Religion: a survival mechanism?

Quite logically, yes.Additionally, I believe that mind altering substances provide a sort of a fertilizer that opens the mind up to alteration on a spiritual level. In other words, from a faith/spiritual perspective, I was allowing myself to be possessed.From a strict science perspective, the drugs caused synesthesia between my senses. I "heard" colors and "saw" sounds.This also explains the effects of opiates on the system in that one actually feels outside of ones body and is thus able to deal with the pain from a detached perspective.The addiction is physical and psychological.From a spiritual warfare perspective, we will have to discuss THAT in another thread, Prophex. All that I can say is that I was young and naive. All that I gained was an understanding of how one feels when gripped by drug addiction.I do not think that spirituality is a mere perception caused by dopamine receptor manipulation, but I also believe that there is much that science does not know about an "open" mind.

Bifurcation logical fallacy, but at least it's English. (Sort of)Anyway, what I'm saying is that you haven't tied this into the debate. Until you do, whether I agree, disagree, or even understand is beside the point. And now you're back into your own private language."...that not this view supports which can support..." You're still not writing out the whole thought.
You say, "this style," but leave it undefined -- as though I can use telepathy to figure out which style you're referring to. Thinks which way? (And why is this 'Para' relevant?)
Again, you seem to think that I can read your mind. 'Lack of sentence'?? No definitive answer may be possible, but that doesn't mean that it's silly to look into the issue. We can, for example, determine that no successful meme is detrimental to the survival of the group, as killing off your hosts is not exactly a recipe for success. You never established that you even needed a defense. You made a post that you didn't connect to the topic in any way. Your position is undefined, so there's nothing to attack; hence nothing to defend.
All I can do is attack your manner of 'communication'. Posting free-floating bubbles of disjointed thoughts doesn't allow me to pin down your position, which is a prerequisite for agreeing or disagreeing with said position. Can't you read?
Whether or not the author is well-known has nothing to do with whether the paper you're referencing has been widely read. If you simply want to write your thoughts down, try Microsoft Notepad. Good for you. Nobody else cares. Heh heh. Did you have fun talking to yourself?

Completely irrelevant.We're talking about the survival of the group. When and where a group became reproductively isolated has nothing to do with whether their religion is conducive to the continuation of the genetic material within its group. What group?If you answer that, you have your answer. The group.

Brad is of course referring to our fellow board member Parasomnium.
This is your second warning to quit riding Brad.Be Nice! It is YOU who also need to pay attention. I will admit that Brad is a ramblin man, but he talks of science as if it is his own support group and religion. Please be kind to him while getting your points across. If you want to challenge him to think clearer, do it with love and not sarcasm.

Although I have yet to find out what way of thinking of mine would surprise Brad, before I can even gauche my relevancy to his post, perhaps I should tell you now, 'Dom', that Brad forshortened my moniker.

I'm just showing him to a mirror, and pointing out how he looks to others -- and why.
If he isn't made aware of how others perceive him, he can't tell whether the image he's presenting is the image he wants to project. If he can't tell if the image he's presenting is the image he wants to project, he can't make a determination on whether any changes are needed to align the two.It's just feedback, which is necessary for any sort of correction to take place.
It works no matter what. If he doesn't want to be understood, then my feedback tells him that he doesn't need to change a thing. The image he would want to project is exactly the image he is projecting, so he'd know that he's reached perfection.Feedback is a wonderful thing.
Yours, for example, tells me how you are perceiving me. This post is an attempt to correct that -- not by modifying my behavior, but by attempting to get you to see it in a different way.
If I'm successful, the image that I want to project will be the image that you perceive.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 03-04-2005 09:55 AMThis message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 03-04-2005 09:57 AM

I'm pretty sure that a roundabout approach would get lost in translation.
Hinting that someone has a booger hanging from their nose only works if they can interpret your hints. Coming right out and saying, "Dude, you got a booger comin' outta your nose," is rather hard to misinterpret.

Many here think that Brad has something to say. I'm not one of them. You will not be able to fix anything and it isn't necessary to be nasty.Just ignore him. He doesn't post often enough to be a real nuisance. He is doing the best he can and works hard at this posts. If you don't like them just don't read them.

