sheer lies, created by the religious subject in an effort to both dismiss their own insecurities and to fit in and be appreciated within their community. Moreover, given the consistency of the knowledge about cognition in absense of any souls, I am very inclined to look for just about any explanation other than that of the soul. This is simply because the idea of souls is so vastly inconsistent with what we already know about the universe, the human body, the human brain and the human mind. ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 02, 2001).]
Boris, I agree with you, that materialism was and is the right approach in all natural sciences. It was important to push this against the strong resistance of churches - otherwise we would not have got this success. It seemed that science had pushed God in a corner, but in my opinion it made God much greater and freed him from the tiny shape to be a man-like controller of everything. Just the churches have been pushed into a corner by sciences. I agree also that materialism is the right approach in neuro-science otherwise we would give up too early in gaining knowledge. Finally only the "pilot question" may stay open. But in all sorts of psychology, I think, researchers should at least consider other factors of influence. Regarding NDE, Raymond Moody was the first to started with and has the most experience. He is also the one who did this research in the most objective way. I think he has at least the same creditability as other researchers e.g. in twin research. Therefore I would recommend his last book, which includes also statistical data: Raymond Moody “The Light Beyond” (Bantam Books) ISBN: 0553278134 (7$) Let me quote just one story of his book at page 171: "On Long Island, a seventy-year-old woman who had been blind since the age of eighteen was able to describe in vivid detail what was happening around her as doctors resuscitated her after a heart attack. Not only could she describe what the instruments used look like, but she could even describe their colors. The most amazing thing about this to me was that most of these instruments weren't even thought of over fifty years ago when she could last see. On the top of all this, she was even able to tell the doctor that he was wearing a blue suit when he began the resuscitation." Boris, I think after all our discussion we should come to a conclusion. In the following I will try to formulate a summary and would ask you, whether you can agree with. Summary: The open question, whether dualism or materialism is the better way for understanding the world must be discussed under different aspects. For the achieved success in science it was absolutely necessary to declare the materialism as the working base against great resistance from religious side. Up to now natural sciences did not find any limit by using this working base. Nevertheless the existence of souls could be neither proved nor disproved by science up to now. There are just lots of arguments from both sides, why a soul should or should not exist. In case individual souls exist and have influence on human life, it would be probably recognized first in fields of psychology, where such kind of influence should be at least considered. In case it can be proved, that individual souls do influence the human life, its working mechanism would be in a today completely unknown way and may just add to the achieved scientific results in neuro-science and related fields. Even when finally the dualism would be regarded as necessary for understanding the overall world scenarios, materialism would probably remain as ideal working base for natural sciences.
Chasing that dog...dreams, ESP, and souls. I still find myself looking for that which makes life. What is it that animates matter? How did inanimate elements of matter organize themselves into a living cell? How did that first spark of life manage reproduction? Talk about the power of myth. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> It's too perfect to be an accident. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif"> ------------------ It's all very large. [This message has been edited by Bowser (edited February 04, 2001).]
Has our science managed to create a living cell from raw materials, or are we still toying with the machinery? ------------------ It's all very large.
