Nice to meet you all - a few questions

[unrepentant_jim]

Hello i'd like to introduce myself, my name is jimmy and i live in ireland. My knowledge of all things hypnotic and nlp-ic is very much limited to what i've read in books and researched of the internet, i have never had any contact with anyone who practices these arts successfully so from reading the many messages left i can see i am in the right place, with the right people.

I've read alot about people healing themselves through creative visualisation, Does this mean that by merely thinking or visualising something in a relaxed state we can acually makey physiological (thank you spell checker!) changes occur in our bodies. If so then can the same be applied to growing muscle, growing taller, enlarging your penis, making yourself more flexible etc.

Or would it be more effective to listen to a hypnotherapist going through a script while your in a trance.

Also i've read a little about jose silva and his mind control method, does anyone have comments on this. I know that if you visualise a goal your unconscious mind can cause you to notice more opportunities making your goal easier to attain, but he seems to be saying that you can shape your future and effect events that you have nothing to do with by visualising what you would like to happen, does anyone have any comments on this.

I hope you take it easy on me if i have offended anyone through my ignorance, i know how some member can take offence to people like myself who do not possess the same abundance of knowledge and experience. All i have to say is get used to it cos there will probably be more of it in the future.

Slán go fóill (goodbye for now)

Jimmy

[Jack]

Hello Jimmy,

I trust nobody is going to flame you for asking sensible questions.

There are plenty of good hypnotherapists in Eire, so you might find it useful to go along for a session and see exactly what it's all about. A good hypnotherapist won't go through a script but will talk to your subconscious about whatever it is that's troubling you. If you just want to experience trance then that's fine, too. You should enjoy it!

Hypnotherapy can be used for practically any life problem, and for whatever you perceive the problem to be, so if you considered that not being rich enough was a problem then if your subconscious is asked to assist in this goal it will invariably do so, unless there is a reason for it not to do so. Your subconscious can only work with what it's got, and if the information it has is old or outdated then unless new information is provided it will keep recycling the old stuff, which equates to old behaviour patterns, the one's you would like to change.

Some people on here will say that you can alter physiological aspects of your body with hypnotherapy and to some extent I would agree, but in my experience not beyond the boundaries of your genetic possibility. So, for instance, breasts can be enlarged, but only to the extent that they would have been enlarged if something hadn't come along to stop them growing.

Whether you can affect events external to your control or influence is, IMO more a question for philosophy than hypnotherapy. Depends what you believe.

Jack

[Simple Guy]

Jimmy,

Welcome to the forum.

Jack,

You write: "Whether you can affect events external to your control or influence is, IMO more a question for philosophy than hypnotherapy. Depends what you believe." I'm not so sure, as we can't determine for sure which events are truly out of our control or influence. Jung's "collective unconscious" thoughts
on this, come to mind for me. I'll leave it at that, though.

[Jack]

Hello SG,

Your reply illustrates my contention.:)

Jack

[Merlin]

What the mind expects to happen, tends to be realised.

>Some people on here will say that you can alter physiological aspects of your body with hypnotherapy and to some extent I would agree, but in my experience not beyond the boundaries of your genetic possibility. So, for instance, breasts can be enlarged, but only to the extent that they would have been enlarged if something hadn't come along to stop them growing.

I'm sure that's been Jack's experience.
As for my experience, I like to gain about 2 cup sizes for the summer swimsuit season, but be smaller in winter.

When I was younger, I experimented.
I got to GG size before I realized what a chore it was to lug them around. Hard on the back too!

Breast size change is about the easiest thing to do.

But obviously you should find someone who believes in himself/herself and has experience in the areas you seek change in.

[Simple Guy]

Hello Jack,

Your contention is now clearer; my reservations notwithstanding. :)

[unrepentant_jim]

Hello Merlin,

You increases you cup size, i am quite impressed i'll have to introduce you to my girlfriend!, just kidding. I have heard of people imagining doing exercises with out actually doing them and gaining strength in the muscles , but i'm not sure what exercises you could do with breasts to make them larger.

Do you visualise them in the desired size, or do you visualise the process of growing, i hope i'm not being to intrusive (spell checker again), the possibility of altering your physical structure with your mind fascinates me.

