I would not search in Bruno's generalized theoretical scientific write-up
answers to ANY/ALL particular question in (and out of) all domain(s).
In my worldview (I wish I could compose it in a text callable scientific)
the interconnection of the totality (relations of ALL to ALL) brings about
all kinds of unrestricted relations (varieties/variants, *you* might call
them structural forms, even interactive contraptions etc.) with
characteristics (call them: *functional specifics*) unlimited. Some of those
proove 'useful' for the survival (proliferation) of the *species*, some
useless, or even damaging. Accordingly the characteristics select themselves
into the proliferating kinds or get extinct (*what evolution calls
mutationfor the survival of the fittest and natural selection
During those billions of years (*USb*) many variations went through the test
and the poor scientist has a hard time to even guess, how certain now still
observable features got into and stayed in organisms. Consider in this
aspect that 'science' takes snapshots only from time to time and the extinct
(or limited occurrence) unsuccessful variants don't reven show up in them.
The snapshots only include the successful variations in large numbers with
accomplished 'mutation' - unexplainable from the timely composite-views'
I don't differentiate plants, animals, insects) in the process and "the
scientist" calls the changes within a species a "random mutation".
I consider it all a result of the big numbers of trials. No design, no goal.
I deny a mathematical deciphering because of functions with unlimited
variables in kind, number, interference of unlimited modifications and
domains, but mostly: our possible knowledge of merely a portion of them.
Like our history teacher wanted to tease in highschool the 'eminent' pupil,
who "knew everything" asking: Well, George, which king in what year did what
to whom? (he answered precisely 'a case' - ha ha).
We are so smart in our partial knowledge.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Kim Jones <kimjo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 23/03/2009, at 7:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > And why does plant constructs altered states of consciousness
> > molecules? In my opinion it has all to do with the incredibly complex
> > relationships that plant have with animals, in general, and insects in
> > particular. Many plants have to detract predator insects. By killing
> > them, or by just smelling like, or imitating the smell of, of the
> > appearance of the worst predators of the insect (sort of lies!). But
> > they must also to attract insects, feed them, and manipulate them in
> > such a way that Mister plant can send its Message to Missis Plant
> > which leaves at five miles from Him. You bet that with millions of
> > years they knows about manipulating insects and animals, from predator
> > and pollinator to consumers.
> Are you saying that the psycho-active component of Salvia comandeers
> the brain-state of the "predator" and sends it on its mission to find
> Miss Salvia for purposes of pollination?
> Would it be possible to examine the brain state of an insect "under
> the influence" to verify this somehow? Brilliant theory....maybe this
> somehow relates to the appearance of the mysterious female in Salvia-
> induced dysphoria in humans?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at