[dlorde]

The role of DNA or genes in heredity is way too exaggerated :
DNA is certainly not the 'architect " of life : see how all cells of our bodies do have the same DNA , and yet our body parts do have different forms : DNA alone cannot account for that : otherwise , it would be like saying that different buildings that were built from the same material , via the same work energy and via different plans  thus are the ...same .

You should bear in mind that DNA in genes is the basic mechanism of heredity; epigenetics adds tags that can suppress the expression of certain genes. Like adding a margin note to skip a certain step or ingredient in a recipe. The recipe is still required - and it makes no sense to say the role of the recipe is way too exaggerated because some steps or ingredients are optional.

The human genome project , for example , has failed in telling us why we are so different from our alleged closest "relatives " the chimps with which we do allegedly share the same origin .

That wasn't the objective of the human genome project. It also failed to tell us of the Philippines typhoon, or why the Mars Climate Orbiter probe failed. So what?

The chimps do share more than 99% DNA material with us though , but that does not explain why we are so different from them, on the contrary .

It's the differences in the DNA in the genes that explain why we're so different. Some of the relevant genes have been identified, for example, a range of physical structure genes, such as relative limb lengths & ratios, face shape, hair structure, and importantly, some of the gene duplications associated with our relatively enlarged neocortex. So the human genome project has given us the raw data that has helped us explain what we have so far. You have to identify the genes involved in a particular trait before you can compare them inter and intra species.

Not to mention that even rice does have no less than 38 000 genes ,while humans do have only 23 000 genes : how come then that we are way more complex than rice then ? if genes or if DNA is what allegedly define us as human beings .

How come that even some plants have more genes than us ?

Chromosomal DNA occasionally gets duplicated in various ways. Sometimes part of a chromosome, sometimes a whole chromosome, sometimes the whole genome. Check out Gene Duplication.

Homeobox genes , for example , are identical  in  fruit flies , in  humans and in other species , but yet they cannot account for the major form differences between humans and fruitflies ...let alone for their respective degrees of complexity .

C'mon Don, this is basic genetics - homeobox genes make proteins that regulate cascades of other genes in anatomical development; small variations in these cascades can cause major anatomical differences. You can read about it here: homeobox genes.

There is a lot to say on the subject ,so, i am gonna just leave it at that then, for the time being at least .

In the meantime, I recommend you learn something about it. There are plenty of good genetics tutorials and courses for free online.

[dlorde]

since heredity can also be epigenetic... it'pretty logical that the psychcological or mental acquired traits or adaptations might  get inherited in their turn somehow

Only if such psychological or mental acquired traits or adaptations are a result of heritable changes in gene expression.

What makes you think that that's the only option  : can you predict the future scientific discoveries on the subject already ?

I was referring to your logic - it's only 'pretty logical' if you invoke the known mechanism (epigenetics), as no other mechanism is known. IOW the existence of epigenetics doesn't make an unknown other mechanism 'pretty logical'. Simples.

[RD]

Not to mention that even rice does have no less than 38 000 genes ,while humans do have only 23 000 genes : how come then that we are way more complex than rice then ? 

Most DNA is non-coding / currently redundant / "junk",  ( no designer, other than evolution, so coding is not efficient).
Many more generations of rice have occurred than generations of humans, so rice has accumulated more "junk" in its genome than humans ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma#C-value_enigma_origin

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

dlorde :
Gotta go: I've spent way too much  time here already , i can hardly afford to be spending :
Just answer my core questions,concerning the mental or non-physical side of the 'equation " of the whole pic of reality ,you cannot just ignore , via some irrational belief of yours , the mental that's irreducible to and more fundamental than the physical , even at the level of inheritance thus,   instead of telling me about things i already know via those  wiki  links of yours ( I never liked wiki anyway : way too a medium for every idiot to writte in ) ,instead of telling me materialist magical bed time stories  fairy tales ,for kids  .
Thanks, appreciate indeed .

