waysider

While it's an interesting subject to discuss, the only part I see that might be related to doctrine is this: "What about Jesus Christ talking to that tree and causing the tree to die from its roots up when made that statement overnight" Or, was the discussion leading up to this?

Plants responded to sound. I can accept that. What I can't accept is that this is somehow proof that plants have intelligence and that apples have an IQ.

Maybe it will get moved to the joke forum because you referred to VPW as a great man. (For future reference, the punchline is usually reserved for the end of the story.)

"Many of us have heard stories about plants flourishing in rooms with classical music. Typically, though, much of the research on music and plants was, to put it mildly, not carried out by investigators grounded in the scientific method. Not surprisingly, in most of these studies, the plants thrived in music that the experimenter also preferred." ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- "All that being said, I have to cover myself here by pointing out that some very recent research hints that plants may respond to sounds. Not to music mind you, which is irrelevant for a plant, but to certain vibrations." SOURCE On the other hand, Darwin proposed a hypothesis that plants may have a "root brain" that controls various aspects of the plants behavior. HERE is a source for that information. All in all, while this offers some fascinating insight on the wonders and complexities of how DNA works, none of it proves that plants have what we refer to as intelligence. (in my opinion)

Roy I hate to say this, but you're relying on flawed logic. There is a specific type of flawed logic that describes such a scenario. You can find more information about it HERE. Frankly, this seems a bit out of character for you. We have had many conversations in the past and I've never seen this side of you. Failure to prove something is false does not make it true. Likewise, failure to prove something is true does not make it false. In this case, there is an abundance of information that clearly proves that plants do not have anything resembling what we call consciousness. We have no proof, whatsoever, to suggest that plants do have consciousness. The logical conclusion is that plants have no consciousness. As I stated before, you can believe otherwise if you wish. It really won't affect me at all. The burden of proof, however, shifts to you to show some logical basis for your belief that will prove your assertion.

I think everything that is alive has its own form of consciousness. You're free to think whatever you wish. There is nothing in our vast reserve of knowledge to substantiate the existence of plant consciousness.

if they had no intelligence where they the knowledge to grow, and reproduction of themselves programmed intelligente is store where? It's encrypted in their DNA (Their genetic material). The internet is littered with information on genetics. Take your pick of references.

Trees don't have brains. In fact, they don't have nervous systems, central or otherwise. They don't need them. What they have is genetic material that has been programmed over time to respond in a particular way to certain situations, conditions and stimulation. Apple trees don't grow pears because their genetic material contains the components to grow apples, not the components to grow pears. They don't think. They don't need to. When you direct your computer to open the Google page, it doesn't think. It assembles the information that's already stored in it in such a manner as to lead you to Google. Likewise, the apple tree doesn't think. When the correct conditions are present, the preexisting information works together to produce apples. Why? Because the information which is already there is configured to produce apples, not pears or lemons or coconuts. A tree has no intelligence quotient (IQ) because it has no intelligence. You can't measure something that isn't there.

Roy IQ is a measure of how someone's mental age compares to their chronological (calendar) age. It's not really straightforward, but the basic idea is that you divide the person's mental age by their calendar age and multiply by 100. Say, for example, you give a 10 year old a series of questions a 10 year old should be able to answer. If they answer them correctly, they have a score of 10/10=1x100=100. Their IQ is said to be 100. If you give them a series of questions you would expect a 12 year old to be able answer, their score would look like this: 12/10=1.2x100=120 Their IQ is said to be 120. There is really more to it than this, but that should give you a general idea of how it works. Now, in considering an oak tree or an apple tree, you can certainly know and understand their chronological age. However, because they don't have minds, they have no mental age. Part of the equation is missing. So, there is no way to assign an IQ to an oak tree or apple tree. Maybe I misunderstood your question. Let me know if I'm on the right track. edit:punctuation

There is some really thought provoking material in the first post's links . I'm slowly working my way through them.

