PsiPog.net

Science is EvolvingHomeArticlesQ&AArchiveMediaLinksSearch

View topic - Tree communication.

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Tree communication.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Tree communication.
Author Message
Posted on Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:35 pm

Roy

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 416

DemonHunter wrote:
Childs are formed by their surroundings more than adults. Do you agree if i say that if a child accepts ways of thinking from other people, it might come to the point where it thinks the same way or at least to a certain extent? If the three year old child is being formed by it's surroundings
in it's way of thinking, following my logic, this way of thinking could contain "the disease" and infect the child. I don't say that the people that form the child's thinking have to be infected by the disease, or maybe not yet. It's just about the way of thinking.


No, I don't agree that children are formed by their surroundings more than adults. I would posit that development during infancy is determined predominantly by genetics. The temperature in the room, the color of the sky, the words spoken by parents do not make cells divide and structures form. They simply don't make inborn traits manifest. You're also attributing too much intelligence and cognition to an infant. We're talking about someone who hasn't even acquired language yet! They are not comprehending what is told to them, and they barely comprehend what is happening in the world around them.

The fact that you would skip right over genetic makeup as an explanation for disease and go straight for a completely mental explanation for disease, quite frankly, disturbs me. The idea that how we think determines our health is limited to psychosomatic disorders and biofeedback phenomenon. I would really like to see one fucking shred of credible evidence that says a severe disease could possibly manifest because of negative thinking created by a negative environment.

You keep saying that this is "a way of thinking." No, it's a hypothesis that isn't using any logic or evidence to support itself. Some would question if you're thinking at all.

DemonHunter wrote:
My point is that children are more defenseless than adults in every way, but at the same time, they are stronger, too. So it is easier for them to be infected or it's easier for "the disease" to break out faster, but it's easier for them to be cured, too. In my childhood i had very hard diseases, and i had many, but i didn't die and now i'm as healthy as i can be. Adults would often die if they had those diseases i had.


The reason why children are more easily cured is because they're not fully developed yet. They're still "elastic", as it were. When you reach adult maturity, it's all downhill from there in regards to healing and response to medical treatment.

DemonHunter wrote:
I don't mean either that it's the own fault of adults, (or at least not only their fault) who have diseases, that they have the disease. But i believe that they could cure the disease by changing their way of thinking. But not only the way of thinking, the way of being, too. So in fact the way they're feeling too, and the way they deal with those feelings, or with the feelings from other people.


...what!?

DemonHunter wrote:
It's kind of hard to understand this but watch people who have diseases. Watch people who have the same diseases. Sure, they're totally different persons, but there's something similar in their way of acting. There's something similar in the way they deal with their emotions. Sure, you might say it's coincidence or just in those special cases. But if you wanted you could say to everything that happens without a plausible reason that it could be coincidence. But considering coincidence, things get weird, so let's just say it's not a coincidence.


I've been in many hospitals for various reasons and I've seen many sick people. It's pretty obvious why they act the same way.....ummm, it's because....because....THEY'RE ALL SICK!!! And yeah, of course they deal with their emotions in the same way. We all have similar coping mechanisms to deal with ill-health, and therefore, it's definitely not a coincedence.

Look, I know I come off sounding like a real asshole when I respond like this. Believe me, I appreciate the fact that you're thinking about this and you're formulating and trying to put 2 + 2 together, albeit in perhaps a haphazard manner. Most other people don't put forth a similar effort. However, this does not excuse you from common sense!
Back to top
Posted on Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:58 pm

DemonHunter

Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 100

Yeah well i pretty much wrote shit i know. Laughing
I was being amused reading your answer, because you're right. And you didn't sound like an asshole at all responding like this. But the problem is that you didn't get the idea. But i don't blame you. I formulated it very very bad and the idea isn't very well elaborated, too.

So what is there to say...?? I'm a creepy fucking freak who writes shit. Very Happy Laughing The other thing there is to say that the idea still makes sense to me.
I won't explain it anymore due to the lack of my understanding and due to the lack of concentration. But there is still one more thing to say.