RD :

I am neither  interested in your materialist mechanical magic in science,nor in your silly wild speculations concerning my own person or sources , let alone in the rest  .
Should we totally discard any scientist or thinker who happens to have used drugs ? 
What kindda silly "reasoning " is this then ?
What makes you think i have been saying what i have been saying , thanks to some kind of drugs ? Get real .

Reminds me of the former Soviet Union's treatment of its own dissidents by the way , by branding them as insane or worse .
Thanks anyway .
To be honest , i never liked  you, and i still do not ,and i never will,  i must admit ,thanks to your nasty snitch behavior that does remind me of the thought police , that does remind me of all those kinds of inquisitions, including the materialist one .

Banning me won't make the simple obvious and undeniable fact go away that the current "scientific world view " is false .
Banning me won't keep me awake at night either .Who cares about that : there will always be dogmatic and irrational folks such as yourself .
Maybe , i should start looking for more intelligent audience , that's what i ought be doing in fact ,who knows ?
Gotta go, time up.
Ciao.

[woolyhead]

The mind is not in the brain, memory is not stored in the brain ...and hence qualia is not  in  the brain .
It's the other way around in fact : the brain is in the mind, and the body is in the mind  .
The non-physical mind does affect the physical brain ,and vice versa ,how ? : that remains to be seen ...
The mind is more fundamental than matter can ever be , so, the mind might be underlying the laws of physics , not the other way around .

Would you care to consider this: if the mind is composed of quantum computing plus output interfaces which cause the neurones to fire, it would seem to the neurone system that the thoughts and ideas etc had come from "elsewhere." It would seem to the regular brain that these thoughts were non physical.

[cheryl j]

You'll have to be a little more specific about what those "mental psychological environmental implications and traits'' are in order for me to answer, unless you want a response that is as vague and ambiguous as the question. Which specific traits are you referring to?

Do tragic events such as wars , famine , holocaust , natural disasters and the like not have psychological and mental implications on the people who were / are unfortunate enough to be experiencing them ?

Yes, they do have psychological effects on people who experience them.

The physiological enviromental inherited  effects of such and other enviromental implications might be  not the only kind of heredetary implications  .The mental or psychological implications that are irreducible to the physical ,since reality cannot be just material or physical .

There are genes that code for psychological traits, mental abilities, and behaviors. Behavioral or mental traits tend to be complex, often involving combinations of genes.  The expression of these genes, or how they manifest themselves, often depends on the environment of that individual, as well. But mental and behavioral traits can be selected for, just as physical traits can be selected. I don't know if any epigenetic effects on them have been discovered yet.

Lamarck must have been right when he used to say that acquired characteristics or traits , due to the adaptations and habits of living organisms to the environment might be passed on as well to the next generations .

Why do you say he must have been right?
Epigenetics is not really the same idea as Lamarck's theory. Epigenetics still requires chemical changes to the DNA, or the genes being expressed or suppressed. Larmark's idea was that a giraffe, for example, got a longer neck simply by stretching it a lot, and somehow passed this on to the next generation of giraffes. He didn't account for natural selection, or any chemical mechanism directly affecting genes.

In my opinion, the physiological environmental heredetary side of the pic is not the whole pic : the mental and psychological implications of and adaptations to wars , famine,holocaust , black slavery  ...with all the stress and the rest that go with that ,with all the diseases that go with that ,  might be inherited by the next generations as well .

