BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
I agree that 'imitation addresses the entropy problem' - but, only
in part. Imitation functions in a mode of Firstness and although it
produces similarity of Type, such a result would decimate the
capacity of the species to adapt since it rejects diversity. You'd
end up with a frozen Type - a rather mechanical result that is great
in machines but devastating in biology and cognition.
Instead, I'd add Thirdness as a means of addressing the entropy
problem, since it functions to generalize without iconicity. That is,
it produces commonalities of Type without also producing iconic
clones. The generalities will function to maintain a certain
community of interaction but also enable enough individual
diversities to permit adaptive capacities.
Edwina
On Thu 21/02/19 5:27 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" [email protected]
sent:
>"Is there a difference in the way you try to establish contact and
teach that depends on the hypothesis you work with?"
Absolutely. The dominance of the genocentric narrative predisposes
us to assuming that there is something inherently "wrong" with the
autistic that needs fixing. A circuitry problem that needs a
circuitry fix. But if we re-interpret the autistic's perspective as
their way of understanding their world according to their
assumptions, then we place ourselves in a position of being better
able to negotiate the assumptions that they are making. In much the
same way that Thomas Szasz, author of The Myth of Mental Illness,
argues that schizophrenics can be negotiated back to reality (if we
think it through, schizophrenia is also an imitation deficit... but
originating in a dysfunctional family narrative... the imitation
deficit manifests itself when the schizophrenic exits the
dysfunctional family context and tries to connect with the wider
cultural).
It is incorrect to assume that the autistic's assumptions are wrong
or silly and can be shamed or bullied away. Their assumptions can be
very sensible and logical, and need to be understood in the context
in which they were arrived at. For example, hyper-rationality... an
autistic might dismiss the reading of faces and emotions as
irrelevant to their priority for the facts. "Just give me the facts,
I don't care what you think or feel." Or, as another example... if a
parent fusses obsessively about protecting the child from harm, that
child will become more self-focused, and be predisposed to be
abnormally hyper-vigilant in contexts that are not that big a deal.
The self-focus is particularly significant, because it predisposes
the child to defining things to matter that will leave normal people
unfazed.
Autism is logical... often too logical. A compelling semiotic
paradigm explains it nicely. And autism, like schizophrenia, with the
right understanding, can be negotiated.
Or let's put this another way. Imitation, as pragmatism, also plays
an important part in how we define the things that matter. An extreme
family context informs the schizophrenic of extreme assumptions that
matter and this wires their neuroplastic brain. Things might appear
fine within the family context, but when they try to connect with the
wider culture, that's when serious problems arise with the cognitive
dissonance of the schizophrenic. Rockstar psychologist Jordan
Peterson observed that behavioral oddities are detected by the wider
culture, the schizophrenic/autistic is excluded by the majority, and
the isolation feeds isolation to snowball into a logical way of
thinking that is utterly incomprehensible to the "well-adjusted".
Neural plasticity is an integral part of this narrative, because the
functional specializations in the brain (how the brain wires itself)
relies on the experiences with which the autistic/schizophrenic
interfaces. Their dysfunction does not come from "circuitry" or
genes. It relies on how experience wires the brain (Norman Doidge,
The Brain That Changes Itself, 2007).
Imitation addresses the entropy problem. Imitation is knowing how to
be. Imitation is survival. Get your imitation wrong, and it might kill
you.
Regards
From: Auke van Breemen [[email protected] [1]]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:34 AM
To: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to
entropy problem
List,
Jerry reminded me of:
The dress of an attendee by a diner caught fire.
Herbert Peirce, a brother, jumped up immediately and extinguished
the fire
as it ought to be done. Afterwards Charles asked him how he could
have been
so quick and adequate in his response. Herbert answered:
[. . . ] he told me that since Mrs. Longfellow's death,
it was that he had often run over in imagination all the details of
what ought to be done in such an emergency. It was a striking
example of a real habit produced by exercises in the imagination.
CP. 5.487, in the footnote.(See also CP 5.538.)
Note that starting the exercises in the imagination supposes a value
judgment to the extent that a person on fire is an unwholesome state
of affairs
which ought to be repaired.
Now, imagine you are responsible for a child with autism. The
question I raise is the following:
Is there a difference in the way you try to establish contact and
teach that depends on the hypothesis you work with?
