PZ Meyers is just one person I’ve dialoged with online. He responsed to me directly once — in response to a question I asked him about Professor Jeffrey Schwartz for example.

Meyers aligns himself with the skeptics, via Magic Randi, which is unfortunate as any close reading of http://tricksterbook.com — the work of George P. Hansen — will reveal. Then there’s always Dennis Stillings, another Minnesotan, who Magic Randi’ed Magic Randi himself (in collaboration with U of Minnesota Physics Professor).

Nevertheless I’ve noticed Meyers has included specific comments I’ve made (for example his whole superconducting silica brain remark is directly from what I’ve been posting).

These things really don’t matter, because self-censorship, as has become the norm online, is just a sign of the tragic times we live in. I just recommend books for fun and read science for fun — I’m a crank which is a shrink for scientists (self-imposed, of course). I have a Masters Degree….. (not in science).

Here’s my latest recommendation for all you real scientists:

New School Professor Humphreys, Willard C.
Anomalies and Scientific Theories. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Company, [1968]

Author(s): Tei S, Faber PL, Lehmann D, Tsujiuchi T, Kumano HR, Kochi K
Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY 61 (3): 367-368 Sp. Iss. SI, SEP 2006
Document Type: Meeting Abstract
Language: English
Cited References: 0 Times Cited: 0
Addresses: Univ Tokyo, Dept Stress Sci & Psychosomat Med, Grad Sch Med, Tokyo, Japan
Univ Hosp Psychiat, KEY Inst Brain Mind Res, Zurich, Switzerland
Waseda Univ, Dept Hlth Sci & Social Welf, Tokyo, 1698050 Japan
Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS
Subject Category: PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL; NEUROSCIENCES; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
IDS Number: 071PT

ISSN: 0167-8760

Another good source on this is Professor Bart Kosko’s new book “Noise.” Alchemy is, as Kosko details, simple a perfect sine-wave with asymmetrical, nonlinear resonance — but it can not be “contained by infinity” through symbols, so therefore it’s not mathematizable.

Now — a little common sense. There are muscles attached to the brain. “Flex” — does not necessarily mean muscles (nor does it exclude muscles) — it can mean focusing cerebral-spinal fluid or even increasing resistance of electromagnetic fields or creating superpositioning of consciousness waves — like pumping a swing.

Science makes up new terms all the time but concepts can be based on a lot of different terminology, even though they are the same concepts. The concept of consciousness as a means for creating energy is found throughout the world — vitalism, alchemy — these are the rejected terms for it in the West.

There’s no need to rely on New Ageism — the only thing necessary is “natural resonance.” This is an issue of philosophy of science, discussed in detail by Professor H.M. Collins (in his books published by Cambridge University Press and M.I.T. Press).

Physics professor Robert McCauley (UT-Austin) critiqued the quantum chaos science book “Linked,” by professor A. Barabasi, as being hokum because “Linked” relies on resonance — which “is not mathematizable” to use McCauley’s words.

Well that’s the paradox of resonance isn’t it? Astronomy professor Seymour Percy made this point about resonance — that resonance is the achille’s heel of science, the “sublime kernal” of scientific ideology — in a letter to the journal Nature. Nature did not publish Professor Percy’s letter but Professor Percy had the letter published in John Anthony West’s book on astrology.

Interdiscinlinary analysis is what is most needed in science today so when such broad connections are made around resonance then most analysts have their brains lock-up. Yet interdisciplinary analysis is the M.O. of the Santa Fe Institute, for example.

Professor Nicholas Humphries, in one of his neuroscience books, states that it’s impossible to flex your prefrontal cortex. So I emailed him and told him I’m doing it right now! The person I took classes from, to be able to do this, sat in a cave in full-lotus for 28 days straight with no food and no water. Master Chunyi Lin is a certified international qigong master by the government of China. Master Lin has taught qigong to the Mayo Clinic doctors. http://springforestqigong.com

Of course my level of alchemy is only a beginner’s level compared to what he is able to do.

These skills are quite rare in the West because of gender relations and in fact science is based on gender relations. Alchemy (read “Taoist Yoga: Alchemy and Immortality”) is based on the electrochemical hormones, using the body as a harmonic oscillator, focused on its Platonic nodes of natural resonance.