Slán go fóill

Jimmy

[Jack]

<<When I was younger, I experimented.
I got to GG size before I realized what a chore it was to lug them around. Hard on the back too!>>

Well Merlin I would say that your enormous bosoms would have been enormous anyway if something hadn't interfered with them getting enormous. All you did was fulfill their genetic potential. Well done. You could have tried a wheelbarrow.:)

<<Breast size change is about the easiest thing to do. >>

If only it were so then all hypnotherapists would be rich and all plastic surgeons would be shoeshine boys.

Jack

[Merlin]

>All you did was fulfill their genetic potential...

and when I reduce to "C" for the winter and back to "DD" for the summer each year, that's genetics too, right?

Basically anyone who changes does so because it's genetic destiny!

Interesting beliefs you have.

[Charlie]

<<Breast size change is about the easiest thing to do. >>

If only it were so then all hypnotherapists would be rich and all plastic surgeons would be shoeshine boys.



Hopefully the original poster, unrepentent_jim, will learn an important early lesson, that on this forum a certain amount of skepticism can sometimes be useful, and then at other times maybe not.

Consider carefully some of the differences of opinion that sometimes occur between even quite senior and expeienced members of this unique forum, and realise that forming your own opinion is important as well, even if you feel that, as you said, you 'do not possess the same abundance of knowledge and experience'

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Lupinia]

You might be interested in reading the following 2 books:


Guided Imagery For Self Healing
Author: Martin L. Rossman
ISBN:091581188X
Published: October 2000

My personal review - A very thorough resource, especially for someone how wants to understand more about how to get the most from Guided Imagery, and how to overcome obstacles such as resistance and turning "pretty picture" into results. Even though the topic is guided imagery, it applies just as much to hypnosis. Includes some scripts. I've devoured this book! The chapters on recognizing and overcoming resistance, and turning insight into action were most helpful. What got to me most about this book was that things I was thinking, feeling, seeing and hearing are described in here. It made sense out of what I was experiencing. It also gave me insight into just how powerful hypnosis and creative imagery (not just healing imagery) can be.


Imagery in Healing: Shamanism and Modern Medicine
Author: Jeanne Achterberg
ISBN: 157062934X
Published: January 2002 | Published by Shambhala

A review from the book's cover -
Combining the practices of the earliest healers with the latest data from modern medicine, this comprehensive work shows how the systematic use of mental imagery can help patients through painful events such as childbirth and burn treatment, as well as act as a positive influence on disease states such as cancer.

My addendum. The first 3/4 of the book deals with the history of Shamanism and discusses it's evolution over time until now. Don't let the word Shamanism throw you for a loop. It's about special abilities, visualization and one's ability to access inner resources and the collective consciousness to gain insight and understanding. The last couple of chapters deal specifically with healing, describing examples with burn victims and cancer patients. The underlying guiding principle - know the nature of the illness otherwise there is a risk of adverse affects.

Ultimately, you have to make up your own mind whether you believe it works or not.

[Terry (existing)]

Jack, I go with Merlin on this one. Weight loss as I used to do it often meant that the bust lost it's lustre early on, and needed to be replenished later at the request of the client. I found no trouble in putting it on or taking it off whichever was required. If you feel that this knowledge would make you rich, go for it, but I assure you there is not big secret here, it truly is the easiest of chores to accomplish, but the number of persons needing an increase pales beside those who need a reduction in my experience, and the number is even greater for those who have dropped, and need to raise them up to heaven again (G)

[Jack]

"and when I reduce to "C" for the winter and back to "DD" for the summer each year, that's genetics too, right?"

No Merlin, it's you exercising your proven ability to have smaller breasts. What you can't do is have larger ones than your genes allow. I can't believe you asked.

"Basically anyone who changes does so because it's genetic destiny!"

No, that's not what I said. I said that you have a genetic potential to have breasts of a particular size, not that all change is the result of genetic predisposition. I'm sure you can see the difference.

"Interesting beliefs you have"

Indeed, ones that are supportable. Unlike Double G bosoms.:D

Jack

[Jack]

Hello Terry,

I don't disagree with your weight loss argument, it is easy to remove fat that has been added on as the result of overeating or an incorrect diet. But that is not the same as increasing breasts from AA to DD. Sure you can add weight to breasts but I would defy anyone to do so without increasing other body fat in the example mentioned unless there was a reason the breasts had not grown to their full potential in the first place. Eat more pies, get bigger breasts. And a bigger everything else.

The point I was trying to labour was that there really would be no plastic surgeons if it were all that simple. And there are a lot. They are all wealthy. How many really wealthy hypnotherapists do you know? Apart from the one's who run schools, produce courses, sell CDs etc? How many who just do hands on:) therapy?

