[MD] Tit's

[Ham Priday]

Krimel:

> First let me say that I work really hard at ignoring you ,,,

Since it's hard for you to ignore me, I assume it's because what I say is 
difficult to ignore.  Appreciate the compliment, Krimel..

> While I can not "prove" this I would once again point to
> developmental psych and note that young children do not
> understand that objects continue to exist when they are
> out of sight. Here is an example but if you search Google
> videos for object permanence you can find lots more.

Yes, the 'peek-a-boo' video is entertaining and could be offered as evidence 
that what the six-month-old child experiences is impermanent, as it "comes 
and goes" at the will of another.  What it does show is that the 
entertainment value of the toy is
clearly greater than the towel that hides it, and value endures over the 
four-month interval to the second half of the video.  This is a 
cleverly-designed experiment which demonstrates your astute comprehension of 
the subject.

What you and the psychologist may be overlooking is that the child at six 
months lacks the physical coordination required to lift the towel from the 
toy, but depends instead on the "presenter" for her continuum of experience. 
After all, isn't that how the game of "peek-a-boo" is played? 
(Underdeveloped motor skill may also play a part in the "crib-death" 
syndrome of young infants.)

However, I tend to view this experiment as evidence that intellectual 
development occurs over the course of time.  The notion that phenomena are 
not merely objects that appear and disappear at random, but that we can 
CHOOSE what we experience, and thus increase the value of our lives, is a 
learned concept.  (Conduct this experiment with a 10-month autistic child 
and it might not demonstrate this capability.)

> So often it is like you almost "get it".  All experience does
> indeed start with sensation. We transduce energy from the
> environment into neural impulses. "Values" I am afraid are
> mostly inherited. They are the emotional valances programmed
> into our genetic code and modified or made specific
> through experience. ...
> If you spent a bit more time looking into it and a lot less time
> making up terms I believe you might profit from the exercise.

Is "transducing energy into neural impulses" your idea of speaking in common 
terms?
And is the suggestion that "Values are mostly inherited" another assertion 
that you can't justify?  Values are neither genetic nor biological; they are 
the essence os our proprietary sensibility.  AsMarsha says,

> Things like time, space, motion, desire, cause&effect, &etc.,
> also do not inherently exist and are nothing but conceptions.

Except that "conceptions" are intellectual constructs (existents or 
patterns?) of Value, which is the individual's sense of Essence, the 
uncreated non-existent source of existence.

With continued patience,
Ham