XPost: alt.dreams.castaneda
From: laura@nospam.me
"Ann" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0411140248420.3428-100000@cicero.local...
>Hi Laura,
>> What's this?
>indeed, what was it:
> ### Slider:
>> Laura (to Ann but responding to Slider's post, go figure):
> ### - lol, don't mess with (sure-shot:) 'Annie Oakley' heh heh
> heh... she'll shoot your buttons off, t' raas :)
>> What's this?
>Now you tell me "what's this", or did you not notice you weren't
>technically replying to my 'questionnaire' but to Slider's
>comprehensive repost thereof who just happened to add too innocent
>lines at the bottom. Of course, in reality you were talking to me all
>the way through, but with that awkward question at the very end you
>suddenly hold me accountable for something I did not write. Or was it
>not meant for me, switching back to slider-mode or something
>(subconsciously:).
I suppose I forgot that it had been there in an earlier post, and then I got
confused :-)
>Anyway, now's the time to sincerely thank you for your honest answers
>and quickly return to discussing substance :), in particular I liked
>your sceptical ending so much that I'll use it as an introduction to
>the main talk (on genetics, I'm afraid, "in the search for knowledge"
>still striving to verify the exact nature of 'reality' we and
>micro-biologists are living in now: dream or other:). Here is that nice
>paragraph of yours:
>> Of course I, too, am only human, and therefore I have to be very
>> careful of succumbing to belief. ... Ultimately, nobody knows
>> anything for dead sure. Everything may have an explanation which is
>> not the immediately obvious one.
>{What's left out, collapsed into the dotted ellipses, was something "I
>believe is irrelevant", since I believe that "What I believe is [not]
>irrelevant. Reality is [not] as it is, regardless of what you or anyone
>else believes" or says. Take it as a jest for now.}
Hmm... ok :-)
>Let me first duly appreciate your shrewd observation that there might
>have been some "well-laid traps" along the way of my 'questionnaire
>survey', and to be entirely honest with you you proved a discerning and
>skillful navigator, exceeded my expectations by "very carefully"
>circumventing almost all "traps" (that's why your "What's this?"
>lapse surprised me so).
You really shouldn't take that remark to heart... There was no ulterior
motive.
> There remained only a handful of most stubborn
>beliefs you could not avoid or hide or just chose to "succumb to" :),
>perhaps subconsciously so, although "everything may have an explanation
>which is not the immediately obvious one."
>For example, notice how much of your Logos ('energy', certainty:)
>concentrated on the "A-C-T-G" code remark, while with few exceptions
>preceding items were sort of omitted or just casually answered like the
>witty "Maybe, maybe not." (Which until further notice I'll take for
>'Odds fifty-fifty':). So we jump now immediately to this bone of
>contention.
Well, I thought that maybe you were under the impression that the word
"Gene" was actually an abbreviation of some sort - that the individual
letters stood for something. So I cleared that up.
>> Laura:
>>> Ann:
>>> Dreams just a hippocampal activity consolidating our day
>>> memories/residues.
>>>
>>> However, Jung's Archetypes are real too, and as deeply ingrained
>>> in all of us (and our dreams:) over countless generations.
>>>
>>> And the same with the fundamental physical and functional unit of
>>> heredity, as real as it can get.
>>>
>>> There is this tiny yet all too corporeal information carrier that
>>> ought to convey traits from parent to offspring.
>>>
>>> That is, the four-letter code, the g-e-n-e, is not just an
>>> abstract concept but truly exists in independent reality outside.
>> It's A-C-T-G, actually. Adenine, Cytosine, Thymine, Guanine. DNA has
>> been extensively analyzed, and the way it works is well understood.
>> Pictures can be taken of it, revealing the double-helix structure.
>> It truly exists "in independent reality outside", and anybody who
>> denies that is being silly.
>:) Which leaves one "actually" wonder: who's that "silly anybody who
>denies", is it me, you or somebody else entirely. Though you shouldn't
>worry much, the "silly [remark] was well understood" and received, after
>all I too know first hand how difficult it can be sometimes to tell
>facts from fiction (or simple nature from complex one:). I for example
>choose to not accept without proof, guess we still have the human
>(skeptical:) right to doubt anything we're told. If gurus want us very
>much to believe some thing/word for real (e.g. that fancy objects like
>"black holes" exist; where:), fine, but theirs is the burden of proof,
>their job to convince the uninitiated of their true knowledge or
>righteousness. Which in many important cases may not be as easy as it
>seems, as we both well know :).
>As to our mythical heroes Adenine, Cytosine, Thymine and Guanine,
>thanks for the precious information, so then gene's four letters stand
>for A, C, T and G, felt good to know that fact, yet aren't there still
>four of them, so again the intuition didn't lie to me :). Though
>speaking of gene's reality (the one outside/independent of our
>educated, pre-conditioned minds:) you already know what I'm going to
>say: only personal subjective experiences count with me. Thus in
>general I'll focus on humans ('gene'), leaving the poor rats and other
>'guinea pigs' alone. Alas, often inductively inferential scientists
>prefer instead to "analyze extensively" some tiny, singe cell organisms
>or viruses, and then even generalise, draw bold conclusions from the
>objective evidence. Which to me, I'm afraid, is but evidence, or else
>there's plenty of counter-evidence around the corner waiting to be
>discovered once we start looking for it.
This is true, but they have to work their way up from the bottom like
everyone else :-)
It is, after all, less of a monumental task to figure out how the genetics
of a single-cell organism works than that of a human.
Eventually, they'll do human, and no doubt find that a number of their
assumptions along the way were wrong or only partly true.
Still, they are working from the idea that all life on earth has common
ancestry, and therefore has a large amount of genetics in common. Analyzing
DNA of various animals and humans shows this to be the case, too. We share
80% or more of our genetic code with all other mammals, and some of them we
share almost all of it with.
>To start but from where, I personally prefer to start from "know
>thyself", there could hardly be anything more inspiring (or devastating
>as the case might be:) than a personal 'ET' encounter of a first kind.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
