From: outlawpoet - (outlawpoet@stealth.hell.com)
Date: Sun Jun 09 2002 - 20:56:38 MDT
um, hi steve. I haven't really investigated your claims before to forgive my ignorance.
--- "Steve" <steve@multisell.com> wrote:
>If we really want to nail the lie of "supernaturalism"(Gods &c) and kick out
>the human-been
>primitive legacy belief systems, then we should be promoting MVT and its
>applications
>http://www.multi.co.uk/primal.htm .. there can be only one historical
>narrative that explains
>the evolution of the mammalian brain, origins of dreams/ REM,
>self-organisation and sentience.
Okay, MVT seems to be the idea that in order for the brain to interact with non physical objects: information, ideas, etc, it needs some kind of non physical element. because.... Well, I dont' know why, but that seems to be the claim.
the justification for this is a little shaky. Leibnitz' Law, as far as I can tell, doesn't seem to impact the brain manipulating symbols and ideas, because at no point must the representation of symbolic knowledge be replaced with knowledge itself.
So, you claim that the pineal eye, a vestigal architectural anomaly of the modern homo sapiens sapiens brain, is what allows us to do so. And that conciousness is inversely proportional to how useful the pineal eye is in an organism.
Now, let me be clear that I'm only going on what was included in your link. but I really fail to see how you can use this to predict anything. Even if the pineal eye is an essential architectual element of the brain(something of which I don't think you prove very convincingly) How does that lead to any kind of insight? What can you do with this knowledge, and specifically, how does that refute religiousity?
Are there any other documentation on your theory? It seems to simply consist of pamphlets I would have to pay to get. Now, I would be interested if you've ever had a neurophysist go over your theory, and work out how a vestigal element of the brain relates to other parts of the brain. Have you ever had someone make such a review of your theory? If you have, please send me the results, I think it would be interesting.
>
>Regards the thread on Posthuman sexuality ... we likewise shouldn't pussy
>around
>but should actively promote Quorums & other sexual / lifetyle advances.
>http://www.multi.co.uk/Quorums.htm .... don't be suckered by the Hollywood/
>romantic
>pair-bonding monogamy-monotony conventionalists.
hm. Quorums are.. interesting. I guess that in some cases it could be very cool to have a multi person relationship in some cases, but I'm not sure such a thing is better in all cases. I mean, we seem to be wired to prefer certain relationships, with the usual deviations and permutations and so on. Your mileage may vary of course. I myself have never been attracted to have a relationship with more than one person at a time. I always have a #1. but that may just be me.
Anyways, I would be interested in more information, but your ideas don't seem so pressing I would pay for some booklets on them.
Justin Corwin
outlawpoet@hell.com
"They say you only live once. But if you lived like I have, once is enough"
~Frank Sinatra
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:42 MST