Case 1: it is a problem with the imagination or mimicking of action
Case 2: it is a problem with the directing of attention
Best,
Auke van Breemen
Van: Jerry Rhee
Verzonden: woensdag 20 februari 2019 23:56
Aan: Auke van Breemen
CC: [email protected] [4]; Peirce-L
Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to
entropy problem
Dear list,
Stephen said:
Could imitation be so important, that this is the reason why we
don’t recognize it?
Although Peirce read and thought more about Aristotle than about any
other man, the Poetry, he knew nothing about.
That is, Peirce was not Greek-minded.
He then turns to a discussion of representation or imitation
(μίμησις).
Tragedy is, then, a representation of an action that is heroic and
complete and of a certain magnitude.. And since tragedy represents
action and is acted by living persons, who must of necessity have
certain qualities of character and thought— for it is these which
determine the quality of an action;
indeed thought and character are the natural causes of any action
and it is in virtue of these that all men succeed or fail—
it follows then that it is the plot which represents the action.
By "plot" I mean here the arrangement of the incidents: "character"
is that which determines the quality of the agents, and "thought"
appears wherever in the dialogue they put forward an argument or
deliver an opinion.
(~1450a, Poetics)
No doubt, Pragmaticism makes thought ultimately apply to action
exclusively - to conceived action.
For instance, we all know what he meant by conceived action, here.
With best wishes,
Jerry R
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:24 AM Auke van Breemen wrote:
Stephen, list,
An interesting question. And an even more interesting approach: But
this time, applying reverse logic, I asked myself… what are the
illnesses that manifest because of a patient’s failure to imitate
properly? I followed a similar strategy and found it most profitable
for getting at the finer details of the semiotic framework to ask how
a-typical behavior and mistakes can be understood semiotically.
The text
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf
[7]
contains theoretical considerations based on research I did amongst
children that fall out of the schoolsystem in the Netherlands. Since
I started with stories from parents, in the majority of cases the
blame was put on schools not being able to deal with complexities of
the child, not on children showing some sort of criminal behavior.
Two labels were used most for the children that surfaced in the
research: autism and highly gifted. With an autism - highly gifted
ratio higher then 5 - 1. But one has to take into account that the IQ
tests of the majority of autism pupils were above average, most of the
time with a score on some sub-tests considerably higher, then on some
other. And that some parents that called their children highly gifted
based themselves on the average result of the wisc test solely.
Disregarding enormous discrepancies on sub-tests (on a scale length
of 19 two lowest score of 5 and two highest of 18, the remainder, if
I remember correctly above 12) and without recognition of the
tri-partite demand for highly gifted performance: inborn qualities,
character of the child and environment.
With autism the situation is even more complex regarding the feats
that show themselves in different cases. Compare the child that does
hardly communicate with the Asperger diagnosed student that follows
multiple studies at the same time with good learning results or for
that matter with the 18 years old who socially communicates on a
level comparable in some respects to a 5 years old, but that at the
same time mastered reading by himself before being 4 years old.
The above is meant to underscore that I don’t profess to provide
an answer, but only raise an alternative explanation.
So, if it is a failure in the ability to mimic (icon based), it is a
failure in some not all domains. This points in the direction of a
background problem with the direction of attention (index based). I
regard it feasible that autism semiotically can be understood by
recognizing that a strong reliance on legisigns (types) and their
habitually associated symbols prevent exploration of the rhematic
(combinatoric) possibilities of new input signs. The adaptability to
circumstances is seriously hindered in this way. And indeed, as you
state, it appears as an inability to mimic social wished behavior.
Until, that is, one succeeds in getting attention for the social
problems, in that case a social scientist may be the result.
Best,
Auke van Breemen
Van: Stephen Jarosek
Verzonden: woensdag 20 februari 2019 7:58
Aan: [email protected] [9]; [email protected] [10]
Onderwerp: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to
entropy problem
Dear Members,
[This post carries on from our December thread “Systems theory,
DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis”]
I've been trying to put an article together, on imitation, for
Gatherings in Biosemiotics 2019 in Moscow. But I don’t think I can
put together anything of substance, in a format that would interest
the gathering. Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that imitation as
a fundamental principle would definitely have interested Peirce,
especially from the perspective of pragmatism. Perhaps something to
explore at the Gathering?