So, obviously, for psychological reasons, there are certain taboos in science. Read “The Religion of Technology” by Professor David F. Noble (1996, while he was at M.I.T.) — science is based on Platonic structural dynamics — specifically the inverse relation of mass squared to energy frequency distance (read “Supersymmetry” by the U of Michigan particle physics professor).

The extention of logarthmic-based mathematics, as physics, is based on a “deep disharmony” (math professor Luigi Borzacchini) that is the structural cause of the ecological crisis.

The fact is Earth has 25 years of freshwater left. To not see the larger cause of this is pure hokum! I’m not against science — I’m just realistic about it’s results, which are relative and based on imperialism. There is no pure science — the Pythagorean Theorem was created, not by Pythagoras, but by Archytas and Eudoxus and Hippocrates, for catapult technology.

The only thing that doesn’t change is this formless awareness — the logical source of the I-thought (as taught by Kurt Godel, see Rudy Rucker’s “Infinity and the Mind”) — and science is part of a larger cycling of the elements, against any superiority of technology for the benefit of civilization.

(Hint: you can’t flex things that don’t contain muscles or a blood supply or other pneumatic system connected to muscles. Yes, that rules out flexing the pineal gland. Sorry.)

(And, um, fascism? PZ?! No, definitely not. But he’s damned good at spotting kooks thanks to years in the kook-hives that are talk.origins and auk.

If he was a fascist you’d be imprisoned or dead. Instead, you can’t babble in his front yard anymore. How terribly confining that must be for you.)

Melatonin is not new age hokum — the N.I.H. sponsored a cancer conference devoted to melatonin and the pineal gland in 2003.

I read one scholarly book a day and have spent the last 5 years corresponding with scientists from all disciplines.

Certainly science is more interesting than this regression to “gee whiz” 1950′s McCarthyism-research.

It appears that the “older” thinkers hope to take haven in the glory of simpler days…. ah, how feeble our dreams of yesteryear.

I was censored from PZ Meyers by the way — that’s how “real” science operates: fascism.

Considering the servere limitation to engage with the research I’ve presented on this forum — self-censorship by scientists is just as effective. Chomsky has stated as much in regards to some 90% of professors.

The one good thing about this discussion is that it jogged my recollection of Billy Joel’s “Angry Young Man“. I haven’t thought about that tune in years.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_4_88/ai_104682143

Title: Superluminal signal velocity and causality
Author(s): Nimtz G
Source: FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS 34 (12): 1889-1903 DEC 2004
Cited References: 50
Abstract: A superluminal signal velocity (i.e. faster than light) is said to violate causality. However, superluminal signal velocities have been measured in tunneling experiments recently. The classical dipole interaction approach by Sommerfeld and Brillouin results in a complex refractive index with a finite real part. For the tunneling process with its purely imaginary refractive index this model obtains a zero-time traversing of tunneling barriers in agreement with wave mechanics. The information of a signal is proportional to the product of its frequency band width and its time duration. The reasons that superluminal signal velocities do not violate causality are: ( i) physical signals are frequency band limited and ( ii) signals have a finite time duration.

Addresses: Nimtz G (reprint author), Univ Cologne, Inst Phys 2, Cologne, D-5000 Germany
Univ Cologne, Inst Phys 2, Cologne, D-5000 Germany
E-mail Addresses: G.Nimtz@uni.koeln.de
Publisher: SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS, 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1357.html

http://www.uel.ac.uk/ssmcs/staff/knight-chris.htm

I read no other books nor other analyses.

In fact I don’t think you should read “the Red Ape” because I’ve read it more than enough for you and the rest of “science.”

OK the above was comedy — now back to reality:

Epigenetics — it’s what everyone’s serving for breakfast these days. Nonlinear photon pumping — transposons, horizontal gene transfer, retro-viruses.

Evolution ain’t what it used to be. Read Dr. Mae-Wan Ho’s book “The Rainbow and the Worm” — biophotons are real!

Joel Sternheimer’s protein music is another great example.

Here’s two other “less reductionist” professors I recommend: William Calvin and Michael Corballis.

So with Calvin we have the whole global “pump” punctuated equilibrium argument.

2.5 mya — global warming causes permanent bipedalism in hominids — this is the “lop-sided ape” argument of Corballis.

Put the two together and you get the reductionist trajectory of left-brain, right-hand technology — just a reflection of quantum chaos (moon-sun-earth) dynamics mind you.

Already, 2 mya, more chips in the flint causes better cutting tool. Reductionism.