Absolutely, these adaptations are passed on through learning, through culture, through religion, through tradition, through books, through art, etc. But they are not permanent changes. That is, if you took an infant out of that culture, and raised him in a completely different one, and he had no access to that culture or its history and  traditions, he would not have a genetic memory of those things. Never the less, one should not, in my opinion, discount the effect of information or adaptations passed on through learning. If you are really interested, there is a book called "The Outliers," by Malcolm Gladwell, that discusses the how family, culture and individual experience effect behavior and achievement. You might enjoy it. It's a very non-materialistic book (or to be more accurate, materialism isn't relevant in it, one way or the other.)  He discusses something called the "10,000 hour rule," which states that it takes about 10,000 hours to become really great at something (whether it's playing the guitar, or becoming a computer expert) and sees this as being as important, if not more so, than innate or genetically determined ability.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

"The Science Delusion " Video Lecture By Rupert Sheldrake :

Note that Sheldrake is extremely pro-science proper ,he just tries to liberate science from the false materialist mainstream scientific priesthood 's authority ,that's similar to that of the medieval church ,that's in fact worse than the latter , simply because it has been imposing its own false materialist conception of nature for so long now , as the 'scientific world view " :

When science will be free from the false materialist dogmatic belief system, whole new unimaginable -to-us-all yet vistas will open up for science : let's hope we will all be still alive and fortunate enough to witness that revolutionary event , as materialism's end is nearer than ever , as science has been superseding that false and outdated materialism ,that dates back all the way to the 19th century,ironically enough ,that has been ossifying science , by holding it imprisonned within the false dogmatic materialist prison, as to make it unable to progress  :

Enjoy, free folks : let's all work for science's deliverance  from dogmas , in order to make science less dogmatic , and more scientific, in order to make science more fun ,as it should be in fact ,in order to democratize science ,as to give it back to the people away from the exclusive monopoly of the materialist mainstream scientific priesthood 's authority:  science that's all about dispelling dogmas , lies , untruths , half-truths ....

Enjoy ,and have fun ,while you are at it :  science should be fun , not dogmatic,not hierarchial or authoritarian totalitarian  :

[dlorde]

dlorde :
Gotta go: I've spent way too much  time here already , i can hardly afford to be spending :
Just answer my core questions,concerning the mental or non-physical side of the 'equation " of the whole pic of reality ,you cannot just ignore , via some irrational belief of yours , the mental that's irreducible to and more fundamental than the physical , even at the level of inheritance thus,   instead of telling me about things i already know via those  wiki  links of yours ( I never liked wiki anyway : way too a medium for every idiot to writte in ) ,instead of telling me materialist magical bed time stories  fairy tales ,for kids  .
Thanks, appreciate indeed .

Don mate, you're projecting - as usual. The irrational beliefs are yours (what did you say, "beyond science, reason, and logic"? something like that), and I suspect you know it, although you can't admit it - that's what makes you so grumpy and irritable. But you're right to question your core beliefs; I hope you find some material answers, they're out there if you look.

If not, science will simply continue its progress investigating the material anyway, and you'll continue your special pleading for the immaterial; going nowhere; talking about nothing. Your contribution will be immaterial - congratulations.

[RD]

RD :
I am neither  interested in your materialist mechanical magic in science

You're the only one here suggesting magical forces are at work : i.e. forces outside the material world.
 If you're not interested in science why have you spent months in a science forum , if not just to troll ?.

Should we totally discard any scientist or thinker who happens to have used drugs ? 

If they were on drugs when they came up with the idea, then probably the answer is yes.
If when investigated there is no evidence to support their drug-induced idea then yes definitely ignore them.

What makes you think i have been saying what i have been saying , thanks to some kind of drugs ?

Reason #1. You being a disciple of Sheldrake, (quoting him extensively), who says in this YouTube video ...

"... for me probably the first jolt out of the belief that materialism could explain everything was taking LSD ... some acid trips I had ..."

Reason #2. You saying that you , like Rupert , had taken LSD , and you exhibit the LSD "oneness" symptom.

Get real 

At the risk of stating the obvious, drug-users perception is further from reality than people who are not altered by drugs. 

... i never liked  you, and i still do not ,and i never will

You probably don't like having your incorrect views refuted by me or others in this forum,
That you say don't like me is irrelevant, apart from demonstrating how puerile your behaviour can be.

[dlorde]

At the risk of stating the obvious, drug-users perception is further from reality than people who are not altered by drugs.