And thank you for a thoughtful reply. I can see now how you care about Brad and are challenging the old man to take it up a notch! I just wanted you to be nice to him...I like Brad even though he sometimes confuses me also.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now that that is settled, lets refocus on the topic starter: This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-04-2005 08:43 AM

Yes, yes look into it!
One thing you find is that one's notion of genetical continuity, no matter the group(,) is somewhat tied, to the one's feelings about the recent history of physics. If you think you can talk about what is taken advantage of in the "next" generation, biologically (of religin, fetishes, taste of food, spice etc) then it seems odd, to have said ("than") that you think by simply making the kind of "blanket" statements that you (do""),,, retain, any gains that Jammer narrated, as linked @Renouvier to Poincare to Bohr to Feynman say... without dealing with Kierkegaard! There are ending possibilities indeed. They/that would be just fine for a physicist but as soon as you notice Kierkegarrd in the discussion it is impossible to NOT deal with creationist issues. Now if you were Gould then perhaps you might think that you indeed carried through a biological carrer in which you simply found creationism as a CONTRADICTORY opposite. I find nothing of the sort. That is why if you cant find the means to talk with me over coffee say we can not even get on with any communication we might disagree about.You insist it seems, that I must be able in one sentence or two to communicate something that is up against the whole trend of modern science and do it as convincingly as the last 100yrs of scholarship combined. I can't, even if I wanted and it was physically possible. So love is called for. I have no problem if you want to think you might be thinking like I think Gould might have been thinking but I really CAN engage a discussion of why I think this discontinuous and digital question is a mistake. It was a mistake when APPLES' computers first appeared on the Cornell campus and we were only using the mainframe and it is the same drag; and drop-today.Jammer links rejection of actual infinity, to, a conceptual philosophy of sciencem, to Poincare's denouncement against giving up differential equations, to,, the difference of kinematics and dynamics;from newer considerations on identity but coopts, the Lucretian exiguum clinamen principiorum rather for goals I think can not be, intellectually sustained, as biological trajectories of reproduction-educate-students, about,,, the/ transitivity/of/genetic transmission. Im stuck with that. You dont need to be. Be free.The sythesis of Kant's teleology grants teleomatics that Jammer links historically but Kant's idealism as so understood did not cover the analytic of this as Carnap categorically declaimed per Jammer's concepts and thus telenomics must address more not less clasicalism but if you dont accept the ability to carry this in good will your learners of biological change will mistake translation in space with form making.
That is easier for me to write then yes and no"" to specific questions. I know you might not understand it so that is why I often, DONT post.
If you require actual rope to "tie" it in with, well thin, I obviously can not satisfy you there.If you are not interested in discussiing the following page just as you simply turned round "bifurcation logical fallacy, anyway" then I cant oblige. I committed no such regression. If you cant see that modern science has been depauperated since the founding of nuclear physics I cant help you on that level. I can always just chat however. This is page 167 of Max Jammer's "The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics"
Also, before Jammer comes to the issue of individuality and identity he discusses how a Princeton prof corrected a Cornell prof. Trust me I probably know the area between Mercer and Tompkins Counties better than I dont know much but the lookout at Mystic in CT south of Providence.

Brad, After reading this post three words stood out.
Love I understood.
Depauperated ? What is that? I am going to tie you to this definition with virtual rope!
As for Kierkegaard, I came up with this: Is Kierkegaard’s faith appealing to you spiritually?

"depauperated" was a term that South American's used in a better sense than New Zelanders when it came to reworking panbiogeography and I meant it, so, I guess, between loss of individuals genetically vs extinction. But this assumes what DS was not willing to agree had already been attributed.In general then, Jammer had on page 173
"Of particular importance for Niels Bohr was Kierkegaard's idea, repeatedly elborated by Hoffding, that the traditional speculative philosophy, in its claim to being capable of explaining everything, forgot that the originator of the system, however unimportant he may be, forms part of the being which is to be explained. "A system can be conceived only if one could look back on completed existence - but this would presuppose that one no longer exists. Man cannot without falsification conceive of himself as an impartial spectator or impersonal observer; he always necessarily remains a participant."It ok to get into a post modern inclination should one be able to track the discussion back. I'll have to see if this just "signal to noise" for DS or just the stimuli we all meemneedED to remember. It may be time for biology to find that formal 1-D symmetry contained the containers the substance of Jammerbiology jammed to Christian music already heard. I hate to hear Nosy say no, but what can we do? Nothing I guess to sylas yet.SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSgoes the snake. Deceptive evolution of creatures contra man say, retains the sense of 'no impartial observer or..." but needs not keep the unmoved mover reference if such was the scholarship. The faith kept it more relative than the rejection of the group sequences so far. O0pps that might mebe mimmetic. The mutation but not the man is ever present to the continuity of the variance. Now take the participant to be the percipient and we are almost home by walking rather than running. Things that go around come_____0____.

