Soundhaspriority Quacking on morphic resonance

[Powell]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote

> What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
> animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude
> that the precence of sound difference which
> physically exist could be directly verified and
> attributed to them -- by listening?
>
From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry
information only (no energy) and are available
throughout time and space without any loss of
intensity after they have been created. They are
created by the patterns of physical forms
(including such things as crystals as well as
biological systems). They help guide the formation
of later similar systems. And finally, a newly
forming system "tunes into" a previous system
by having within it a "seed" that resonates with
a similar seed in the earlier form."

And this, " I think (Sheldrake) that as science
breaks out of this narrow mechanism that has
been its straitjacket for so long, approaching a
more holistic view of nature, then much more
possibility of fruitful interaction occurs
between science and the spiritual. Einstein's
photons of light have remarkable parallels to
Aquinas's discussions of the movements of
angels."

The "the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
animal"... is the "seed" metaphor refered to.

However, in Sheldrake own words, "I think
of it as applying to self-organizing systems
like cells, molecules, and crystals, but not
to artificial machines."

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "JBorg, Jr." wrote
>
>> What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
>> animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude
>> that the precence of sound difference which
>> physically exist could be directly verified and
>> attributed to them -- by listening?
>>
> From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry
> information only (no energy) and are available
> throughout time and space without any loss of
> intensity after they have been created.

Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been around as a hypothesis for
about 80 years, but have never been scientificially proven to exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>> What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
>>> animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude
>>> that the precence of sound difference which
>>> physically exist could be directly verified and
>>> attributed to them -- by listening?
>>>
>> From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry
>> information only (no energy) and are available
>> throughout time and space without any loss of
>> intensity after they have been created.
>
> Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been
> around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have
> never been scientificially proven to exist.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance
>
Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study
of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial
machines" like CD players as it is neither a
biological or crystalline system.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>> What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
>>>> animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude
>>>> that the precence of sound difference which
>>>> physically exist could be directly verified and
>>>> attributed to them -- by listening?
>>>>
>>> From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry
>>> information only (no energy) and are available
>>> throughout time and space without any loss of
>>> intensity after they have been created.
>>
>> Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been
>> around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have
>> never been scientificially proven to exist.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance

> Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study
> of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial
> machines" like CD players as it is neither a
> biological or crystalline system.

Well, yes that too.

Of course who hasn't had a hi fi component that didn't act like it had a
mind of its own? ;-)

[JBorg, Jr.]

> Powell wrote
>> JBorg, Jr." wrote
>
>
>
>
>> What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
>> animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude
>> that the precence of sound difference which
>> physically exist could be directly verified and
>> attributed to them -- by listening?
>>
> From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry
> information only (no energy) and are available
> throughout time and space without any loss of
> intensity after they have been created. They are
> created by the patterns of physical forms
> (including such things as crystals as well as
> biological systems). They help guide the formation
> of later similar systems. And finally, a newly
> forming system "tunes into" a previous system
> by having within it a "seed" that resonates with
> a similar seed in the earlier form."


Thanks for bringing this up, and sharing yours.


> The "the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
> animal"... is the "seed" metaphor refered to.
>
> However, in Sheldrake own words, "I think
> of it as applying to self-organizing systems
> like cells, molecules, and crystals, but not
> to artificial machines."

Hmm.

[[email protected]]

Powell wrote:

> "JBorg, Jr." wrote
>
> > What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
> > animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude
> > that the precence of sound difference which
> > physically exist could be directly verified and
> > attributed to them -- by listening?
> >
> From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry
> information only (no energy) and are available
> throughout time and space without any loss of
> intensity after they have been created. They are
> created by the patterns of physical forms
> (including such things as crystals as well as
> biological systems). They help guide the formation
> of later similar systems. And finally, a newly
> forming system "tunes into" a previous system
> by having within it a "seed" that resonates with
> a similar seed in the earlier form."