The stuff i wrote isn't my opinion or the way i think or something. It isn't also an idea i like to spread because i think it's good. It's simply a consideration how things might be and it comes from other ideas i had. It's a continuation of other thoughts that made sense to me. Still i consider they might be totally or partially wrong. If i wasn't able to point that out before i am very sorry, because the reason for this is only my stupidity.
Back to top
Posted on Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:44 am

infected

Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 104

Quote:
Yeah, go ahead and tell that to all the Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimers, Cerebral Palsy, and Epilepsy sufferers. I'm sure they'll totally agree with you. Especially the ones who develop the disorder as a young child. Have fun.

I may be a poor judge but you must be a very naive person.

My favourite musician has ALS. I read all his journals and he said one time he woke up from a weird dream and he forgot that he's sick. To the moment where he remembered, he could act normally without any limb feelings. Then everything was the same again. It's all in here man *pointing to head*.

I would give anything to cure this man from his suffering, but that's not how the world works. Everybody has to be responsible for his or her own mistakes. Most people can't accept that.

P.S.: I'm really sorry if I upset you with what I wrote (well I'm sure you're going to argue with me on this post too Smile), but it's really just my own opinion about life and the meaning of it, I know it sounds absurd to some, hell it even sounded absurd to me until I felt everything myself. I don't know how I can be certain of all this, but I am. And it's not a 100% feeling, it's a 100*100^10%. If you think that I'm full of shit, ok, fine with me. Just know this: this world is way too simple for a complex being like human to understand fully. First you have to clear all the equations and drops of knowledge from yourself to accept a whole sea of it.
Back to top
Posted on Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:03 pm

Roy

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 416

infected wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, go ahead and tell that to all the Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimers, Cerebral Palsy, and Epilepsy sufferers. I'm sure they'll totally agree with you. Especially the ones who develop the disorder as a young child. Have fun.

I may be a poor judge but you must be a very naive person.

My favourite musician has ALS. I read all his journals and he said one time he woke up from a weird dream and he forgot that he's sick. To the moment where he remembered, he could act normally without any limb feelings. Then everything was the same again. It's all in here man *pointing to head*.

I would give anything to cure this man from his suffering, but that's not how the world works. Everybody has to be responsible for his or her own mistakes. Most people can't accept that.

P.S.: I'm really sorry if I upset you with what I wrote (well I'm sure you're going to argue with me on this post too Smile), but it's really just my own opinion about life and the meaning of it, I know it sounds absurd to some, hell it even sounded absurd to me until I felt everything myself. I don't know how I can be certain of all this, but I am. And it's not a 100% feeling, it's a 100*100^10%. If you think that I'm full of shit, ok, fine with me. Just know this: this world is way too simple for a complex being like human to understand fully. First you have to clear all the equations and drops of knowledge from yourself to accept a whole sea of it.


Lol, yes, I'm the naive one here. What _you_ feel isn't always what is real. Gut intuition isn't always right, especially when it comes to the workings of the human mind, body, and universe. You say I have to drop some knowledge, and I think you should endeavor to acquire some. You may argue that we come from two different perspectivs, which is true, however only one of them can be verified. A lot of hypothesis and theory has been born of "intuition", but it has always been backed up with empirical evidence. This idea of accepting how the universe works by creating explanations that aren't empirically verified will only take you so far, mentally _and_ spiritually.

As for the musician you refer to, that's no evidence for your hypothesis. I've said previously that psychosomatic effects are real and have an effect on the body. You can rid your body of pain and other symptoms just as if you were taking medicine to do so. However, that doesn't go very far in supporting your hypothesis. You're creating a logical gap where there is none. Who's the naive one here, infected?
Back to top
Posted on Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:30 pm

DemonHunter

Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 100

The point is that logic fails at some point, Roy. That's why you can't understand ideas logically that other people suggest you. Maybe you could, i don't doubt that, but the very complex thought complex you might need to establish that would be required is fucking freaky.

What i mean is you can normally understand what a person says or something or get near it by connecting ideas in your head. But sometimes it will be hard to understand ideas that other people try to suggest to you, due to the lack of their own inability to express themselves or due to your own inability to understand them.