Not sure this is a particularly fruitful line to pursue; while under the influence, perception of reality will be different, but for most, the use of hallucinogens, particularly LSD, are typically occasional instances of early adulthood. Many people I know dabbled as students, but now have entirely conventional perceptions of reality (although they'll admit to a changed understanding of some popular cultural memes & themes of the time []). In the case of more frequent users (LSD is not generally considered addictive), it's not clear whether such use is more a cause than a symptom of more 'out there' exotic personalities & world views.

[RD]

... are typically occasional instances of early adulthood ... (LSD is not generally considered addictive) ...

Repeated* LSD use isn't  necessary for a long-term effect : one use can be sufficient for permanent psychological injury ...

There are some cases of LSD inducing a psychosis in people who appeared to be healthy before taking LSD.
In most cases, the psychosis-like reaction is of short duration, but in other cases it may be chronic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Psychosis

The extreme hyper-real / traumatic ("bad trip") LSD experience , like an extreme exogenous experience , can permanently reshape the person's psyche thereafter , cf. PTSD ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder  [ which can also involve psychosis & flashbacks like LSD ]


[ * although Sheldrake does use the plural : "some acid trips I had ..." ]

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

dlorde :
Gotta go: I've spent way too much  time here already , i can hardly afford to be spending :
Just answer my core questions,concerning the mental or non-physical side of the 'equation " of the whole pic of reality ,you cannot just ignore , via some irrational belief of yours , the mental that's irreducible to and more fundamental than the physical , even at the level of inheritance thus,   instead of telling me about things i already know via those  wiki  links of yours ( I never liked wiki anyway : way too a medium for every idiot to writte in ) ,instead of telling me materialist magical bed time stories  fairy tales ,for kids  .
Thanks, appreciate indeed .

Don mate, you're projecting - as usual. The irrational beliefs are yours (what did you say, "beyond science, reason, and logic"? something like that), and I suspect you know it, although you can't admit it - that's what makes you so grumpy and irritable. But you're right to question your core beliefs; I hope you find some material answers, they're out there if you look.

(Prior note :
You do have a weird and bizarre perception of what science might be , scientist,thanks to your own materialist false belief you do take for granted as science  :

Who or what said that science's realm is just the material or physical ? Oh yeah , materialism does .
Who or what said that 'everything " = nothing can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry ? Yeah, right : materialism does .

You have to try to reconsider your own views regarding what science might be :

Science must try to deal with the aspects of the mental side of reality it can deal with empirically , science has no choice but to try to do just that , by starting to look for some more fundamental forms of causation, the non-physical ones at that , simply because reality is not just material or physical, not just a matter of physics and chemistry , and simply because the mental that's irreducible to the physical ,is more fundamental than matter can ever be : we don't know yet what even matter is exactly though , what physics and chemistry themselves are exactly : they might turn out to be totally different from what we perceive them to be .)

Well, on top of the above , there are in fact also "things or " rather processes that are   beyond science , reason, logic , beyond science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction as well ,simply because there will always be some levels of reality that will remain out of reach of science , for example,and simply because reality is not exclusively material or physical as the false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " wanna make you believe it is : who's projecting now ? you or i ? : you're the one who does believe in that materialist false conception of nature, you have been taking for granted as the "scientific world view " , for so long now , am i wrong ? .

You cannot just keep on quoting that statement of mine out of context ,whenever that might suit you .

And no, reality is not just material or physical : the material that's in fact way less fundamental than the mental which is  irreducible to the physical or to the material ,once again , and hence science's realm will be extended when science will reject materialism, as to include the mental side of reality with which science can deal  empirically .

See Sheldrake's work on the subject , even though  the poor guy is ,relatively speaking at least , still vague in his views , regarding how science can deal with the mental empirically .

Other scientists in the future might take it from there , who knows then what they would be coming up with on the subject .