Google brings up a great many references to imitation, but nothing
on imitation as a fundamental principle. But this time, applying
reverse logic, I asked myself… what are the illnesses that manifest
because of a patient’s failure to imitate properly? I’ve struck
pay-dirt, particularly with reference to autism. Is autism a disease
directly attributable to imitation deficit? Here are some links:
An examination of the imitation deficit in autism:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-02466-009 [11]
The Social Role of Imitation in Autism:
https://depts.washington.edu/isei/iyc/21.2_Ingersoll.pdf [12]
Does Impaired Social Motivation Drive Imitation Deficits in Children
with Autism Spectrum Disorder?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-015-0054-9 [13]
A great many references exist on imitation generally, but nothing on
imitation as a principle... for example:
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/personality-traits-contagious-among-children/
[14]
Here is a nice overview of imitation from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation [15]
SUMMARY OF SOME CORE ISSUES RELATING TO IMITATION
Autism is not a faulty-wiring/dysfunctional genes problem. AUTISM IS
AN IMITATION-PRAGMATISM PROBLEM. It is not a disease, sickness or
pathology in the usual sense of the term, because it is a normal (if
dysfunctional) product of motivation, association and habituation
(Peircean categories).
All these complex theories about psychology, schizophrenia and
inheritance of behavioral traits. What if we were wrong? What if it
all amounts to nothing other than imitation? Behavior inherited
across generations not through genes, but through… imitation.
Kalevi Kull has published some articles recently on the relationship
between semiosis and choice (e.g., Choosing and learning: Semiosis
means choice). Imitation is one of the ways that organisms make
choices. People choose from culture and culture is imitation.
Many references can be found on imitation, from Plato and Aristotle
to Piaget and Freud. But never as a fundamental principle. What are
we missing?
Imitation (assimitation – defined below) should be explored as a
fundamental principle with respect to pragmatism and knowing how to
be. Imitation is integral to solving the entropy problem. Hebb’s
rule suggests that neurons imitate… “neurons that fire together
wire together”. Heck, even atoms and molecules imitate… we call
it entanglement. If Peirce were alive today, he’d eat this stuff
up.
Imitation (assimitation) is an important topic not just from the
perspective of psychological health, but also from the perspective of
politics, personal well-being and the company we keep. Is it sensible
for the European Union to maintain an open borders policy, with an
immigration policy that ignores the implications of imitation and
cultural identity?
Peirce’s categories are hugely important, but imitation is the
overlay that makes cultural complexity possible. Without imitation as
a primal driver, human culture as we know it, would be non-existent.
Imitation is not an incidental “add-on”. It is a primal
foundation and first-cause. It is the most important solution to the
entropy problem, because without imitation, there would be no
colonies or culture.
Peirce’s categories are the filter through which organisms decide
what to imitate. Humans with female mind-bodies will imitate women,
not men. Humans with male mind-bodies will imitate men, not women.
Wolves in the wild will imitate wolves. Dogs in cities will imitate
humans (as far as their canine mind-bodies predispose them to). Feral
infants raised by wolves will imitate wolves (as far as their human
mind-bodies predispose them to). And so on and on and on.
Imitation is so very important that even Neo-Darwinians have tried
to incorporate it into their framework. I refer to Richard Dawkins
and his memetic theory.
Could imitation be so important, that this is the reason why we
don’t recognize it? Something so pervasive, so everywhere. Heck, we
can’t keep imitation out of every single word that carries our
accent. Asking a human to tell us about imitation is like asking a
fish to tell us about water. We have no reference to what it would be
like to live without imitation. We just assume things, without
realizing that the assuming is, at its core, a product of imitation.
Regards,
Stephen Jarosek
From: Stephen Jarosek [[email protected] [16]]
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2018 12:14 PM
To: 'Helmut Raulien'; '[email protected] [17]'
Cc: '[email protected] [18]'; '[email protected] [19]'
Subject: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA
entanglement, agents and semiosis
I agree with you, Helmut, that the concept of culture is extremely
important. More important than the vast, overwhelming majority of
people can hope to understand. I was blessed with having to grow up
in a dysfunctional war-refugee family, and having to make sense of a
hyper-materialistic-hedonistic “fun” culture that believes its
own bullshit (actually, all cultures believe their own bullshit, by
definition, but the most hedonistic-materialistic are the worst…
but I digress). Suspended within a no-man’s land without sensible
truths to anchor to, I had to formulate my own interpretations from
scratch. Eastern religions such as Buddhism often refer to the
importance of letting go of assumptions and definitions, as part of
spiritual practice. Far from the leisure of spiritual practice, this
was a condition that was foisted on me as a matter of survival, it
was not a condition that I chose.