Stretch, The function of sleep is still not certain. A proper sleep cycle is critically tied to good health, that much is for sure. However, the functions of sleep are still mysterious and under investigation. Disruption of sleep impacts various cognitive functions to varying degrees, but that does not necessarily mean that sleep is necessary for those functions; it might simply mean that disruption of sleep throws the brain's physiology (which is adapted for sleep) out of balance. Severe sleep deprivation leads to death, but that death seems to occur as a consequence of any number of symptoms (for example, malfunctioning metabolism, broken immune system.) It could be that sleep evolved as a protective mechanism, enabling animals to strongly adapt to day conditions at the expense of night conditions or vice versa, and keeping them safely hidden away during conditions for which they became poorly adapted. That's only one hypothesis among many, but with time we'll figure it out. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Bowser, That "spark" is all around you. That which animates is that same thing which makes the air molecules dance around you at the speed of sound. Matter is not a stagnant thing, it is dynamic -- so much so, that all the dynamism you have ever experienced or ever will, comes from matter. Matter is far more complex than you give it credit for. By the way, lest you harbor any illusions, I can assure you that life did not begin as a magically-assembled modern cell. The cells we see today (even the "simplest" bacteria) are products of over 3 billion years of evolution. Reproduction? Catalysis. Chemically, a catalyst is an entity which facilitates a certain chemical reaction without being used up in the process. There's a million known catalysts out there for all sorts of reactions, but none of them catalyze their own formation. Life probably began as a special, organic, catalyst that catalyzed its own formation (i.e. a self-replicating molecule.) And then this talk of perfection... Pray tell, how much more or less perfect would life be if it were not life as we know it today? As for that artificial cell objection, I wonder what point you are trying to make. That we haven't yet replicated from scratch in a laboratory something as complex as a product of billions of years of evolution? What does that have to do with anything? Then again, what is a creationist objection doing in the middle of discussion concerning souls? As far as I understand, the origin of known life and the nature of human mind have nothing to do with each other. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Hermann, I don't suppose we want to get into discussion of what an objective study consists of, but I can't let you get away with an assertion that any systematic examination of NDEs has occurred to date. For example, the story you cited is what one would call anecdotal evidence. Things would have been different if the woman's performance (not recollected, reconstructed or recounted, but the original) was captured on video tape together with all the relevant context. But enough of that. As for your summary, I would rather put it like this: the theory of souls is already hanging by the neck and choking (rather severely, as I've shown); barring a miracle it will be conclusively dead soon enough (perhaps even within our lifetimes.) You (and many others) are hoping against hope that the last vestige of ground does not vanish from under your feet. While you have a right to hope, I won't be a good Samaritan if I didn't point out to you that your ship is almost completely underwater, and that when it does founder you might find yourself in a very wet situation. You might not be affected as severely as most, as you seem to be a thinking person and you have at least seriously considered the alternative; the landing will not be nearly so soft for the simpleton billions around the globe who blindly follow their dogmatic religions and who had become more dependent on their myths than a heroin addict on tar. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Boris, "Then again, what is a creationist objection doing in the middle of discussion concerning souls? As far as I understand, the origin of known life and the nature of human mind have nothing to do with each other." It's an attempt at identify something which might exist in both small and large organisims. Maybe our souls are one? I dunno, Borris: "That "spark" is all around you. That which animates is that same thing which makes the air molecules dance around you at the speed of sound. Matter is not a stagnant thing, it is dynamic -- so much so, that all the dynamism you have ever experienced or ever will, comes from matter. Matter is far more complex than you give it credit for." I might suggest that life has purpose and intention which you can't find in a rock or any other inanimate object (such as a corpse). "By the way, lest you harbor any illusions, I can assure you that life did not begin as a magically-assembled modern cell. The cells we see today (even the "simplest" bacteria) are products of over 3 billion years of evolution." If it had taken 3 billion years of evolution or seven days of devine creation, is it any less grand. "Reproduction? Catalysis. Chemically, a catalyst is an entity which facilitates a certain chemical reaction without being used up in the process. There's a million known catalysts out there for all sorts of reactions, but none of them catalyze their own formation. Life probably began as a special, organic, catalyst that catalyzed its own formation (i.e. a self-replicating molecule.)" Life has purpose and intent. I don't see that in the process which you describe. You have described, at best, polymer chains. Not life. I do see an interesting parallel or, possibly, a linear evolution in molecular attraction and life consuming life. "And then this talk of perfection... Pray tell, how much more or less perfect would life be if it were not life as we know it today?" Pray tell? <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> We have nothing with which we can compare our life. Life is perfection as we know it. "As for that artificial cell objection, I wonder what point you are trying to make. That we haven't yet replicated from scratch in a laboratory something as complex as a product of billions of years of evolution?" Science is not yet god. The creation of life is beyond our grasp, and so is any conclusive science regarding the existence of "soul." "What does that have to do with anything?" The debate has caused me to search for soul. ------------------ It's all very large.
