Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 > " heritage " as human beings to " re-visit " our Earth > and understand it. > When children are harnessed into school chairs or > kept in small rooms I've worked with kids in recreational and afterschool prgram type settings as well as summer camps for over ten years, and the differences between a class siting in plastic chairs and a class sitting on wooden chairs is evident. We make too many mistakes. Hugo _________ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Unknown poster: > > Nowadays, children spend most of their school > days inside, very > >often in buildings with no windows and no natural > light. Foliage in > >view, forget it. Other studies I have seen showed > that artificial > >lighting has a negative effect on these children's A friend of mine who teaches asked me to set up a program to help her class be more rounded and less stuck in a seat all day long. I asked her to do a short 30 to 60 seconds of a simple qigong set with them every morning, first thing, followed by a short 10 second silence. There were a few other things throughout the day, but she noted improvement in mood, concentration, ability to relate to each other constructively and a greater sense of community. The trouble kids lagged a few months behind, butthey developed an ability to be still, calm and receptive. Hugo _________ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 --- marcos <ishk18 wrote: > --- > >knowledge through books etc, but also through a > direct genetic > (or super-conscious)transmission that improves our > ability to > >learn and think. > Hi Jason, interesting, but what is this 'direct > genetic > transmission', do you mean that acquired abilities > are stored > genetically somehow and become part of the genetic > makeup of > humankind? Hey Jason and Marcos. I don't know if this is what Jason was saying, but life wouldn't be possible if we couldn't _both_ damage and improve our DNA. As far as the random mutation that is postulated by the mainstream scientific community, either the term " random mutation " is a misnomer and they've got a cooler idea, or they're wrong. If you want to get a quick look at what something which is randomly mutating looks like, turn to channel one on your tv. White noise is pretty close to the concept of " random " . That's where we'd be if we couldn't modify our genes. Just a thought, Hugo _________ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Great little discussion this one...one i've sort of been having with myself for quite a few years now. One thing to note when considering the lives of our ancestors and most " tribal " groups is that even among hunter-gatherer societies in which people have much less free time to spend philosophising or working out complex mathematical relationships there is almost always at least one person whose sole job it is to remember ALL the old stories of that group, to know ALL of the useful plants and how to prepare and prescribe them for whatever purpose, and to know all the rituals for medicinal or spiritual or whatever purposes. these people are/were the ones who communicated with the spirits and so forth...and because of their special skills these people are often supported and allowed to do their own thing, doing none of the mundane work. this important knowledge has to be passed on in its entirety, so the shaman or doctor or whatever you want to call this person would have to take on one apprentice who showed the aptitude - the ability to remember and organise huge amounts of information and recite it, the ability to enter trances or meditative states and the sensitivity required to perceive the more subtle aspects of existence - " spirits " or " qi " . so we have traditions like this today which date back who knows how many thousands of years. traditions based around spotting and training exceptional minds from a young age in the arts of medicine, memorization of knowledge, understanding and communicating with the natural and spiritual environment, and countless forms of meditation/altered states. i'm thinking into my keyboard here so i don't have a clearly worded point, but i feel that there would have been many, many, many individuals whose genius far surpassed that of albert einstein in the past hundred or so thousand years! (not trying to bring einstein down or anything) ? Simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 --- Hugo Ramiro <subincor escreveu: --- marcos <ishk18 wrote: > --- > >knowledge through books etc, but also through a > direct genetic > (or super-conscious)transmission that improves our > ability to > >learn and think. > Hi Jason, interesting, but what is this 'direct > genetic > transmission', do you mean that acquired abilities > are stored > genetically somehow and become part of the genetic > makeup of > humankind? Hey Jason and Marcos. I don't know if this is what Jason was saying, but life wouldn't be possible if we couldn't _both_ damage and improve our DNA. As far as the random mutation that is postulated by the mainstream scientific community, either the term " random mutation " is a misnomer and they've got a cooler idea, or they're wrong. If you want to get a quick look at what something which is randomly mutating looks like, turn to channel one on your tv. White noise is pretty close to the concept of " random " . That's where we'd be if we couldn't modify our genes. Just a thought, Hugo Hi Hugo, I was asking what Jason meant. Anyway, 'random' is not a good idea evolutionwise, but a good mutation stands the test of natural selection, and the bad ones don't. I didn't get exactly what he meant by 'direct transmission'. Marcos _____ Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 --- wackname <wackname escreveu: Great little discussion this one...one i've sort of been having with myself for quite a few years now. One thing to note when considering the lives of our ancestors and most " tribal " groups is that even among hunter-gatherer societies in which people have much less free time to spend philosophising or working out complex mathematical relationships there is almost always at least one person whose sole job it is to remember ALL the old stories of that group, to know ALL of the useful plants and how to prepare and prescribe them for whatever purpose, and to know all the rituals for medicinal or spiritual or whatever purposes. these people are/were the ones who communicated with the spirits and so forth...and because of their special skills these people are often supported and allowed to do their own thing, doing none of the mundane work. this important knowledge has to be passed on in its entirety, so the shaman or doctor or whatever you want to call this person would have to take on one apprentice who showed the aptitude - the ability to remember and organise huge amounts of information and recite it, the ability to enter trances or meditative states and the sensitivity required to perceive the more subtle aspects of existence - " spirits " or " qi " . so we have traditions like this today which date back who knows how many thousands of years. traditions based around spotting and training exceptional minds from a young age in the arts of medicine, memorization