Could Newton ever predict Einstein's relativity theory ? : just an analogy : science will undergo a major and revolutionary shift of meta-paradigm , not just a paradigm shift , by rejecting that false materialist meta-paradigm in science : that would not turn out to be "nothing " : that would revolutionize science in ways that are still unimaginable to us all yet .

Science cannot remain ossified within the materialist prison, the latter that has been holding science back by making it unable to progress beyond the materialist false meta-paradigm  : science that must be totally free in exploring reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be : no one and no ideology such as materialism can dictate to science what specific areas of reality science must explore: science as a relatively still a young adventurer that will break free from any dogmas chains such as those of materialism that have been restricting the exploring power and nature of science .

If not, science will simply continue its progress investigating the material anyway, and you'll continue your special pleading for the immaterial; going nowhere; talking about nothing. Your contribution will be immaterial - congratulations.

Science will never be able to progress ,as long as it will continue being imprisonned within the false materialist conception of nature , within the false materialist meta-paradigm in science , and hence within the false current 'scientific world view " ,simply because reality is not just material or physical, once again .
So, science must undergo a major and revolutionary shift of meta-paradigm, not just a paradigm shift , by rejecting the materialist meta-paradigm in science , as to include the mental side of the whole pic .
Science that cannot keep on trying to explain "everything " = nothing , just in terms of physics and chemistry thus .
It is in fact absurd , surreal , extremely stupid ...you name it ...to try to explain the whole reality , just via one single side of it , while taking the latter for the whole real pic : that's exactly what science has been doing , thanks to materialism thus , the latter that has been turning science into a kind of secular dogmatic ossified religion ....science must be liberated from that materialist bullshit , and science will be ,simply because science is all about dispelling dogmas, lies , untruths , half truths ...

Condolences then and congratulations .

[RD]

science that must be totally free in exploring reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be : no one and no ideology such as materialism can dictate to science what specific areas of reality science must explore: science as a relatively still a young adventurer that will break free from any dogmas chains such as those of materialism that have been restricting the exploring power and nature of science .

Some scientists have explored your alleged "non-material" phenomena : decades of fruitless research by some ...
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_lab_closes_ending_decades_of_psychic_research/ 
If anyone wants to waste years of their life on investigating these alleged phenomena again they are free to do so : no-one is "restricting" research in this area.

... lies , untruths ...

What's the difference between "lies" and "untruths" ?  [ a small example of your logical deficiencies ].

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

You'll have to be a little more specific about what those "mental psychological environmental implications and traits'' are in order for me to answer, unless you want a response that is as vague and ambiguous as the question. Which specific traits are you referring to?

Do tragic events such as wars , famine , holocaust , natural disasters and the like not have psychological and mental implications on the people who were / are unfortunate enough to be experiencing them ?

Yes, they do have psychological effects on people who experience them.

What's then more fundamental and more far reaching than those  environmental psychological and mental effects ? the physiological environmental ones ?
The mental is the one that's more fundamental than the physiological ,not the other way around .The mental that's irreducible to the physical or to the material .

Why can't there be some sort of inheritance of those more fundamental effects,non-physically thus  ? : the environmental psychological and mental ones .
Why do you think that  the environmental physiological can be inherited ,and the mental not ,in the sense that  the mental is irreducible to the physical or to the material .

What makes you rather think that the mental can be inherited only physiologically just via genetics or via epigenetics ? How can that happen then ,since the mental is irreducible to the physical ?

Are you aware of this paradox ?

What makes you rather think that the mental or psychological can only be inherited physically physiologically ? the mental and psychological that are in fact irreducible to the physical or to the material, once again .

In short :

What makes you think that inheritance can only be material , that it can only either be  genetic or epigenetic  ?

What makes you exclude any non-physical form of inheritance then ?

What makes you exclude the non-physical ,non -genetical ,non-epigenetical form of inheritance ?

Yeah , right , the false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " does , not science proper thus .