Are you having fun arguing with your own strawman, Powell? Does it make
you feel clever to posit your own arguments and then knock it down?
More power to you, then. The rest of us will enjoy our tweaks, our
music and our hifi systems. You can sit there all you want you
miserable old sod, and pretend you have everything figured out for us,
and that we needn't bother tweaking our hifi systems or enjoying the
sound of it. Do you think anyone who's heard the effects of my tweaks
really cares?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Powell wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>>
>> >>> What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
>> >>> animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude
>> >>> that the precence of sound difference which
>> >>> physically exist could be directly verified and
>> >>> attributed to them -- by listening?
>> >>>
>> >> From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry
>> >> information only (no energy) and are available
>> >> throughout time and space without any loss of
>> >> intensity after they have been created.
>> >
>> > Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been
>> > around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have
>> > never been scientificially proven to exist.
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance
>> >
>> Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study
>> of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial
>> machines" like CD players as it is neither a
>> biological or crystalline system.
>
> WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
>
> They are capable of influencing matter, and can incorporate numerous
> systems, including biological forms and crystals. If you don't fully
> understand a science or theory, then don't pretend you're an expert on
> it and that you're going to "educate" everyone on it. Please stop
> puking your ignorance all over this group, Powell. Arny has more than
> his share of ignorance, and there's more than enough to go around when
> he finally keels over and dies from atheriosclerosis.
>
> A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance:
>
> http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html
>
This is not a quantum explanation. It might qualify as quantum philosophy.
It is frequently not understood that quantum mechanics, unlike physics, is a
closed axiomatic system, just as Euclidean geometry is a closed axiomatic
system. The axioms may be viewed at
http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publications/1999EinmagIndigo.pdf

The implications of the axiomatic system called quantum mechanics are
puzzling and paradoxical when mapped into the physical world, except for the
"correspondence principle", which states that in the mean of large numbers
of particles, the behavior of a quantum system is identical to that
prescribed by classical mechanics, another closed axiomatic system.

Many people use the mystery of this mapping in attempts to justify
speculative theories such as Sheldrake's. Unfortunately, this is pointless.
Because quantum mechanics is so mysterious, many people have attempted to
associate mysteries of their particular interest with it. "Quantum
mechanics" is simply a set of axioms. Simply referring to the name of the
axiom set without using it for mathematical proofs is not a valid form of
reasoning.

The above discussion does not contradict the possibility that Sheldrake's
musings may have some validity. However, it is important to understand that
merely wrapping a mystery in another mystery is not an explantion. Another
example of this abuse is the search for the source of consciousness and free
will. Many people have speculated that the source lies buried in the
"apparent" randomness of quantum behavior. But Henry Stapp, physicist at
Lawrence Livermore, who is the most active theorist in this area, believes
this is not correct. His explanation is, in fact, far more radical, but
capable of integrating the paradoxes of the Solvay Conference.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:

> >
> Thees is nut a qoountoom ixpluneshun. It meeght qooeleeffy es qoountoom pheelusuphy. Bork bork bork!
> It is freqooently nut understuud thet qoountoom mechuneecs, unleeke-a physeecs, is a
> clused exeeumetic system, joost es Ioocleedeun geumetry is a clused exeeumetic
> system. Zee exeeums mey be-a feeooed et
> http://vvv.foob.ec.be-a/CLEA/eerts/poobleeceshuns/1999IeenmegIndigu.pdff
>
Zee impleeceshuns ooff zee exeeumetic system celled qoountoom
mechuneecs ere-a
> poozzleeng und pereduxeecel vhee mepped intu zee physeecel vurld, ixcept fur zee
> "currespundence-a preenciple-a", vheech stetes thet in zee meun ooff lerge-a noombers
> ooff perteecles, zee behefeeur ooff a qoountoom system is identeecel tu thet
> prescreebed by clesseecel mechuneecs, unuzeer clused exeeumetic system.
>
> Muny peuple-a use-a zee mystery ooff thees meppeeng in ettempts tu joosteeffy
> specooleteefe-a zeeureees sooch es Sheldreke's. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Unffurtoonetely, thees is pueentless. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
> Becoose-a qoountoom mechuneecs is su mystereeuoos, muny peuple-a hefe-a ettempted tu
> essuceeete-a mystereees ooff zeeur perteecooler interest veet it. Um de hur de hur de hur. "Qoountoom
> mechuneecs" is seemply a set ooff exeeums. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Seemply refferreeng tu zee neme-a ooff zee
> exeeum set veethuoot useeng it fur mezeemeteecel pruuffs is nut a feleed furm ooff
> reesuneeng.
>
> Zee ebufe-a deescoossiun dues nut ****redeect zee pusseebility thet Sheldreke's
> mooseengs mey hefe-a sume-a feleedity. Bork bork bork! Hooefer, it is impurtunt tu understund thet
> merely vreppeeng a mystery in unuzeer mystery is nut un ixplunshun. Unuzeer
> ixemple-a ooff thees eboose-a is zee seerch fur zee suoorce-a ooff cunsceeuoosness und free-a
> veell. Muny peuple-a hefe-a specooleted thet zee suoorce-a leees booreeed in zee
> "epperent" rundumness ooff qoountoom behefeeur. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Boot Henry Stepp, physeecist et
> Levrence-a Leefermure-a, vhu is zee must ecteefe-a zeeureest in thees erea, beleeefes
> thees is nut currect. Um de hur de hur de hur. Hees ixpluneshun is, in fect, fer mure-a redeecel, boot
> cepeble-a ooff integreteeng zee pereduxes ooff zee Sulfey Cunfference-a.


Not only have you officially lost your marbles Robert, but it sounds
like they ended up in your mouth. Get help, man. You really need it.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:56:25 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Powell wrote:
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>>>
>>> >>> What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
>>> >>> animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude
>>> >>> that the precence of sound difference which
>>> >>> physically exist could be directly verified and
>>> >>> attributed to them -- by listening?
>>> >>>
>>> >> From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry
>>> >> information only (no energy) and are available
>>> >> throughout time and space without any loss of
>>> >> intensity after they have been created.
>>> >
>>> > Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been
>>> > around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have
>>> > never been scientificially proven to exist.
>>> >
>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance
>>> >
>>> Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study
>>> of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial
>>> machines" like CD players as it is neither a
>>> biological or crystalline system.
>>
>> WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
>>
>> They are capable of influencing matter, and can incorporate numerous
>> systems, including biological forms and crystals. If you don't fully
>> understand a science or theory, then don't pretend you're an expert on
>> it and that you're going to "educate" everyone on it. Please stop
>> puking your ignorance all over this group, Powell. Arny has more than
>> his share of ignorance, and there's more than enough to go around when
>> he finally keels over and dies from atheriosclerosis.
>>
>> A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance:
>>
>> http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html
>>
>This is not a quantum explanation. It might qualify as quantum philosophy.
>It is frequently not understood that quantum mechanics, unlike physics, is a
>closed axiomatic system, just as Euclidean geometry is a closed axiomatic
>system. The axioms may be viewed at
>http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publications/1999EinmagIndigo.pdf
>
>The implications of the axiomatic system called quantum mechanics are
>puzzling and paradoxical when mapped into the physical world, except for the
>"correspondence principle", which states that in the mean of large numbers
>of particles, the behavior of a quantum system is identical to that
>prescribed by classical mechanics, another closed axiomatic system.
>
>Many people use the mystery of this mapping in attempts to justify
>speculative theories such as Sheldrake's. Unfortunately, this is pointless.
>Because quantum mechanics is so mysterious, many people have attempted to
>associate mysteries of their particular interest with it. "Quantum
>mechanics" is simply a set of axioms. Simply referring to the name of the
>axiom set without using it for mathematical proofs is not a valid form of
>reasoning.
>
>The above discussion does not contradict the possibility that Sheldrake's
>musings may have some validity. However, it is important to understand that
>merely wrapping a mystery in another mystery is not an explantion. Another
>example of this abuse is the search for the source of consciousness and free
>will. Many people have speculated that the source lies buried in the
>"apparent" randomness of quantum behavior. But Henry Stapp, physicist at
>Lawrence Livermore, who is the most active theorist in this area, believes
>this is not correct. His explanation is, in fact, far more radical, but
>capable of integrating the paradoxes of the Solvay Conference.