Projecting ideas into other people is very common i think. You hear what they say and then your brain brings associatons and ideas, but you don't REALLY understand them.

It's like you said in the post above, that there are two different views of one idea or stituation and both persons who have those views won't want to understand the other side.

My point is that there is a gap between emotion and logic. Logic can't comprehend emotion and the other way round.

I think that you try to view it with logic but my view of the stuff i wrote is more than a general impression or feeling but still it makes sense to me considering it logically. So what you're saying is "get some knowledge". I say jump over the knowledge but not ignore it. Try to see it as it is and not build a thought house around it.

I still don't say that my idea is right. But i say that using those pseudo logics it is hard to understand ideas that are that weird, but still possibly true. Who knows. We're in a Forum about Psionics. Wink

If you want i lay down before you my real perspective. It is that emotions are energy. Once you can control the emotions you can control the energy, so you can control everything. But there's no need to control.
You might say now that i talk complete bull shit. But i say i don't. I thought a lot about it and figured a lot out before i came to that conclusion. Still i don't want to say you that you should believe that because it's good or something. It's just that if you really want to understand, you need to find out for yourself and this fucking empirical evidence against intuition is still made up by other people. They might be wrong or deluded.

Well things are getting weird. I stop writing now. Smile
Back to top
Posted on Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:06 pm

Roy

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 416

DemonHunter wrote:
The point is that logic fails at some point, Roy. That's why you can't understand ideas logically that other people suggest you. Maybe you could, i don't doubt that, but the very complex thought complex you might need to establish that would be required is fucking freaky.

What i mean is you can normally understand what a person says or something or get near it by connecting ideas in your head. But sometimes it will be hard to understand ideas that other people try to suggest to you, due to the lack of their own inability to express themselves or due to your own inability to understand them.

Projecting ideas into other people is very common i think. You hear what they say and then your brain brings associatons and ideas, but you don't REALLY understand them.

It's like you said in the post above, that there are two different views of one idea or stituation and both persons who have those views won't want to understand the other side.

My point is that there is a gap between emotion and logic. Logic can't comprehend emotion and the other way round.

I think that you try to view it with logic but my view of the stuff i wrote is more than a general impression or feeling but still it makes sense to me considering it logically. So what you're saying is "get some knowledge". I say jump over the knowledge but not ignore it. Try to see it as it is and not build a thought house around it.

I still don't say that my idea is right. But i say that using those pseudo logics it is hard to understand ideas that are that weird, but still possibly true. Who knows. We're in a Forum about Psionics. Wink

If you want i lay down before you my real perspective. It is that emotions are energy. Once you can control the emotions you can control the energy, so you can control everything. But there's no need to control.
You might say now that i talk complete bull shit. But i say i don't. I thought a lot about it and figured a lot out before i came to that conclusion. Still i don't want to say you that you should believe that because it's good or something. It's just that if you really want to understand, you need to find out for yourself and this fucking empirical evidence against intuition is still made up by other people. They might be wrong or deluded.

Well things are getting weird. I stop writing now. Smile


I'd like to know how exactly logic fails? Of course logic fails when you try to analzye something from a non-logical perspective...that would be stating the obvious. However, when you do so, you do retain a coherent thought process that holds together by association that are evidenced, or shown, to be associated. The so-called "complex thought" that's required to understand another person's incoherent ranting is another thought complex of incoherent ranting.

Of course sometimes it is hard to express ideas and understand them when they go from person to person, but that is why there is logic! It creates a systemized, coherent, easily expressed, and easily acquired system of idea conveyance. You cannot reject this simply because your personally held beliefs don't jive with another person. You can try to frame your thoughts or beliefs with logic to make it coherent for another person, but unless you attempt to do so, it's all nonsense.