Hi Boris, I got your point, but I would like to stick with my summary. I think by this we can finish our discussion and let's see, what will happen in future. I will come back to you as soon as I can tell you something really new and essential. I thank you again for all your contributions, which were very informative and helpful. Best regards Hermann
Boris, Thanks for the input. I think I read somewhere that there were some animals, fish or reptiles that do not sleep. I can understand the survival issue here. If you sleep you get eaten! And what about insects? I know that flies land and sit still after dark. Would this be sleep? Would insects dream? To change the subject, have you any knowledge of the so-called reptilian sector of the human brain? Does this indicate an evolutionary pattern that leads to a common ancestor for mammals, reptiles, etc? Or is this purely pseudoscience? I would assume that if all life is made from the same bits and pieces, we all share the old soupy beginning. Is that not humble pie? Take care
Stretch, I do not specialize in sleep, so I have had only a cursory introduction to that field. Maybe you could do some research yourself, and further enlighten the rest of us. But I'll tell you what I can currently recall. Sleep is yet another one of those things that is not universal or monolithic. Different animals experience different modes of cognitive cycles, which may or may not be parallel to what we call sleep in humans. However, as far as I am aware, most if not all animals with a developed central nervous system experience cycles of high and low cognitive activity. Certainly, some animals cannot enter the complete knock-out that humans experience simply due to their physiology -- e.g. some species of sharks must constantly move through the water lest they suffocate. However, I believe they do experience periods of incomplete brain shutdown nevertheless (I'm not sure about this one). There are some curious sleep patterns out there, even among mammals. For example, cetaceans catnap with only half their brain at a time, while the other half stays alert; when the sleeping half awakens the previously alert half goes to sleep; of course there are also periods when both halves are awake. Most insects do sleep, but I doubt they dream -- simply because there doesn't seem to be enough cognitive capacity to recreate rich internal representations of the external world. I did a quickie search to support my uncertain memory, and came up with a better answer than I can provide here: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/minsectsleep.html The brain does reflect gradual change in the course of evolution. As you go from the simplest brains to the more complex, you see a steady progression of form, with some features remaining the same or changing little (except perhaps in size), while some brand new features appear in more sophisticated organisms. We share some of our brain architecture with reptiles, in that our spinal column, brainstem and thalamus are pretty much derived from the reptilian brain (not without alterations, of course.) There's a promising project on the web, which unfortunately is very incomplete at this time, concerning all kinds of comparative and functional information about brains. I expect it to continue developing though, as it has some rather powerful and steady-looking sponsors. Even at its current stage, it's got some nice pictures and movies of brains in it, and even beginnings of rudimentary information about those brains. Find it at: http://brainmuseum.org ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Bowser, Purpose and intent are purely human concepts, and are quite superficial, artificial and imposed. Life in itself has neither purpose nor intent. To wit, a "corpse" may be only partially dead, depending on how old it is. Certain cells in a human body continue to live for weeks or even months after death; examples are well-known and reliable phenomena of corpses growing long hair and nails. And then, of course, there is a simple issue of simple life. For example, a virus has no imaginable purpose or intent; it is merely an assemblage of proteins and RNA that is static most of the time, and all it ever does is to merely exist and reproduce (with help from other life, but being a parasite doesn't detract from the fact that an organism is alive.) Of course, viruses are extreme examples, but they are quite representative of how incompatible fundamental processes underlying life are with our concepts of intent and purpose. Purpose and intent are human concepts, and the fact that you want to impose them upon the processes of life serves merely as an illustration of the human tendency to anthropomorphise the environment. Not exactly polymer chains, but yes indeed life is all about biochemistry, and nothing else. Ultimately, life-as-we-know-it can perhaps be summarised as tightly linked packages of certain organic compounds that use external energy to reproduce and proliferate, and which, through chemical accident and natural selection, evolve and by adjusting their structure across generations for maximally efficient interaction with the environment encode information about the external environment in their heritable structure. Advanced multicellular