Hey Brad,Your knowledge is far beyond mine, I'm a very basic person, so please be patient with my simple thoughts.I did some quick searching on Carnap and found a few interesting reads that I think I actually understood.

quote:

---

'but genetical continuity MIGHT indeed proove to be both the "scientific investigation" and "mathematical geometry"

---

In this study concerning Jewish Roots several studies are shown concerning Jewish Genetics and depending on which side you study (X or Y) the answers vary.The studies I read presented the "genetic founders" as the ancestors who immigrated to eastern Europe at the time of the Diaspora (70 AD).In this article by Martin Richrds Beware the Gene Genies he explains that even though the study of genetic diversity is still in it's infancy, that has not stopped people from commercializing the process to tell you your genetic ancestry. Jewish history shows that marrying women from neighboring areas was not uncommon and it shows when testing the maternal side. I guess genetic survival is in the eye of beholder and whose results they use.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

I am.
I just think that he has a rather specialized knowledge base -- one that nearly nobody else shares, but that he assumes everyone else shares; and he also tends to start in the middle of a thought.If I say, "It can't be 1A1A13 Q4, as we're still transmitting P2," you'd have no clue what I was talking about. I'd be assuming that you have an in-depth knowledge of the AIMS MK XII IFF suite, and already know what the fault indication is. As you (presumably) have neither, my statement is both free-floating and unintelligible.
If you made me aware that you had neither, I'd know what I'd have to do to cut you into the loop. I'd have to teach you the entire system, and then take you step-by-step from the beginning of the troubleshooting effort to where I was when I made that statement. At that point, everything would be tied together. You'd see where I came from, and would be able to follow me as I continued on. I'm just the test equipment, with a dash of the tech manual. Using me, you can tell where you are, and where you should be if you want to be within specs -- but there's no obligation to change to be within spec.
Non-standard configurations will work. For example, I can tweak an interrogator and transponder so they're waaay outta spec, but so they still talk to each other just fine. No other transponder will respond to the modified interrogator's interrogation, and no other interrogator will process the modified transponder's response, but they'll work just fine as a pair.
If you don't care or don't want them talking to anything else, no correction is needed. However, you still need feedback to tell you that those two are, indeed, talking to each other -- that they are doing what you want. The work is a lot easier if you don't have to guess at where you are.

This is going to have to be quick. Feel free to get my attention again. I am going to try to respond without going here

quote:

---

In this article by Martin Richrds Beware the Gene Genies he explains that even though the study of genetic diversity is still in it's infancy, that has not stopped people from commercializing the process to tell you your genetic ancestry.

---

So, again if my response seems inadaquate in that regard tell me to click through that link as well.Before on could determine exactly the best way to track back through time one needs to be sure that the correlations one is using are really real. Without looking hard at the studies I can not be sure that Y results were not biased by the algorithms used simply because Y chromosomes have more palidromes in them or if there is not something also or seperate going on when one compared sequences' information BETWEEN another subcellualar organelle. If this is the "information" that is THEN used to track back revolutions of the Earth in human-reproductive time it is possible, to me at least, that the study itself might subtract in concluding what sequences are informative and the what not, crucial geographic pinpointers. Reductionists dont have an issue with this way of interpreting or reading genetical data but even Lewontin questions things like that.What is needed is some way to relate sequence classifications to Earth rotations independent of who has babies with whom. I have never seen such a science.The use of maternal mitchondrial inheritance patterns has also recently been used to discuss origins of female populations of salamanders but the science is in reference Yale work from the 60s that explicitly did not attempt to attend to developmental binomial ideas about physiological genetics no matter the transmission genetics. There is a tendency to supress this difference to a mere issue about the HISTORY of genetics. I take it that DS might think that the use of mitchondrial DNA and no matter what the Palidromes are that this works to sort out the geography. I dont know that it doesnt necessiate a view on a molecular clock. Those things dont need to exist. Now if the genetical continuity is taken to be "pure mathematics" in the analysis then you would be correct that the investigation mistook the analysis for a synthesis current science rejects. I am guessing that this is how my future analysis of the data you suspected will continue to be detailed by me.We can see if I am wrong on that, but i really dont want to spend all weekend working only on this, if others start to toke up a joke. I did look at the other link and it seems that one simply sequences the genes and maps them out. That really cant get to the level of use of getting beyond Carnap that I was trying to excite.Thanks for bringing this information to my attention and now that I've thought it through once it seem you are correct espcially as there was the claim that african geography works better. It would work the same if it really worked. It is just the old "its in your genes" talk but on an economic rather than a colloquial level. It's unfortunate if people let their ignorance get the better of them but I guess we do have to make some choices in the course of a day.