What people don’t realize is the importance of imitation. They
don’t get it, that all that they ever have are assumptions.
Imitation is actually the wrong word… a more precise phrase is
“knowing how to be”. It’s about the replication of behavior…
taking your culture’s assumptions for granted. Maybe we need a new
word that synthesizes assuming with imitating. Assimitating maybe?
Yes… for want of a better word, let’s stick with that…
assimitating. And let’s define it in the context of “knowing how
to be”. First of all, one has to choose a niche from their culture
to belong to. Secondly, they have to assimitate and replicate the
assumptions of their chosen niche, to strictly observe its limits.
One can move across niches, and one must choose one to belong to, but
limits must be observed. Niche boundaries do not necessarily appear
strict to those observing them, however, because they assume that
this is “just” the way that reality is. Observing niche
boundaries is a fine balancing act between the courage of
individualism and the cowardice of conformity. Courageous observance
(testing the limits) is for leaders, timid observance is for
followers. But no matter what, niche boundaries MUST be observed. For
those that fail to observe said boundaries, or push the boundaries too
far with their courage, and there are sizeable numbers of both, their
lot is often disenfranchisement, invisibility, maybe even psychosis
or schizophrenia.
So what are the boundaries of the culture as a whole? As I’ve
mentioned before in other threads, culture is analogous to a thought.
A society of people is to culture what a brain of neurons is to
thought. Metaphors from chaos theory are informative. Role models as
attractors. Boundary conditions. Initial conditions. A culture
comprised of subcultures (niches) is still a unity. The farthest
niches from one another, within a culture, are still fundamentally
united in their sharing of the assumptions that matter (pragmatism).
Assimitation within a culture is integral to pragmatism, because
it’s how people establish the assumptions that matter. Assumptions
are habits… thirdness.
Initial conditions is a concept that has especially caught my
attention of late. It relates to scaffolding. Meaning is built upon
meaning, and the initial conditions… first experiences… are
important because of this. You can’t just wake up one morning and
decide to change your world-view with the affirmative “this is the
first day of the rest of my life.” But it also goes much deeper
than that. I am recognizing this as I walk around the city streets of
my grandfather’s homeland, with the realization “hey, so that’s
where I got that quirky trait from!” (yes, I’m still discovering
things about myself). It begins with mother's nurturing… nay, it
begins in the womb… there are several examples of the latter
referenced in my paper Pragmatism, Neural Plasticity and Mind-body
Unity.
Which brings us to your reference to fundamentalist religions,
mafias, etc. That is, groupthink. What is the distinction between
groupthink and healthy culture? One clue lies in the moral
individualism of Christianity, its relationship to courage, and Jesus
as a role model (I’m not a Christian, but I respect why Christianity
was effective). Groupthink is a feature of fear and cowardice, and it
sticks like glue, turning people into unquestioning NPC-bots yearning
for social approval and the need to belong. Particularly relevant to
today’s culture of social media. Hedonism and “fun” cultures
are obsessed with needs and, despite their apparent “freedoms”
and indulgences, are contained within strictly self-enforced limits
revolving around social approval.
Buddhism seems to incorporate a lot of these understandings. I’d
just like to see one thing corrected though. Buddhists assume that
all problems stem from desire. No, desire (firstness?) is downstream
from assimitation (pragmatism). Assimitation, knowing how to be, is
where all the problems begin, because that’s where all choices
begin.
Regards, sj
no woo
From: Helmut Raulien [[email protected] [20]]
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 8:07 PM
To: [email protected] [21]
Cc: [email protected] [22]; [email protected] [23];
[email protected] [24]
Subject: Aw: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA
entanglement, agents and semiosis
Supplement: I think there is so much more to discuss, esp. about
the concept of culture: Is culture merely tradition and a homeostatic
system of unquestioned habits, or may it also be a culture of culture
criticism and innovation, like a culture of habit-revising and
habit-breaking? Or would this not be "culture" anymore, but something
else, an emancipation from culture? And so on. Anyway, "culture" is
merely the produce of an observation, just secondness, but not
something containing thirdness essentialities such as values or laws.
