Toreen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Matott Subject: Re: TPDIS: TP and Genetics and Gaia Date: 23 Feb 2004 07:33:08 -0800 (PST) --- Shaun Hately wrote: > On 22 Feb 2004 at 21:28, Martin Dunne wrote: << SNIPPED Martin's comment for space>> > > > Or is this just too anthrocentric? > > In the real world, I would say it seems too > anthrocentric to me - > but I'm not sure if that can apply or not in the > world of the > Tomorrow People. The funny thing is that the Gaia hypothesis was first proposed as a *counter* to anthrocentric thinking. It emphasized that humans are *part* of the interconnected system of the planet, whether you refer to that as 'Gaia' or 'Nature'. Taking it as a way of reemphasizing patriarchial human 'manifest destiny' shows the amazing capability that exists to reinterpret theory. :-) (And this would not be the first time I've heard the Gaia hypothesis used to justify man's exploitation of nature or of 'goal' oriented evolution.) > Beyond matters of religious faith, whether personal > or > institutionalised, we have no real reason (IMHO at > least) to regard > Homo sapiens or Homo superior to be a teleological > imperative. But > we only have one planet with life to consider in > making that > assessment. It seems to me possible that the > evidence of 64,000 > worlds might provide evidence for the idea that one > world alone > does not. For all we know, within the Galactic > Federation, it could > be an established scientific principle that worlds > tend to produce > telepaths. Even if that were the case it doesn't necessarily indicate a telological imperative. It merely indicates that the character in question is evolutionarily successful in multiple environments. We have evidence of highly technologically advanced cultures WITHOUT the capability of TP abilities, so there is evidence that there are worlds that do not produce telepaths. > MORE SNIPPING >> > So while statements about 'Nature' making something > happen, could > just be evidence of a person's own belief - I don't > think we can be > sure it's not more than that. We really don't get to > see much > evidence of what beliefs the Tomorrow People hold - > or others hold, > for that matter. I seem to recall Professor Cawston > referring to > 'nature' putting limits on the TP as well, and he > wouldn't have > special knowledge - so that would be a reflection of > his own belief > structures. With the Tomorrow People, I just don't > know. And it's that statement from Cawston referring to 'nature' putting limits on the TP as a matter of course that makes me cringe that he represents a 'scientist'. (Then I remember he's a parapsychologist and I relax, since they're not the most credible of 'scientists'). Although there are some scientists that promote Intelligent Design (the refurbished version of Creationism that makes some concession to scientific evidence), most scientists who know anything about evolution will not promote the notion that there is an intent or goal in evolution. We may talk about natural selection, but it's not some anthropomorphised Nature doing the picking and choosing. It's a random process. When something works, it continues to propagate. When it stops working, species adapt or go extinct. mike - there you go Shaun. I threw in anthropomorphism into the mix with anthrocentrism and telelogical. :-) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Carol Bevis" Subject: RE: TPDIS: TP and Genetics Date: 23 Feb 2004 19:32:11 -0000 According to some of the latest documentaries on Egyptian history in the UK, Tutankhamun was originally known as Tutankhaten and was the son of and successor to Akenaten. He had to change his name to Tutankhamun to replace the Ahten (the name of the sundisc God worshipped exclusively under his father - known as the heretic king for insisting on monotheistic worship of the Ahten) with Amun (the name of one of the top ranking polytheistic deities of the traditional Egyptian pantheon) for political and religious reasons. He was also apparently disabled with curvature of the spine, problems with his hips and possibly also (if I remember rightly) a club foot. The documentary was part of a series of documentaries about people in ancient Egypt, I think it was called "Ancient Egyptians" and was a BBC production. Regards, Carol -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-tpdis@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Shaun Hately Sent: 19 February 2004 00:05 On 18 Feb 2004 at 17:02, gewertime@vassar.edu wrote: > Quoting Kathryn Andersen : > > > This would be consistent with the Old Series assertion that the Khultan > > psi-dampening device was suppressing all the TPs until it broke down > > in the recent past. > > (If you want to reconcile OS and NS, then you have to explain how > > Tutankamen managed to break out in the presence of the Khultan > > psi-dampening device...) > > I've always assumed that the psi-dampeners didn't get put in (or didn't start > working - finicky technology!) until after Tut. I realize that this may not make > sense chronologically, but I'm not an expert on Egyptian history, I'm afraid. It's hard to reconcile because they are in the Pyramids, and the pyramids seem to have been built at least partly for the psi- dampening effects. Tutankhamun - King Tut - was an 18th Dynasty Pharoah of the New Kingdom - he reigned 1333-1323BCE. The Great Pyramids were of 4th Dynasty Pharoahs - in the Old Kingdom - around 2500BCE - over a 1000 years before Tutankhamun was born. The Egyptians moreorless abandoned the building of pyramids quite a while before Tutankhamun came on the scene - the last Egyptian pyramids of any significance were built 300-400 years before Tutankhamun. Personally, the best explanation I could come up with - is that somehow either Tutankhamun or one of his predecessors managed to have the psi-dampeners turned off for a period. I used this idea in my fanfic - it's really all I could come up with. I had a struggle going on because I wanted to come up with a way of putting Jedekiah and Rameses into the timeline as well. I've established what happened in my fanfic universe for my purposes - but I've got another idea as well. Two Pharoahs before Tutakhamun came Amenhophis IV - also known as Akhenaten. Tutankahumn was possibly Akhenaten grandson - we don't know as much about their family relations as we could - as well as his son-in- law. Akhenaten was responsible for overturning the long established Egyptian religion - basically he declared a new faith. He introduced a lot of changes to traditional Egyptian religious patterns. In the TP universe (if we combine OS/NS so we need to deal with these discrepancies) it seems to me that such a man might have shut down the psi-dampeners if he knew of them - even if he didn't know what they were, if he just felt they were relics of the old ways. When Tutankhamun became Pharoah - about three years after he became Pharoah, when he was probably about 10, the old religion was restored by his order (as he was 10, he probably didn't make the decision - but it was in his name) and the old practices started being restored - perhaps the psi-dampeners were turned back on as part of that process. Which meant there was a brief period in Egyptian history when there was an opportunity for those with the requisite genetic structure to reach their potential and break out. I'm not an expert on genetics by any means - but I'd have to wonder if the intermarriage typical of Pharoanic families (Tutankhamun may have married his aunt) meant he was more likely to break out than most. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort@alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jackie Clark" Subject: Re: TPDIS: TP and Genetics and Gaia Date: 24 Feb 2004 06:40:49 -0000 (Then I remember he's a parapsychologist > and I relax, since they're not the most credible of > 'scientists'). Ahhhhh! who says they're not? A Parapsychologist would have a first degree, probably followed by a masters and a PHD he was also a professor at a university which I recall Elizabeth saying meant something too! People like Prof Cawston are trying to bring scientific rigger to what is usually a very difficult field: as main stream scientists claim time and time again that they are not doing properly controlled experiments. This usually requires them to reach higher levels of statistical significance in their research than any other discipline would demand. Yes, there are quacks out there - as in many fields of study when people who jump to unsubstantiated conclusions - but from what we saw of Cawston's research he was being fairly stringent etc. I'm not taking this personally, just smiling at an old stereotype! Jackie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Matott Subject: TPDIS: Re: Parapsychology Date: 24 Feb 2004 06:34:00 -0800 (PST) --- Jackie Clark wrote: > > (Then I remember he's a parapsychologist > > and I relax, since they're not the most credible > of > > 'scientists'). > > Ahhhhh! who says they're not? Sorry, Jackie. I thought it'd be clear my tone was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I'm not one of those stuffy scientists who thinks science *MUST* be portrayed accurately in science fiction - as there is that *fiction* component to it. I wouldn't have expected Cawston to have had an expert's understanding of evolution if he was a psychologist or neurologist. I was just making light of the perception of parapsychologists. One of my teachers in high school was primarily an anthropologist, but he also participated in parapsychology research and he seemed quite on the level. > > A Parapsychologist would have a first degree, > probably followed by a masters > and a PHD he was also a professor at a university > which I recall Elizabeth > saying meant something too! People like Prof Cawston > are trying to bring > scientific rigger to what is usually a very > difficult field: as main stream > scientists claim time and time again that they are > not doing properly > controlled experiments. This usually requires them > to reach higher levels of > statistical significance in their research than any > other discipline would > demand. Well, I would argue that their 'statistical significance' levels are not any higher or harder to reach than many other fields - including medical research. However, there have been MANY examples of parapsychological experiments in which the researcher finessed the data - for instance Rhine threw out results that were *worse* than would be statistically likely and tried to justify it by claiming the participants were *intentionally* trying to sabotage the results. Even throwing out the low-end of the data he was only able to demonstrate a slight effect. And Rhine is used as the premier example of rigorous parapsychologial experimentation. I have yet to see a parapsychology study with good controls that was able to demonstrate any psycic effect. > > Yes, there are quacks out there - as in many fields > of study when people > who jump to unsubstantiated conclusions - but from > what we saw of Cawston's > research he was being fairly stringent etc. > > I'm not taking this personally, just smiling at an > old stereotype! > Anyone want to explore this further? Merits of parapsychological studies? Problems with the field? Scientific method? Could be a good topic for further discussion. :-) mike __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jackie Clark" Subject: Re: TPDIS: Re: Parapsychology Date: 24 Feb 2004 19:16:00 -0000 > > Sorry, Jackie. I thought it'd be clear my tone was > meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I'm not one of those > stuffy scientists who thinks science *MUST* be > portrayed accurately in science fiction - as there is > that *fiction* component to it. No problem, I was only joking myself! > > Well, I would argue that their 'statistical > significance' levels are not any higher or harder to > reach than many other fields - including medical > research. > > However, there have been MANY examples of > parapsychological experiments in which the researcher > finessed the data - for instance Rhine threw out > results that were *worse* than would be statistically > likely and tried to justify it by claiming the > participants were *intentionally* trying to sabotage > the results. Even throwing out the low-end of the > data he was only able to demonstrate a slight effect. > And Rhine is used as the premier example of rigorous > parapsychologial experimentation. > > I have yet to see a parapsychology study with good > controls that was able to demonstrate any psycic > effect. I was thinking of the most recent Ganzfeld studies which I'm certain I read had high significance. I do have all the original journal articles stored in my garage but not the time to dig them out. There was a Parapsychologist from Edinburgh Uni on this list at one time. We are both members of the SPR and he would be the best one to answer your questions. > > Could be a good topic for further discussion. :-) Yes, especially if the person I'm thinking of is still on the list! Jackie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ToreenLyn@aol.com Subject: TPDIS: Chat Date: 28 Feb 2004 20:52:16 EST Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anyone up for CHAT? Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Anyone up for =20= CHAT?