I'm glad you cleared that up for us, Robert. It was keeping me awake.

[soundhaspriority]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:56:25 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>> Powell wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>>>>
>>>> >>> What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
>>>> >>> animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude
>>>> >>> that the precence of sound difference which
>>>> >>> physically exist could be directly verified and
>>>> >>> attributed to them -- by listening?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry
>>>> >> information only (no energy) and are available
>>>> >> throughout time and space without any loss of
>>>> >> intensity after they have been created.
>>>> >
>>>> > Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been
>>>> > around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have
>>>> > never been scientificially proven to exist.
>>>> >
>>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance
>>>> >
>>>> Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study
>>>> of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial
>>>> machines" like CD players as it is neither a
>>>> biological or crystalline system.
>>>
>>> WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
>>>
>>> They are capable of influencing matter, and can incorporate numerous
>>> systems, including biological forms and crystals. If you don't fully
>>> understand a science or theory, then don't pretend you're an expert on
>>> it and that you're going to "educate" everyone on it. Please stop
>>> puking your ignorance all over this group, Powell. Arny has more than
>>> his share of ignorance, and there's more than enough to go around when
>>> he finally keels over and dies from atheriosclerosis.
>>>
>>> A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance:
>>>
>>> http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html
>>>
>>This is not a quantum explanation. It might qualify as quantum philosophy.
>>It is frequently not understood that quantum mechanics, unlike physics, is
>>a
>>closed axiomatic system, just as Euclidean geometry is a closed axiomatic
>>system. The axioms may be viewed at
>>http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publications/1999EinmagIndigo.pdf
>>
>>The implications of the axiomatic system called quantum mechanics are
>>puzzling and paradoxical when mapped into the physical world, except for
>>the
>>"correspondence principle", which states that in the mean of large numbers
>>of particles, the behavior of a quantum system is identical to that
>>prescribed by classical mechanics, another closed axiomatic system.
>>
>>Many people use the mystery of this mapping in attempts to justify
>>speculative theories such as Sheldrake's. Unfortunately, this is
>>pointless.
>>Because quantum mechanics is so mysterious, many people have attempted to
>>associate mysteries of their particular interest with it. "Quantum
>>mechanics" is simply a set of axioms. Simply referring to the name of the
>>axiom set without using it for mathematical proofs is not a valid form of
>>reasoning.
>>
>>The above discussion does not contradict the possibility that Sheldrake's
>>musings may have some validity. However, it is important to understand
>>that
>>merely wrapping a mystery in another mystery is not an explantion. Another
>>example of this abuse is the search for the source of consciousness and
>>free
>>will. Many people have speculated that the source lies buried in the
>>"apparent" randomness of quantum behavior. But Henry Stapp, physicist at
>>Lawrence Livermore, who is the most active theorist in this area, believes
>>this is not correct. His explanation is, in fact, far more radical, but
>>capable of integrating the paradoxes of the Solvay Conference.
>
>
> I'm glad you cleared that up for us, Robert. It was keeping me awake.

On Robert's behalf, you are welcome.
SHP (good twin)

[Powell]

> wrote

>> Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study
>> of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial
>> machines" like CD players as it is neither a
>> biological or crystalline system.
>
> WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
>
Hehehe... quack, quack, quack


> They are capable of influencing matter, and can
> incorporate numerous systems, including biological
> forms and crystals.
>
Not according to the author of the Morphic
Resonance theory. Morphogenetic fields
excludes "artificial machines."