of knowledge, understanding and communicating with the natural and spiritual environment, and countless forms of meditation/altered states. i'm thinking into my keyboard here so i don't have a clearly worded point, but i feel that there would have been many, many, many individuals whose genius far surpassed that of albert einstein in the past hundred or so thousand years! (not trying to bring einstein down or anything) ? Simon Yeap, Can't say they weren't as great or more! There is that 'different kinds of intelligence' thing, someone has great aptitude for math, another for dance, another for commication and socializing, another for fixing everything, and so on...If Einstein had been raised in a hunter-gatherer society, he possibly(if he had the aptitude), would be a good shaman. We can't really measure this, for circumstances differ, but can we say that Fo-Hi(or Fu-Hsi-for example) was not as great or greater a mind than Einstein? Marcos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Hi Simon, > > so we have traditions like this today which date back who knows how > many thousands of years. traditions based around spotting and > training exceptional minds from a young age in the arts of medicine, > memorization of knowledge, understanding and communicating with the > natural and spiritual environment, and countless forms of > meditation/altered states. > Well at last I think I have found a vocation that I can really get into. Any idea where I can apply for a job like this. I live in Chicago. :-) Thanks for the perspective. I really enjoyed it. Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Aha! I knew we would disagree! --- marcos <ishk18 wrote: > idea evolutionwise, but a good mutation stands the > test of > natural selection, and the bad ones don't. This theory of evolution came from people who twisted what Darwin said and themselves had an anti-divine agenda. I.e. they had a clear bias (materialist) and promoted it. There is one fatal flaw in this modern evolution theory and it is termed " irreducible complexity " . The point of it being the only way you can build a car, for example, is by /planning/, not by random mutations of car parts. Why would natural selection select between two identical cars except that one has an axle? The axle is useless, unless you're planning to put wheels on it, plus a driveshaft and a motor. On superficial examination it seems like this might happen, but if one thinks it through carefully and examines living systems at cellular levels, then it is impossible to state that the theory of evolution, as it stands today, is anything but a theory, and not a good one either. I'm out of this discussion, for me the flaw is clear, if anyone has trouble with it, then please trouble yourselves to read, for example, " Darwin's Black Box " by Michael J. Behe. Rupert Sheldrake is also a good source. Anyway, see you! Hugo _________ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Marcos - It was Newton who said that if he had contributed anything of value to science, he had done so " standing on the shoulders of giants " - those scientists before him upon whose contributions he found invaluable to his own great discoveries. - Matt - marcos Chinese Medicine Sunday, October 03, 2004 10:08 PM RE: Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor --- escreveu: --- Matt Bauer <acu.guy wrote: > 150,000-200,000 years ago. Even if we only use the > most conservative 30,000 year time-frame, it means > that people every bit as smart as you and me or even > Einstein, have been living on this earth for 30,000 > years. [Jason] >I really have a hard time believing this one, but I guess it is >all in how >you define intelligence. If you are talking about hunting >buffalo, maybe >yes, but clearly (from our standards) our cognitive function is >much better >than our predecessors, esp 30,000 years ago. To compare such >people to >Einstein is silly, IMO.. Einstein had an advantage. A contemporary scientist(don't remember whom right now- maybe it was Einstein even!), said that he only discovered what he did because he was sitting on the shoulders of the giants who preceded him, who left their knowledge as heritage for later generations. Now, 30.000 years ago, the neurons probably where there(Neanderthals had a brain BIGGER than ours!), but the knowledge of registering and passing down information down the years wasn't that developed, so...Even Einstein wouldn't do much as far as equations go, by himself in a cave, watching the stars and dreaming of time and space. Marcos http://babel.altavista.com/ and adjust accordingly. If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being delivered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hugo Ramiro wrote: <snip> > the differences between a class siting in plastic chairs and a class > sitting on wooden chairs is evident. We make too many mistakes. > Hi Hugo! OK, now you could tell us the differences, if you would . . . <s> Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Hey, Hugo, come back! I was stating the point of view of the E.theory, now, as you pointed out, it is called a theory because IT IS a theory! Now, the discussion of the whole thing(evolution) being due to chance or design is a long one,...I personally prefer the the design theory, but as the other one is more accepted, I discuss its points of view also. Marcos --- Hugo Ramiro <subincor escreveu: Aha! I knew we would disagree! --- marcos <ishk18 wrote: > idea evolutionwise, but a good mutation stands the > test of > natural selection, and the bad ones don't. This theory of evolution came from people who twisted what Darwin said and themselves had an anti-divine agenda. I.e. they had a clear bias (materialist) and promoted it. There is one fatal flaw in this modern evolution theory and it is termed " irreducible complexity " . The point of it being the only way you can build a car, for example, is by /planning/, not by random mutations of car parts. Why would natural selection select between two identical cars except that one has an axle? The axle is useless, unless you're planning to put wheels on it, plus a driveshaft and a motor. On superficial examination it seems like this might happen, but if one thinks it through carefully and examines living systems at cellular levels, then it is impossible to state that the theory of evolution, as it stands today, is anything but a theory, and not a good one either. I'm out of this discussion, for me the flaw is clear, if anyone has trouble with it, then please trouble yourselves to read, for example, " Darwin's Black Box " by Michael J. Behe. Rupert Sheldrake is also a good source. Anyway, see you! Hugo _____ Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 --- Pete Theisen <petet wrote: > > the differences between a class siting in plastic > chairs and a class > > sitting on wooden chairs is evident. We make too > many mistakes. > OK, now you could tell us the differences, if you > would . . . <s> The difference is between staticy and frizzy on the one hand and stable and rooted on the other. Shows in posture and elsewhere too. Also you have more pride when you sit in a real wooden chair. Bye! Hugo _________ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.