organisms with central nervous systems are merely a sophisticated outcome of such a process -- but fundamentally, the description I gave holds true for humans just as it does for viruses. We are, in effect, intermediate byproducts in a rather prolonged process through which the universe is encoding its own structure. There is no intrinsic purpose or intent to life, only material processes in a flowing river of information. And so, life is very complex. You could justifiably describe it as "grand" -- perhaps the most complex structures in the universe are those that can be called alive. But Grand Canyon is grand too. Of course, I would hardly expect you to claim that the grandeur of an entity implies a presense of a soul in that entity. Or is that what you are trying to say? Once upon a time, spaceflight was also beyond our grasp. But long before the first rocket reached the ionosphere, scientists had characterized the vacuum and built conceptual frameworks of celestial mechanics. Modern science has given every indication that souls do not exist. I have little doubt that in 100 years there would be "conclusive" resolution on the issue, and I hope I've provided plenty of indication as to which way that resolution is going to go. And if you think that the ability to create new life from scratch makes a god, then I suppose you can safely award yourself that title by birthright, as your descendants will surely claim it. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Please forgive me sir! I had no idea that I had insulted such a coldly rational, master of formulas. If my previous words have caused an emotional chafing, then you have my utmost in apologies, sir. Yes, I have read books. In fact I hit the age of comprehension, in the 2nd grade. I was always told that this is an above average for the public school system. And being that the teacher set up a four scale reading group for the class, was not a problem for me. (r) group #1 being the best, & (r) group #4 being those in the greatest need of remedial help. Such grouping of relative capabilities was & is probably a good idea. But I, along with others, was put into group 4. And I understand that within the first few days of new class, that the teacher must make arbitrary decisions until ((((((more data)))))can be gained about the capabilities of each and every mind to be taught....... .....................................But, it was the "pretty people," who were put into group #1, with the less attractive people (and the quite ones), being put into the subsequent groups..........and I realize that no teacher is perfect. However, I did read college text by the time I hit second grade. And I would add that I understood quite a lot:........science was my first love. Curious mind, o'yes,,,,,,,,always. I drove my father crazy with questions about nature, engineering.....One of the first questions, that I can now recall was "why is the sky blue"?.........hell I don't know, maybe every kid asks this question. My father told me that this was not the first at all...... , But it was one of the first that he told me to answer on my own. And he further stated that when I had found the answer, that I should tell him. (My father was a military nuclear meteorologist at Project Smokey in New Mexico, during the late 1950s.) And yes, he was subjected to irradiation, along with many other servicemen, during this historical time stain of the USA. Why is the sky blue????? ??????? ????? ????? to a curious child??????????? 1) Why is the sky black at night? as) no light 2) Why is the sun yellow? ans) 3) What is lights??????? ans.) 4) Why is it White? ans.) 5) Colors? How bout blue?… And so on and so f........................ At the age of seven, I "jumped" to conclusions (far more than is acceptable with modern science), and told my father the following: a) that I looked at the sun and realized that it is mostly white than (yellow), and b) that I had taken my camping flashlight (with a pretty much white light) and shined it through everything that I could find (including my fingers on my hand), and c) that the white color changed, depending on the substance that I shined it through.....and d) That I had noticed that the sun's white color changed in the evening (dusk), to reddish colors. I remember telling my father that I thought that the white light of the sun was changed by the air that is passed through. I further stated that I believed that the "air" caused the sky to look blue. _ Of course it was somewhat unreachable to me (at this young age) to understand the basis of electromagnetic radiation. I could not grasp, at the time, the concept that this limited universe is made up of patterns_fractal, on this plane of existence,................ That to realize as a child, that a campfire's light is truly caused by the escaping gases from the logs.......................chain reacting.....the heat boiling out the gases from the base carbons////// of the oak.......