I'm not seeing any solid refutation of what I propose. All I see is you haphazardly trying to distinguish vague notions of "logic" from "emotion" with no concrete application of either. It's just a haze of "emotions are this" and "I feel that", without any regard to verifiability. Just because you "feel" like something works one way doesn't mean that it does. I don't care how much you quote "emotional knowledge", or "emotional logic", or "personal knowledge", but eventually you will have to call a spade a spade; it's hypothesis without evidence.
Back to top
Posted on Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:40 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

I agree with Roy about this. However, I also strongly believe one day, logic will fail. What used to be logical will then seem like a shell, and the illogical will be the true reality. We are simply much too far from understanding the illogical. For now....
Back to top
Posted on Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:05 pm

freakinrican626

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 514

Quote:
No, I don't agree that children are formed by their surroundings more than adults. I would posit that development during infancy is determined predominantly by genetics. The temperature in the room, the color of the sky, the words spoken by parents do not make cells divide and structures form. They simply don't make inborn traits manifest. You're also attributing too much intelligence and cognition to an infant. We're talking about someone who hasn't even acquired language yet! They are not comprehending what is told to them, and they barely comprehend what is happening in the world around them.


What about peer pressure? Speaking from personal experience and what I've seen through others peers play an extremely heavy role on development of personality (this of course varies from individual to individual.)

In my opinion I think genetics and environment play equally important roles; you can inherit bipolar and other mental traits but you aren't born already knowing a particular kind of slang.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:19 am

Roy

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 416

freakinrican626 wrote:
Quote:
No, I don't agree that children are formed by their surroundings more than adults. I would posit that development during infancy is determined predominantly by genetics. The temperature in the room, the color of the sky, the words spoken by parents do not make cells divide and structures form. They simply don't make inborn traits manifest. You're also attributing too much intelligence and cognition to an infant. We're talking about someone who hasn't even acquired language yet! They are not comprehending what is told to them, and they barely comprehend what is happening in the world around them.


What about peer pressure? Speaking from personal experience and what I've seen through others peers play an extremely heavy role on development of personality (this of course varies from individual to individual.)

In my opinion I think genetics and environment play equally important roles; you can inherit bipolar and other mental traits but you aren't born already knowing a particular kind of slang.


Yes...peer pressure....from other infants. Please re-read what I wrote.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:50 am

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

While we're on the subject of immortality, here's a little interview with a Aubrey de Grey studying how to prevent aging.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q2M8SPg4iM

And another, more in-depth, interview with the same guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caAjI5JO_Pw&mode=related&search=

Apparently (like I stated before), the normal human metabolism creates an excess of seven basic things that weaken us as time goes on.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:37 pm

freakinrican626

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 514

I was refering to the subject in general. I know your post talks about infants.
Even though peer pressure won't be something infants would normally experience, that doesn't mean the environment around them wouldn't affect them in some way.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:52 am

Roy

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 416

freakinrican626 wrote:
I was refering to the subject in general. I know your post talks about infants.
Even though peer pressure won't be something infants would normally experience, that doesn't mean the environment around them wouldn't affect them in some way.


And I never said that it didn't. I said their genetics, in that stage of their life, would predominantly affect their development.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:55 pm

freakinrican626

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 514

hmmmmm well since i don't study genetics and im not too sure about the topic im not going to respond because i don't know what personality traits are passed on by genes. like i said before, i know that having certain personality disorders like bipolar and the like are transmittable through genes, but i dont know if other kinds of personality traits are passed down. so i dont know if genes are the ONLY thing that affect infants.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:01 pm

UltimaRage

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 146

I'd say it's 50/50. I've seen many of my friends who were cool people in the past, but hanging out with the wrong groups of people turned them into bad people. You can't argue that, well you could, and say it's 100% genetic, since I knew how they were before, complete oppisites of how they were. I think it's half genetics, half people around them / enviroment / whatever.
Back to top
Posted on Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:06 am

DemonHunter

Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 100

Roy maybe to explain you my idea in the way you liked it would be way too complicated. I cant state you the idea with logic because i would have to
write a lot more than i did in the post above. If you say then you dont take in consideration my idea and consider it insane i do the same with yours.
Well whatever...i dont know how it works. I think its what you make out of it.
It could be too that it is all by genetics and you dont have any influence. This would be equalized by having no free will at all.

Greetings
Back to top

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Tree communication.