Btw, evolution has not stopped with the evolution of nervous systems.
Causa efficiens is like proto-symbolic (force, laws... . To say
natural laws are conventional, would suggest a polytheistic idea of
gods having had a meeting, haha. So proto). Needs are indexical, id
say, and wishes iconical. Simple nervous animals iconize. In their
evolution there comes indexicality (like pheromons smelling,
pointing, yelling) and symbolicity (like language) again. So I see
individuation (evolution of individuals out of the universe) like a
wave: symbolic(1), indexical(1), iconical(1), indexical(2),
symbolical(2), and so on. Indexical(3) and symbolical(3) would mean,
that individuality is handed over to a supersystem (like the
internet), that integrates us, strips our individuality from us, and
organizes us (makes us organs and no-more-organisms). In our own
human interest, we must avoid this. It would be natural, but not good
for us. In our civilized convenience-swing we have forgotten, that
"natural" does not automatically mean "good", but may and often does
mean "hostile". Nature in ancient times was justifiedly regarded as
mostly hostile (sabre-teeth-tigers, snakes, locusts, diseases,
famines...). Now, as nature appears in the form of technology, we
dont recognize it as nature, but it is, and it is pure nature
untamed, though phenomenologically completely different from the
common-conceptual (green) nature we know and have tamed.
Stephen, Edwina, list,
I agree, that the term "operationally closed" is too much suggesting
an objectivity, because "operation" sounds like something objective:
An operation is mostly the same operation, seen from any perspective.
So, with my own terms, i rather say "causally closed", and
therefore, additionally to effect causation and final causation, I
propose a secular kind of example cause (causa exemplaris).
Causa efficiens I see as force reason, as effect causes are forced
by natural laws. Regarding causa efficiens, no system is causally
closed.
Causa finalis I see as need reason, applying to organisms. Organisms
have needs, and the system border for them and this causally
closedness is the skin or the cell membrane of an organism.
Causa exemplaris (secular) I see as wish reason or volation reason,
applying to organisms with a nervous system, and any wish is causally
contained within the nervous system, so there is causal closedness
too.
With social systems, I think, it is so, that they have an intention
of becoming organism-like, or even human-like. Luhmann speaks of
intentional systems. This intention, I think, is the reason life has
emerged and evolved, as it more or less applies to any CAS, the more
complex it is, the more, and the more complex (like humans) the
agents it relies on are, the more too.
So the emergence of fundamentalist religions, rigid ideologies,
mafias, and so on, is a natural thing, and the goal of systems theory
imho would be to show this danger, and so to help prevent it.
So, politically I see value in the dogma, that a social system
should be kept as trivial (non-complex) and transparent as possible,
for not being able to develop causal closedness (systems´ own needs
and wishes). This dogma is in accord with democratic achievements
like separation of powers, civil and human rights, freedom of speech,
press, religion..., mobility (travel, work, and habitation
freedom...). This dogma stands in opposition against right-wing
people-think (volkskoerper), compulsory communism, and excessive
(intransparent) dataism.
Best, Helmut
29. November 2018 um 22:02 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Jarosek"
EDWINA >"Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal
of fundamentalism in religion."
Yes, as per my reply to Helmut, Luhmann's "operationally closed"
perspective seems to be an extension of the objectivist paradigm.
Fundamentalist religion, man-made-in-god's-image, Darwinism, human
exceptionalism, etc, all make assumptions about objective truth where
reality plays out independently of the observer, and I think that this
is the same trap that Luhmann's interpretation falls into. Reminds me
of Richard Dawkins' memetics theory.
This is a perspective where human behavior is regarded merely as an
impartial medium for the transmission of cultural communications... a
very odd position I must say. They're failing to recognize a most
important point... the relationship between human behavior and
culture... the "knowing how to be", imitation and pragmatism.
sj
From: Edwina Taborsky [[email protected] [26]]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:55 PM
To: [email protected] [27]; [email protected] [28];
Stephen Jarosek
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA
entanglement, agents and semiosis
I think this is an important distinction.
Do societies function by ideology or by interactional relations with
their environment and others?
Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of
fundamentalism in religion. This is where " the cultural narrative
exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it"
that Stephen refers to.
Cultural anthropology believes in the determinism of the cultural
narrative.
However, I think that a society, as a CAS [complex adaptive system]
operates as an interactional system - and that includes its operating
narrative. Granted - it can take generations for a cultural narrative
to change - but - it does.
Edwina
On Thu 29/11/18 4:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" [email protected]
[29] sent:
Dear members,
In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored
with
others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)
and
autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives
playing
out:
1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED:
The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not
externally
caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social
systems as
"... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on
resources from
their environment, those resources do not become part of the
systems'
operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions
for
communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note,
however,
that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of
autopoietic
theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of
communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social
systems as
operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according
to
Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human
communicators."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann [30]
Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally
closed
culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay,
independently
of the humans engaging it.
2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT:
This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent,
semiosis, and
the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former
regards
an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the
agents
making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents
inextricably
as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central
role.
In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem
that
pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any
doubt,
Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an
agent.
Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration.
DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS
What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to
move over
to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of
including
agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better
appreciate the
potential of the semiotic paradigm.
The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by
incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement
addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem.
In this
regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further
compelled to
focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer
comprised
of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making
choices
from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA
entanglement
deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides
an
outline:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
[31]
3
By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more
compelling
position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is
first
cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its
experiences into its being, its unity.
WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR?
There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA
entanglement,
and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing
correlations
between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is
only
one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA
entanglement.
So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo.
Professionals
terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't
dare
utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is
unfortunate that
in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being
unpersoned
for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into
silence. As
I am independent of Academia, though, I have nothing to lose, and so
I'm so
I'm going to say it loud and proud:
DNA entanglement. It's a thing.
Regards,
Stephen Jarosek
no woo
REFERENCES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR DNA ENTANGLEMENT:
Apostolou, T.; Kintzios, S. Cell-to-Cell Communication: Evidence of
Near-Instantaneous Distant, Non-Chemical Communication between
Neuronal
(Human SK-N-SH Neuroblastoma) Cells by Using a Novel Bioelectric
Biosensor
(JCS Volume 25, Numbers 9-10, 2018, pp. 62-74(13))
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/00000025/f0020009/art
[32]
00002
Crew, B. (2018). This is the first detailed footage of DNA
replication, and
it wasn't what we expected. Sciencealert.com:
https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected
[33]
Greentechnique. (2011, January 15). Cleve Backster - Primary
Perception
(beginning at 344 seconds):
https://youtu.be/V7V6D33HGt8?t=5m44s [34]
Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A.
(2004).
Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (E. Donkor,
A.
Pirick, & H. Brandt, Eds.). Quantum Information and Computation
(Proceedings
of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117.
http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.540785
[35]
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY
ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
[email protected] [36] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] [37] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [38] .
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fcontent%2Fpdf%2F10.1007%252F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[9]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[11]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fpsycnet.apa.org%2Frecord%2F1999-02466-009
[12]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fdepts.washington.edu%2Fisei%2Fiyc%2F21.2_Ingersoll.pdf
[13]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs40489-015-0054-9
[14]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fmsutoday.msu.edu%2Fnews%2F2017%2Fpersonality-traits-contagious-among-children%2F
[15]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FImitation
[16]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[17]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[18]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[19]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[20]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[21]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[22]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[23]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[24]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[25]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[26]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[27]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[28]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[29]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[30]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNiklas_Luhmann
[31]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sfu.ca%2Fjnonlocality%2Findex.php%2Fjnonlocality%2Farticle%2Fview%2F64%2F6
[32]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ingentaconnect.com%2Fcontentone%2Fimp%2Fjcs%2F2018%2F00000025%2Ff0020009%2Fart
[33]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencealert.com%2Fdna-replication-first-footage-unexpected
[34]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FV7V6D33HGt8%3Ft%3D5m44s
[35]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fspie.org%2FPublications%2FProceedings%2FPaper%2F10.1117%2F12.540785
[36]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[37]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[38]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cspeirce.com%2Fpeirce-l%2Fpeirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