& that the ignition of the gases were caused and causacial.......that the blue in the campfire gases were inevitably caused by high frequency excitation delivered as a result of the infrared primers.......and o' so the leftovers of carbon.............Carbons & gases>>>>>>>>>>far be it for one to understand that the reason that the wood in the campfire sometimes looked liked wood, then suddenly looked like ash......then back again.......how could an inexperienced one realize that the gas back flow did indeed cause a momentary re infusion of the carbon matrix_ of the oak, and temporarily reform the burning wood ?????? And of course, let us not forget the electromagnetic aspectual of a simple campfire. But all ones peers (in the "professional Sciences," spend more (i) capabilities trying to impress one's peers, than to expend the gray matter on the subject at hand))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))).College English classes are great, don't get me wrong. But consider the gain that one could achieve if (s)he were to devote a little more of the mind in the preferred subject, and less on the "inane""""""""""""<<<<,,,,,,,,!!!!!!87432908243 FREE THOUGHT PEOPLE>>>>>>> From my readings so far, you are not. And that colors______-frequencies of the electromagnetic band, that they may be: nanometers///////in frequency////////and incumbency... O' hell Jehovah, the almighty God..... tell me tell me something I don't know...................Well Boris........I'll try......hell I'll list a few things, respectfully, that is............ .........................................hmmmmmmm........ok 1) Soon, the monitor which you are know looking through.....will be in the form of >>>>>>>>>>wallpaper>>>>>>admittedly a decade old prediction, but mine. But it has been yet to be marketed,,,,,,,so, here goes: a) Soon it will be...........a video monitoring system will be marketed to the buying public..........it will be possible to wallpaper ..the entire interior, as well as exterior of say a house, with a wallpaper type of monitor..........instead of viewing the net from a 15"/17"/26", you will be able to view through any size on a wall in your house.......even on all four walls.........ceiling & floor. Of course the limitations will not be the net. Live in the urban blight? Maybe the simplistic outdoor location of an Ozarks Mtn. man like me, may be able to "sell" a realtime scene to the city dwellers. All four walls & ceiling and floor.....Yeah a little like a hollo deck, .......... don't like the view from inside your apartment, then put this dynamic wallpaper on the six surfaces of your dwelling,,,,and click your apartment into any scenery that you want.....I designed the idea over 15 years ago. Bill Gates has probably already got it!...ANYHOW. I am a pretty good engineer, but truly not a maestro in all subjects. But I get pretty damned bored, when I have pioneered new ground, then to see my ideas mocked.......then stolen at a later date ([I am in the process of shifting into patent law (self preservation)). But of course video wallpaper will fall obsolete to personal headsets. This technology has already be tested and typed, and may well make it to market before "video wallpaper'. ' bio neural headsets" will eventually leave everything else in the past,,,,,,,ANYHOW>>>>> Yes, Boris, I can read quite well, and quite a lot. And I realize that to you, my words seem to have a lack of subjective, conjoined harmony. I make no apologies for this. Communication is a two way street Boris. And I have come to notice over the past 40 years that many a prospective scientist has spent the better (and sometimes best) parts of their minds, trying to orally impress their colleagues, leaving the true desires of studies to the remnants of their minds not devoted to "getting a pat on the back'"...........blind leading the blinder(s)....... Don't get me wrong people, the formulated studies of Newton (my childhood hero), up to and past the works of Hawking........great men.......depth of mind. But don't let formulas and numbers be the end all/be all in science for you. Try to visualize without formulated physics! Take a chance! Don't be afraid to be ridiculed for even your most ridiculous of ideas. Propose, then prove or disprove........... Hell, you may eventually prove the existence of God (or disprove). Just don't make statements that you can't back up! Theories>fine. See, .....scientists prove ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! We are NOT in the business of disproving. . . . . . . (period)...at all! Prove what you can, and limit your statements on those things which cannot be proven (leave other ...such things to the future generations) ! ! ! ! MANY SUBJECTS HIT UPON, I HAVE.........UNDERSTOOD BY SOME ....DESPISED BY OTHERS. >SPEAK NOT INTO THE EARS OF A FOOL, FOR HE WILL DESPISE YOUR WORDS OF WISDOM<.........and too many words to be read already.j/t/a/g......... No Insults Intended Friend, simply an altered thought proposal. COMING SOON::::: LIfe On Venus ! ! ! ! gODAMN, surely you jest..... ANS: Stop calling me Shirley.......
***********Would insects dream? To change the subject, have you any knowledge of the so-called reptilian sector of the human brain**************** I do. Just tune in every night to Bill Maher (Politically Incorrect)...........LOT'S OF REPTILE BRAINS THERE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ABC TELEVISION ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I would have said CNN, but their seem to be cleaning up there sh--- lately....maybe all those hateful emails I sent!!!!!!!na.....