I only lived in the full-on-communal type setting for a short time, 3 years to be exact. In retrospect, the time was short but the impact was immeasurable. I think, perhaps, that had something to do with the timing. Chronologically, I had reached adulthood. Psychologically, I was at the point of reaching my stride. I'm not sure if arrested development is a real phenomenon. If it is, it seems to explain a lot. We all seemed to suspend our progression into adulthood. For those who were already transitioned or were well into the transitioning process into mental adulthood, the experiences were many times full of jolting conflict. Some of the younger members had a different sort of experience in that, instead of being a source of conflict, it became a source of definition. I suspect there are some who may be still stuck in a state of arrested development, not willing or able to venture beyond the comfort zone. "It's a jungle out there", sure, but, it's where we live so adjustments and changes are the order of the day. Part of this suspension of development involves the failure to recognize it was our lifestyle and attitudes towards life that caused so much conflict, not the individual doctrines like when Jesus died or how many brothers and sisters he had or whether there are 212 figures of speech in the Bible or 213 or any of that sort of thing. In fact, I think it could have been centered around something completely non-Biblical and had the same effect. Until one takes a step back and sees the experience from a more objective viewpoint, perceptions remain clouded and deceiving. This place has helped me take that step back and opened my eyes to a greater understanding of what really happened. Some will never take that step due to stubborn unwillingness. It's a choice they have to make on their own.

Wierwille was once asked what he would do if his deception were to be exposed. He bluntly answered, "I would lie.". (That accounting, I believe, can be found in Losing The Way)

:offtopic:/> (or maybe not) Lind@r was the same. An expert on revelation and casting out spirits. "I could caste a spirit out of that guy easy enough . . . but I won't bother . . . it'll just jump right back in because he won't renew his mind." This quote is almost word for word from one of the classes. Not sure which one. (AC,RM or DWA) That's how insidious this stuff became. Linder was quoting something from a class as if it were an original thought he had.

This thread isn't about me nor is it about you. It's about a concept that was defined rather early in the discussion.

Fascinating.....and your scripture reference?

OK, so help me understand this. If I tell you VP was a serial rapist who drugged and then violated many of his female congregants your response would be that I should not condemn myself? That's certainly an unusual perspective. Oh, and that thing about the past not determining the future: Why do you suppose, then, employers run background checks on prospective employees? And, then there's this: "All thru twi I never let people mandate how I processed anything." Are you familiar with the expression "Can't see the forest for the trees."?

Through the Fog

This is why we needed Ambassador 1. (Just in case you ever wondered.) HERE edit: Be sure to watch the video clip.

It's really a twisted straw man argument of sorts. We all know you can't actually change the factual realities of what has already taken place. We can't dispute that point. So, because they know you can't dispute that, (whether consciously or not) they intend to divert your attention from acknowledging and learning from the past and from changing your perception of the past. They make the argument about "change" when really it's about acknowledgement, etc. It's used as a type of rationalization.

Is THIS his symbol? edit: (Arsenic)

Honestly, I don't know what I would say. If it were just myself I might say or do something. Unfortunately, when I was involved, I had a lot of interwoven relationships that would have been affected by anything I did or said. That would have factored into what I would do. Plus, he was known to surround himself with thugs people who could protect him from adversity and danger. So, it might have been hard to actually get close enough to him to take any action.

Fundamentalist groups, such as The Way, would more than likely turn your statement around to read, "I can't really see any way to distinguish schizophrenia from what the Bible calls being demonized.".......for whatever that thought is worth.

"There's no...CLAP! CLAP!...two ways about it when you labor for the Lord. His way is the only way. None other can you afford." C'mon everybody, sing with me! edit: Was that too obtuse? My point is that singing and group participation can be effective tools of persuasion when used correctly, especially if the message has black or white connotations..

Like ?

Sorry, I misunderstood. I think I know what you are talking about, though, especially when it comes to the *manifestations*. In a way, it reminds me of a Peter Sellers film called Being There. In the film, the main character is mentally challenged but very articulate though no one is aware of his true nature. People mistake his simplistic answers as being profound and allegorical because they think he speaks with authority and appears to have credibility.