> A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance:
> http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html
>
Perhaps you should read it, mr. Consumer Fraud.

[[email protected]]

Intellectually dishonest Mr. Powell, goes on another Robert Morein
obsessive crusade;

> > wrote
>
> >> Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study
> >> of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial
> >> machines" like CD players as it is neither a
> >> biological or crystalline system.
> >
> > WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
> >
> Hehehe... quack, quack, quack
>

Oh I see. I'm supposed to guess what animal you're supposed to be...
uh... an ignorant pig?

>
> > They are capable of influencing matter, and can
> > incorporate numerous systems, including biological
> > forms and crystals.
> >
> Not according to the author of the Morphic
> Resonance theory. Morphogenetic fields
> excludes "artificial machines."

Ha! Clue one: you obviously don't even know what a "morphogenetic
field" is, Powell!


> > A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance:
> > http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html
> >
> Perhaps you should read it, mr. Consumer Fraud.

My free tweaks are now considered "Consumer Fraud"? How do you figure
that one, Mr. Obsessive-Paranoiac? Do you even know what a "consumer"
or "fraud" is? Apparently not.

As to Sheldrake, you think that finding one article on the web, that
you misinterpreted to boot, now makes you one of the world's
foremosting leading experts on all things Sheldrake. Sorry Powell. I'm
sure it disappoints your ego to know that it only make you even more
ignorant, and clearly intellctually dishonest. Since you are simply
killing yourself to refute anything I say no matter what, out of your
irrational hatred, anger, bigotry and prejudice toward me and the free
tweaks I generously donated to help people improve their audio system.
For free. That btw is more than you've ever done here, or anywhere in
your pathetic life.

Therefore, for the above reasons and more, I think we can safely
dismiss your phony baloney quasi-scientific "refutations". PLONK!

[soundhaspriority]

Richard, you're the fraud here.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Intellectually dishonest Mr. Powell, goes on another Robert Morein
> obsessive crusade;
>
>> > wrote
>>
>> >> Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study
>> >> of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial
>> >> machines" like CD players as it is neither a
>> >> biological or crystalline system.
>> >
>> > WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
>> >
>> Hehehe... quack, quack, quack
>>
>
> Oh I see. I'm supposed to guess what animal you're supposed to be...
> uh... an ignorant pig?
>
>>
>> > They are capable of influencing matter, and can
>> > incorporate numerous systems, including biological
>> > forms and crystals.
>> >
>> Not according to the author of the Morphic
>> Resonance theory. Morphogenetic fields
>> excludes "artificial machines."
>
> Ha! Clue one: you obviously don't even know what a "morphogenetic
> field" is, Powell!
>
>
>> > A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance:
>> > http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html
>> >
>> Perhaps you should read it, mr. Consumer Fraud.
>
> My free tweaks are now considered "Consumer Fraud"? How do you figure
> that one, Mr. Obsessive-Paranoiac? Do you even know what a "consumer"
> or "fraud" is? Apparently not.
>
> As to Sheldrake, you think that finding one article on the web, that
> you misinterpreted to boot, now makes you one of the world's
> foremosting leading experts on all things Sheldrake. Sorry Powell. I'm
> sure it disappoints your ego to know that it only make you even more
> ignorant, and clearly intellctually dishonest. Since you are simply
> killing yourself to refute anything I say no matter what, out of your
> irrational hatred, anger, bigotry and prejudice toward me and the free
> tweaks I generously donated to help people improve their audio system.
> For free. That btw is more than you've ever done here, or anywhere in
> your pathetic life.
>
> Therefore, for the above reasons and more, I think we can safely
> dismiss your phony baloney quasi-scientific "refutations". PLONK!
>

[[email protected]]

soundhaspriority wrote:

> Richard, you're the fraud here.

Talking to yourself again, Bobby? Get help with that. Really.