Why can't you rather say that the physiological effects of the environmental mental and psychological implications of past tragic events can be inherited epigenetically ,but ,materialistic science cannot say anything about the possibility that the  enviromental mental and psychological implications of past tragic events ,might be inherited in their turn non-physically ,since the mental and psychological are irreducible to the physical or to the material ?

What makes you think that science proper will not be able to discover those non-physical forms of inheritance , after rejecting materialism thus ?

The physiological enviromental inherited  effects of such and other enviromental implications might be  not the only kind of heredetary implications  .The mental or psychological implications that are irreducible to the physical ,since reality cannot be just material or physical .

There are genes that code for psychological traits, mental abilities, and behaviors. Behavioral or mental traits tend to be complex, often involving combinations of genes.  The expression of these genes, or how they manifest themselves, often depends on the environment of that individual, as well. But mental and behavioral traits can be selected for, just as physical traits can be selected. I don't know if any epigenetic effects on them have been discovered yet.

See above : what makes you think that inheritance can be exclusively material = genetic or epigenetic only ?

How can the mental that's irreducible to the physical or to the material be inherited physiologically ? how ? via some sort of materialist magic ?

What makes you exclude the possibility that there might be non-physical forms of inheritance out there ,together with the genetical or epigenetical ones ? materialism does, not science proper thus .

Lamarck must have been right when he used to say that acquired characteristics or traits , due to the adaptations and habits of living organisms to the environment might be passed on as well to the next generations .

Why do you say he must have been right?
Epigenetics is not really the same idea as Lamarck's theory. Epigenetics still requires chemical changes to the DNA, or the genes being expressed or suppressed. Larmark's idea was that a giraffe, for example, got a longer neck simply by stretching it a lot, and somehow passed this on to the next generation of giraffes. He didn't account for natural selection, or any chemical mechanism directly affecting genes.

Lamarck and Darwin used to think that environmental acquired characteristics or adaptations habits can be inherited , Darwin even tried to explain that sort of inheritance : that's   what  i was talking about : epigenetics has proved that fact to be true , even though that seems to happen physiologically under pressure of the environment , by switching on or off certain genes : but ,that might not be the only process of inheritance of acquired characteristics or inherited adaptation at work,as mentioned above  .

In my opinion, the physiological environmental heredetary side of the pic is not the whole pic : the mental and psychological implications of and adaptations to wars , famine,holocaust , black slavery  ...with all the stress and the rest that go with that ,with all the diseases that go with that ,  might be inherited by the next generations as well .

Absolutely, these adaptations are passed on through learning, through culture, through religion, through tradition, through books, through art, etc. But they are not permanent changes. That is, if you took an infant out of that culture, and raised him in a completely different one, and he had no access to that culture or its history and  traditions, he would not have a genetic memory of those things. Never the less, one should not, in my opinion, discount the effect of information or adaptations passed on through learning. If you are really interested, there is a book called "The Outliers," by Malcolm Gladwell, that discusses the how family, culture and individual experience effect behavior and achievement. You might enjoy it. It's a very non-materialistic book (or to be more accurate, materialism isn't relevant in it, one way or the other.)  He discusses something called the "10,000 hour rule," which states that it takes about 10,000 hours to become really great at something (whether it's playing the guitar, or becoming a computer expert) and sees this as being as important, if not more so, than innate or genetically determined ability.

Thanks for the tip , but , that's not what i was talking about :
The inheritance of certain mental illnesses ,for example, cannot be just the work, so to speak, of genes or epigenetics ,simply because the mental is irreducible to the physical or to the material : there might be some extra form of inheritance of the mental out there thus .I dunno : it just does not make sense to reduce everything,including the mental and psychological thus ,  to just the material or physical , to just genes physics and chemistry ,as the false mainstream "scientific world view " has been doing ...
You're reducing everything , including the mental and psychological that are irreducible to the physical , to just physics and chemistry ,as materialism has been doing ,and hence as science has also been doing , thanks to materialism = that's no science = that's just materialism in science: see the difference ? Hope so  .
Think about that .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

science that must be totally free in exploring reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be : no one and no ideology such as materialism can dictate to science what specific areas of reality science must explore: science as a relatively still a young adventurer that will break free from any dogmas chains such as those of materialism that have been restricting the exploring power and nature of science .

