>Where do the laws of physics come from? It's the sort of question only children and geniuses ask--certainly most physicists are far too busy putting the laws to work.
>
>This is the paragraph to which you pointed me, in its entirety. Besides being rhetorical, it is simply plain wrong. Children are not considering such a question because they have not even gotten to the stage where they can, like adults, apply such laws, for they do not yet know them, and the same goes for psychological laws; they are still trying to extract such general laws from their particular experiences. Therefore, for them, the laws come from their interaction with the material world and with other people and a general understanding of the rules of that interaction which will hold for subsequent particular experiences, and their major question, which they attempt to answer through curiosity and play, is not where they come from, but what they are, which they must discover before being able to either employ them or inquire as to their metaphysical or ontological status. And trust me on this; the references I cited directly address both your conjecture and your concern!
s, especially the first two Piaget works and the work by Lewis and Brooks-Gunn. Or don't trust me, but check them out for yourself before you pronounce them irrelevant. I believe that it is neither educational nor fair of you to prejudicially dismiss them out-of hand and sight unseen.
P.S. I am grateful for you directing me to the article, however; although not concerning infant savancy, as information about a potentially groundbreakingly new way to view physics and its laws, it is excellent.
>
>
>At Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:35:28 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>Joe
>>First of I do admit that I did not consult the texts you mentioned. The
>>reason I did not was the the examples you gave were of no relevance to the
>>age group I defined. I am saying the part of our information system that we
>>are now debating on is formed at a early age. Just as I stated in the
>>analogy Like the young body whose owner does not yet possess the ability
>>mentally to do with it what a more mature athlete could. A child has a
>>higher level consciousness but lacks experience of use. And unfortunately it
>>is compromised by aging or use. I do not believe that a adults use of this
>>level of consciousness any more valid than a child's. And because Robin
>>supplied the link take a look. The first paragraph makes my point.
>>http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990130/iisthelaw.html
>>
>>Best wishes
>>Jim
>>Jim Callahan magicjim@islc.net
>>Creator of Applied Thought Technologies
>>http://www.magicjim.net
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: joe dees <joedees@bellsouth.net>
>>To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
>>Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 10:08 PM
>>Subject: Re: virus: levels only two Joe
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:41:23 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Joe, A fifteen to eighteen year old boy in good physical shape is at the
>>>>peak of physical ability. But you will never see one in a iron man
>>>>competition or a Eco challenge. But if we could drop our conciseness in
>>that
>>>>boy for the race we would win the competition. Some day the regeneration
>>of
>>>>our body may be possible. I know the regeneration of a superior thought
>>>>processes is.
>>>>Your argument for the grasping basic laws if they can be classified as
>>such
>>>>is off by years. We are talking about seven to nine or ten year olds
>>>>approximately.
>>>>I agree that one level is built upon another that the eighteen year old
>>had
>>>>to learn to walk and run and skip. But he will reach an apex and someday
>>>>will learn of pain and the discomfort of growing old. If he remains active
>>>>he will lead a enhanced life. Conciseness is no different. It will degrade
>>>>if not nurtured the same as the body.
>>>>
>>>You mean "consciousness", right? The mental develops on its own timetable,
>>just like the physical, and the mental matures chronologically, within
>>individual variances. Of course consciousness degrades with age, like the
>>body; this is known as Alzheimer's Disease, senility or geriatric dementia.
>>My point, and this discussion, is about the other end of life - the
>>beginning. Maturity - and mature abilities - take time to manifest, and
>>must do so sequentially. The facts are that your mature consciousness could
>>not be dropped in the immature body of a six year old and win any marathon;
>>likewise, an average immature six year old consciousness could not be
>>expected to grasp formal abstraction even if it were given Jesse Ventura's
>>21 year old body. Did you consult even one of the texts I cited?
>>>>
>>>>Best wishes
>>>>Jim
>>>>Jim Callahan magicjim@islc.net
>>>>Creator of Applied Thought Technologies
>>>>http://www.magicjim.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Joe E. Dees
>>>Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-
>>>Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
>>>Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
>>>http://webmail.bellsouth.net
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Joe E. Dees
>Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
>Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
>http://webmail.bellsouth.net
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher