The Autonomy of the mind/body ~ justification needed.

DNA does not come from anywhere. It is here on this planet. It mutates, circulates, follows certain heritage, splits as new species, preserve its species, depending on environmental conditions. And necessarily "changes"...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what are you saying about our "common" ancestor?

where did he get his DNA from? In your opinion

now that's dreaming

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Basically the threads question asked is to
Explain the incredible commonality of the human form. The incredible homogeny between people regarding meaning, feelings, instinctive rections and intuitive behaviours and add to tht list the phsyical attributes of the brain and bodilly structures in a way that makes sense on the presumption of total autonomy. [ this does not mean communication but more the way we use that communication] with out having to resort to some other means of connectivity as suggested by psychic activity etc etc....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

again too roo catch ya later

 

It depends where you put your time? Because this "we" may include all apes, or this "we" may include all "mammals", etc.

I have an evolutionary "opinion" if you like; and like everything else, DNA also comes from its own history... DNA was also emerged as a result of earlier primitive life forms, RNA type nucleic acid combinations. If you follow this method (what come from what) we can go back to Big Bang where life or DNA was totally irrelevant in this universe yet.

 

I think you are after a support for your "psychic activity" type of theory. Obviously nothing we have discussed makes any contribution for your quest. Maybe you should first define the borders, meaning and commonality elements between humans, then people can make some contribution accordingly...

 

I think what might help is if you quote original material asserting autonomy. IOW quotes of people whose position you are expressing skepticism about.

Autonomy (and a term like interconnectedness for that matter) is pretty open ended. But if you had quotes that went into greater detail, it might make it clearer degree.

Also if you were specific about phenomena you think seem exceptions given only the current scientifically accepted forms of connection/information exchange and similarity.

I may be wrong, but I would guess you are working from intuition (that something is missing from the current scientific model.) I think this is valid, however starting a discussing here based on intuition will only get counter intuitions. Oh, I think this is covered by.........(whatever, similar genes, language despite errors, etc.) So we end up with one intuition being responded to by other intuitive assessments.

I hope you don't mind my backseat driving. I will counter D's assertion that there is no evidence of psychic activity. This is not the case. Whether there is sufficient evidence is where the controversy lies.

What would or should lead one to believe that a significant/real process is not being included at this point in the scientifically validated interconnections?

might be another way to word what I am getting at above.

I'll add one other issue. Some people, perhaps most, seem not simply autonomous, but nearly impervious to experience - whatever experience, mundane, psychic.

 

No one presumes total autonomy.
We are not physically autonomous - our physical makeup is inherited from a common source.
We are not mentally autonomous - people communication with each other.

So, what's your point?

 

In the context of "psychic" autonomy as mentioned in the OP what do you think my point is?

 

no, just throwing a discussion topic into the ring for you guys to suss out and enjoy friendly banter over...


As a sub example:
How many people deliberately pray?
What are they actually doing when they pray?
What are they attempting to connect with?

I study human behaviour as do most people and I see quite a few million perhaps billion persons all praying as part of their daily lives. Could this not be seen as an attempt at diminishing a sense of psychic loneliness? How would you interpret this rather common and consistant aspect of human nature throughout history in the context of this topic?

 

If I was launching a formal challenge or article on the subject, yes, I agree with what you are recommending. However if I did I wouldn't be publishing via sciforums or any online forum as the effort would be wasted due to the attitude of many posters as is typical of online forums such as this one.

Granted and agree totally with what you are suggesting. [maybe next time I will prepare a better show of it for sciforums member entertainment.]

From idea to publishing here the time span was approximately 30 minutes. No in depth assessment but merely an idea that no doubt will mature over time.
Generally, current scientific thought fails to take into account the full gamut of what it is positing and feels confident with..IMO

Yes there appears to be much that is missing from the thinking on the subject overall hence this topic poser about autonomy to start the process of greater depth of inquiry.

I am rarely granted support for my most often radical views and I appreciate it even if you feel you are back seat driving, it is much better than driving alone.

Psychic activity is an instinctive and intuitive phenomena that underpins our consciousness as all we observe and are able to observe due to our inherent paranoia of the paranormal is merely the tip of the iceberg so to speak.
Rarely does it fall into the realm of conscious decision making as it's primary function is to support subconsciously, or unconsciously, that decision making and not be a part of that conscious decision making. When it does and the person is ill-equipped he or she normally fails to maintain normal function in society and either becomes a fringe dweller [ such as the Romani - Sinti Gypsy's*, occult wiccans, pagans, card readers and astrologers etc etc ] or ends up undergoing psychiatric care.
After all, one could quite reasonably argue that the evolution of organised/regulated religion was primarlly about creating order in society and where paganism occult etc etc threatened such order, persecution followed.

yes another and perhaps better approach..

When one destroys the ability to be receptive to psychic phenomena by over emphasizing the belief in it's non-existence, emotional and empathic dampening can be experienced, leading to a sort of depressive state and one that is fundamentally unhappy. [ or so I have observed]

Nice post and thanks for the food for thought....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

* I have done some limited research and study into the Romani-Sinti groupings/race and the results are quite amazing when considered agnotically and leaves one impressed at how they as a group/race have managed to survive at all. [ I had to do a memorial web site for the WW2 Holocaust victims [ approx: 500,000 perished in the camps] which is how I became interested in their plight.

I am currently doing research into the flocking habits of birds as well. [ currently fully discounted by science as expected, until you take every frame of a video recording in as part of the assessment process and then it becomes obvious that psychic connectivity is occuring...but as yet to be substantiated fully - too busy trying to earn an income to devote too much time to it.]

 

I think your point is that the shared characteristics of humans implies some shared connection, and that this must be a psychic connection.

I agree that it implies some shared connection, but not that it must be a psychic connection. I don't know what it is about humans that you think can't be explained by our physical connections and communications.

You keep saying that "total autonomy" is presumed. My point is that you are wrong - "total autonomy" is not presumed. We are connected through communication and physical history.

 

yes I see where the confusion may be...thanks...

In the Op I was actally referring to psychic autonomy [ Psychic communications: ~ that which involves communications(*) by means other than comunciations over distances that would prevent conventional communications.]

(*)Communications being more than just a transfer of information in an intellectual sense but in a full body and intellectual sense combined. Communication of feelings, meaning, heat, desire and energy and so on....

sorry about that....

 

Yes, I do understand what you were referring to. My point still remains.

 

As far as I understand your post your point is that "total autonomy" is not presumed"" and I gather from your last post that this includes psychic communictions. Am I correct?
Are you saying that you believe that "psychic communications" are NOT excluded from our overall commmunications?

 

My position I feel can be best described using the following diagram.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The two small pink circles towards the top of the diagram, can be considered as individual perspectives/observers or any objects of independant matter. aka Quantum Entanglement(*)

The act of communication is one of only information that has no intrinsic value until it is derived by the individual. It is how we derive value from that unconditional information that is in part the subject of this thread.

Psychic connectivity is achieved via the unconscious information emmerging into consciousness via the subconscious [ conditioning etc etc ]

The thing is that information is communicated via the normal senses but it is strictly unconditional until we apply conditionality to it.

This applies to our entire being and not just the intellect.

Just attempting to clarify what conscious communciation means to me. Exceptions: bio chemical exchanges via fluids, foods and other things consumed causing chemiclal reactions such as sexual activity for example. [ which are subjected to conditioning as well ]

*Quantum Entanglement:

~ wiki
and something that may be relevant:

~wiki

Thus conscious psychic communications emmerging from the unconscious can be premised in Quantum theory quite easily.

 

My point remains because "total autonomy" doesn't mean "total psychic autonomy".

So, total autonomy is not presumed - we are connected through communication and physical history, and this seems sufficient to explain human commonalities.

I don't know what it is about humans that you think can't be explained by our physical connections and communications.

This is the same point made by Doreen in the first reply:

You response to that paragraph did not attempt to answer that point. Why do you think that our shared physical history and normal communications are insufficient to explain our commonalities? What specifically do you think a psychic connection adds, and why is such an addition necessary?

 

I'll give it some thought however the fact that those communications such as this post is simply unconditional information only and the meaning of such is derived purely from yourself and not me via the conscious medium.
Unless of course you wish to suggest that you can impart meaning beyond mere information?
If so how do you do that with out some other means beyond just typing unconditional symbols on a screen?

It is true that our memory of meanings is definitely involved but I wonder if that would be sufficient for effective communications.

Any way I will post again later after some thought....

 

You imply that you have no influence on the meaning I derive from your post?

Do you accept that our common understanding of the English language can be explained without recourse to psychic phenomena?

Memory of meanings is clearly insufficient for effective communications - I have memory of meanings in English, but can't communicate effective with a Non-English speaker, for example.

But, it seem obvious that having a shared vocabulary and an available channel (eg a face-to-face meeting in a reasonably quiet place, or access to an online discussion forum) is sufficient for effective communication.

Are you suggesting that two English speakers talking to each other are not communicating?

 

The point I was attempting to suggest was that the uttering of sounds from our mouths imparts no meaning other than sounds from our mouths.
We do of course recognise those sounds as information which is relevant to our particular perspective and then we apply our own meaning to what we have heard using our learned definitions, our remembered meanings and our current constantly changing meanings.

The same applies to all information both conscious and unconsciously experienced.

Trying to nail this issue in concise way has proved quite difficult to phrase and I am still working out how to put it in language to communicate it effectively.