The real issue is arboreality and asymmetry and which sense is dominant — visual or auditory. When we were in the trees (our I should say our common ancestor with orangutans, some 20 mya, according to Schwartz) the inner ear connecting to our cerebellum created some bizarre effects.

The full-lotus yoga posture recreates this brain symmetry by the way. Brain plasticity is truly amazing!

Bird calls create ultrasonics which resonate the stomata of plants so that nutrients are absorbed from the morning dew.

Try to recreate that in a petry dish — as Louis Kervan details in his book “Biological Transmutations” — it’s not gonna happen.

“Gossip, Grooming and the Evolution of Language” by Professor Robin Dunbar.

It might be that bird behavior better suits human behavior than any of the primates. The inner ear of humans is the jaw of our pineal-gland “inner smile” — the melatonin bliss resonated into DMT vision that connects with nonlocal consciousness. It’s no accident that the golden ratio is the inner ear.

Or try this out — hydrocarbon cycle becames secret to vortex engines through implosion via thermogradients. Viktor Schauberger — not a professor but he understood Nature better than most.

Of course positronium research is totally classifed.

Personally, I’d recommend following that up with a broader survey of the scientific literature. Multiple sources tend to give fuller pictures.

‘Well ethology does get us into “cagey” territory doesn’t it?‘

Why? Are you suggesting there are no inherited biological or genetic components to behaviors? Schwartz *knows* that learned or non-inherited behaviors would not provide reliable determinants for establishing phylogeny. In his work, Jeffrey would specifically ignore traits that did not have evidence of an underlying, *biological* and inheritable component.

(As an aside: Given that probably, the most poorly genetically understood type of organismal trait is primate behavior and that the traits would likely vary significantly in different environmental contexts*, I’d personally hesitate to rely strongly on ethology if I had better alternatives for comparison.

*For example, one of the best known mechanisms for discordant distances in phylogentic comparisons is intense selective pressure on a trait in one of the lineages).

******************************
About those ‘war-mongering’ chimps: What of Pan paniscus? Consider the pan clade: Interesting sets of behaviors for groups with close genetic ties, eh? I guess I would agree that ethology is a ‘cagey’ problem, but not for the ‘political’ reasons you might propose.

Well ethology does get us into “cagey” territory doesn’t it?

Orangutans are solitary, peaceful primates compared to our “true” ancestors — those war-mongering, big-balled chimps!

But then considering that orangutans are actually more accurate in terms of behavioral traits then we begin to see — gasp — the POLITICAL basis for this whole argument.

Moot — of course — since Mother Nature will take of its “progression.”

Schwartz’s research is just as reductionistic as sequence comparisons. How do you think one establishes taxonomic relationships? Schwartz is attempting to identify and quantify specific organismal traits for comparison. Like every other approach in the science of comparative biology (taxonomy) he seeks to find a objective and ‘hard’ basis for his choice of traits. He then quantifies and ranks the measurements to construct the trees of relationships. Sequence and morphological comparisons are complementary methods for determining biological relationships. They may not always agree but that’s not a issue of ‘reductionist genetic IPO priorities’; it’s of matter of how the observed variations arose and the relative rates of acquired variation in the different lineages. If you read Schwartz’s other publications, you’ll find that Jeff enthusiastically encourages the ongoing research which is attempting to determine the underlying, specific genetic and epigenetic mechanisms behind organismal phenotypes (e.g. morphology, behavior & etc.) and developmental biology. That *is* reductionistic.

BTW – The paper Drew referenced in the most recent post was authored by John R. Grehan. John references papers by Schwartz but the URL doesn’t specifically point to a paper by Jeff.

How ironic — the discovery and study of evolution is its own demise: http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309074231/html/1.html

Let’s have a real debate on this “science” blog instead of reactionary comments with no substance.

Or we can continue to ignore the evidence with caddy remarks.

This isn’t about “sympathy” — unless you’re considering the fact that orangutans are about to go extinct (along with 25% of primates).

No, it’s a reflection of sequence differences across species.

Here’s a new paper by Professor Jeffrey Schwartz that directly deals with the morphology versus genetics arguments in primate evolution. To ignore the clear evidence is to side with the aristocratic, imperialistic forces that construct the true history of science. That position is fine to take, as it is the defining force in current “evolution” — yet it’s not the truth.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/08/our-closest-relative-orangutan.html