Some scientists have explored your alleged "non-material" phenomena : decades of fruitless research by some ...
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_lab_closes_ending_decades_of_psychic_research/ 
If anyone wants to waste years of their life on investigating these alleged phenomena again they are free to do so : no-one is "restricting" research in this area.

I was not talking about any psychic phenomena , just about the fact that reality is not just material or physical, as the current false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " wanna make you believe it is , and hence we are not just physical bodies or just physical brains, DNA....we are not just biology , we are not just physics and chemistry  , and therefore our minds are non-physical or non-material = our immaterial minds cannot be  in our physical brains = our immaterial minds cannot be the "products " of our physical brain's activity  .

... lies , untruths ...

What's the difference between "lies" and "untruths" ?

Stop playing the wise guy, ok ?
Good : the current false mainstream materialist haha "scientific world view " is an untruth = untrue = false .

A premise can be false or can be true .
Mathematically : x can be false , x can be true , or x can neither be false nor true ....many possibilities ,depends on the premise ,and some true premises cannot be proven to be true , and vice versa ...

Saying that i am a troll is a lie ,and an untruth = untrue = false .

If you wanna be philosophical about this ,then :

a lie is false = an untruth = untrue .
An untruth = untrue = false ,and is also a ...lie  .

Lies are untruths , and untruths are lies .

Whatever ...

[RD]

I was not talking about any psychic phenomena ...

You were claiming telepathy was possible. Telepathy is an alleged psychic phenomenon.

Lies are untruths , and untruths are lies .

Correct : "Lie" and "untruth" are synonyms , and you are guilty of tautology by listing them consecutively as if they were different things ...

... dispelling dogmas, lies , untruths , half truths ...

Your repeated tautology is just an example of the lack of logic in your posts.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Lies are untruths , and untruths are lies .

Correct : "Lie" and "untruth" are synonyms , and you are guilty of tautology by listing them consecutively as if they were different things. [ Your repeated tautology is just an example of the lack of logic in your posts ].

[/quote]


Just focus on the core issues here , not on insignificant irrelevant details :
Details can blind you in relation to the whole pic sometimes :
I do not use them as if they were different things , i just do use them to make things clearer ,as to emphacise   a statement , as many writers and thinkers do .
You've got no imagination, i see .

Desert people ,for example , do have many synonymes and words for the same thing : sand,as people of the north do have many words for ...snow ....

as there are many words regarding the same 'thing "  = materialism haha = false , a lie , a make-believe , a delusion, an illusion, absurd  surreal , a fairy tale   ...you name it .

[RD]

Just focus on the core issues here , not on insignificant irrelevant details

logic is not irrelevant in a reasoned argument: it is essential.

... people of the north do have many words for ...snow ....

Another example of you not engaging your critical faculties when reading stuff on t'internet ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

date=1385410608]

Just focus on the core issues here , not on insignificant irrelevant details

logic is not irrelevant in a reasoned argument: it is essential.

[/quote]

Using synonymous words is a logical attempt to make things clearer .

... people of the north do have many words for ...snow ....

Another example of you not engaging your critical faculties when reading stuff on t'internet ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow

Whatever : sue me .

All i know is that Arabs of the desert do use many synonymous and different words to say the same thing = sand,to mention just that , not to mention love .... : i am an Arab : i should know that , as i actually do : sue me .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

RD :

See this : even though it's just a  materialist "geographic "  liberal secular view :

"Geography of thought : or how Asians and westerners think ,and why ? " By Richard E.Nisbett :

http://www.amazon.com/The-Geography-Thought-Westerners-Differently/dp/0743255356