Multi-generational bonding

Absolutely no need to be offensive. I simply pointed out that evolution doesn't work that directly. An organism's life experiences don't change their ova or sperm's DNA. However other mechanisms can influence outcomes. I gently suggest that you practice debating and sharing ideas.

RedBaron wrote:

Daryl wrote:Can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't can't

Great, here we go again.

Annachie wrote:I don't think it's the child bonding, though that no doubt helps, but bonded pregnant women.
It's been stated a few times that cats like children, and from Honor we know that a foetus can be sensed/communicated with to some degree. And the strange tbing about a foetus/baby is how much their brain developes.

With a constant cat, yeah I can see some affect.
Not at the genetic level as posited in the OP, but definately at the developement level

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

My thoughts as well regarding the developmental stages of a fetus as per my post upstream. The brain is a muscle. Muscles react to stimuli. Having a treecat present during, and most of, a baby's development stage would certainly influence certain neural pathways in directions never before seen.

Aside:
It is posited by some researchers that telepathy has always been a part of the human capability early on since man first walked the earth. And was simply lost from lack of use.

*shrugs*

cthia wrote:Aside:
It is posited by some researchers that telepathy has always been a part of the human capability early on since man first walked the earth. And was simply lost from lack of use.

*shrugs*

Have those researchers postulated a mechanism by which this works and why it stopped being used, or was that just unimportant details?

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Aside:
It is posited by some researchers that telepathy has always been a part of the human capability early on since man first walked the earth. And was simply lost from lack of use.

*shrugs*

Have those researchers postulated a mechanism by which this works and why it stopped being used, or was that just unimportant details?

They did indeed. Whether I can regurgitate those mechanisms and details over the years I collected them is another story.

I do remember a few details postulating on the ability being developed out of necessity. At a time when man was far from the top of the food chain. Brok couldn't yell out to Midge "Watch it, there's a T-Rex near you!"

It also postulated that it worked better at distances, simply because when in close proximity, other more natural forms of communication got in the way. Why make a phone call to someone sitting right beside you? I also recall meanderings of incongruity regarding the first language spoken by man possibly differing from the actual first means of communication. In fact, I also recall postulation that formal languages are detrimental to the ability -- inasmuch as using calculators and cash registers after a time weakens our learned ability to compute in our heads.

I found it rather interesting to say the least. You can do your own research on the mechanics of what is postulated.

*shrugs anew*

cthia wrote:I do remember a few details postulating on the ability being developed out of necessity. At a time when man was far from the top of the food chain. Brok couldn't yell out to Midge "Watch it, there's a T-Rex near you!"

That sounds really far-fetched and very much like the theories of someone who hasn't been on a big game hunt (Similar to the common misconception that knights in full plate were unable to move).

It also postulated that it worked better at distances, simply because when in close proximity, other more natural forms of communication got in the way. Why make a phone call to someone sitting right beside you?

If that were true (and if telepathy was done through a mechanism which somehow was able to bypass the inverse-square law), it wouldn't be discarded (And I note that there is no explanation offered as to why animals haven't developed and kept telepathy, as such an ability would give pack hunters an immeasurable advantage over their competitors and their prey); as a desirable trait, it would be selected for and people who lack the ability to send and receive telepathic messages would be bred out.

I also recall meanderings of incongruity regarding the first language spoken by man possibly differing from the actual first means of communication. In fact, I also recall postulation that formal languages are detrimental to the ability -- inasmuch as using calculators and cash registers after a time weakens our learned ability to compute in our heads.

That sounds like some new-age bullshit to me, honestly.

I found it rather interesting to say the least. You can do your own research on the mechanics of what is postulated.

Yes, well, the thing is that if telepathy was real, we'd be able to measure it in some form. That we can't, that it's all based on some spooky immeasurable action-at-a-distance (and that despite decades of research into it, noone has been able to produce proof of it) leads me to believe that anyone seriously believing it exists is either deluded or trying to sell something.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:I do remember a few details postulating on the ability being developed out of necessity. At a time when man was far from the top of the food chain. Brok couldn't yell out to Midge "Watch it, there's a T-Rex near you!"

That sounds really far-fetched and very much like the theories of someone who hasn't been on a big game hunt (Similar to the common misconception that knights in full plate were unable to move).

It also postulated that it worked better at distances, simply because when in close proximity, other more natural forms of communication got in the way. Why make a phone call to someone sitting right beside you?

If that were true (and if telepathy was done through a mechanism which somehow was able to bypass the inverse-square law), it wouldn't be discarded (And I note that there is no explanation offered as to why animals haven't developed and kept telepathy, as such an ability would give pack hunters an immeasurable advantage over their competitors and their prey); as a desirable trait, it would be selected for and people who lack the ability to send and receive telepathic messages would be bred out.

I also recall meanderings of incongruity regarding the first language spoken by man possibly differing from the actual first means of communication. In fact, I also recall postulation that formal languages are detrimental to the ability -- inasmuch as using calculators and cash registers after a time weakens our learned ability to compute in our heads.

That sounds like some new-age bullshit to me, honestly.

I found it rather interesting to say the least. You can do your own research on the mechanics of what is postulated.

Yes, well, the thing is that if telepathy was real, we'd be able to measure it in some form. That we can't, that it's all based on some spooky immeasurable action-at-a-distance (and that despite decades of research into it, noone has been able to produce proof of it) leads me to believe that anyone seriously believing it exists is either deluded or trying to sell something.

I don't know one way or the other. You're barking up the wrong tree. I certainly don't have the ability, as far as I know. My abilities in the psychic realm seem to be limited to precognition. I always knew beforehand when my parents were going to be royally pissed! Honest!

There is a set of twins in my family that are a bit freakish. It even freaks them out when they constantly start and stop sentences, as well as those around them. And many other things that seems a bit uncanny. Whether they have what is known as twin telepathy or not, they don't think so. But those around them are certain something weird is up with them.