Jack

[Merlin]

You are missing the point Jack.

>I would defy anyone to do so without increasing other body fat in the example mentioned unless there was a reason the breasts had not grown to their full potential in the first place.

It's one of the *easiest* things to do.
Even you can learn to do it!

There is *no* relation between genetics and breast size!

[Terry (existing)]

Jack, surely it is all a matter of Public knowledge rather than what works and what doesn't? Ask anyone whom they would go to it they needed breast enlargement, and they will say "a plastic surgeon of course." If you find one in a hundred who will think of a hypnotist for this purpose let me know (G)......Yet if you advertised this service, I have no doubt you would get very rich. Naturally, since you don't believe it possible you won't do this, but since others think it possible, all they need is volunteers to prove the point and they will be off to the races.....I always proved my own beliefs when I was active in therapy, since I wanted to be able to say I always gave value for money, and I remain of that opinion today. I say it works because I have done it, and have no doubt that others are just as good as I ever was, so they too can do it. The difference between you and me, is that I believe and you don't, and even when I was proving it, I had the belief that I would succeed and did. Perhaps if I had had doubts I might also have failed, I don't know....

[Jack]

Terry,

I'm not saying you haven't done it. I have done it, so? What I am saying is that you enlarged breasts to the limit of their genetic potential and not beyond. If you are saying, as Merlin appears to be, that you believe that you have enlarged beyond genetic potential then I must accept that you believe that, not that it happened.

And come on Terry, it's not just a matter of publicity. If as Merlin states it is so very easy then every Tom, Dick and Harriet would be making a mint out of it and no-one would bother going through the pain and trauma of breast surgery, because you know most people do tend to go for the easy option rather than the painful, traumatic and scarring one. Even medical doctors, after doing their one day seminar on hypnosis would be cashing in. Is there any sign of this? No, of course not.

And let's take this further. If you and Merlin can enlarge breasts ad infinitum then you should also be able to enlarge penises beyond their potential and, as Annie used to say regrow severed limbs. Can you do the latter? If you can I will be over to Canada tomorrow to sit at your feet and watch the miracle.:) The Pope will have to be informed for the beatification ceremony.

I suspect however, that you are not saying that. What I think you are saying is that you have enlarged breasts and I don't doubt that. What I do doubt is that anybody has enlarged breasts beyone the limit of their genetic potential because if they had then hypnotherapy is not about scientific fact but about the sort of dark age mumbo jumbo it has struggled so long to escape from. If you are saying the foregoing then I am surprised, to say the least, coming from an apparent pragmatist.

And Merlin, I haven't missed the point, I may have missed your point, but it is not one with any substance or substantive argument to support it.

Jack

[bigdog]

What is 'genetic Potential' , do we really know what those thing really doing? Jake said 'What you can't do is have larger ones than your genes allow' but do we really know what our gene allow us to do? as i learned from bioscience, we can only say that about 10% of the gene is used to regular our physical body, and we don't know what rest of 90% of genes really do! Software may be? I m not really a big fan of those gene guys, even they had mapped all the genes, but sofar they have not be able to isolate any of them with a single task, so what's going on? I think, the best way to see it as a whole package, with software and hardware, and those 90% of the genes is orignal software came with the shippment, and we will alter the parameter alone the way we grow, if that's the case Hyposis should be the way to change our setting which we are building it everyday,
Wouild some one comment on this please, thanks

P.S. I m very new on Hypnosis, just want to say HELLO to all the respected members and thank all you for the good job you have done here. :)

[Terry (existing)]

I have no problem with your limiting what we can do to what is possible via our genes Jack. The point I make, is that women with very small breasts usually are from your viewpoint limited by other than their genes, and can grow bigger via suggestion, visualization etc......If this were not so, neither you nor I would have been successful in doing it. I do see however, that my point about the belief systems of the normal woman tends to send them to the butcher, sorry, I mean the meat cutter (G) rather than to someone like us is valid, and not to be ignored. Don't know the cost of plastic surgery, but I do know the risks of damage to nerves etc and the possibility of other problems.... That alone should give hypnosis an edge don't you agree? Perhaps we had better do some advertising eh?
As for the limitations, I have only one problem, and that is, how do you know the limitations of the genes of the client, and if you don't, should you refuse to deal with them on the grounds that you might fail? I suppose it possible to ask about mother, and grandmother etc to find out what genes they are likely to have inherited, but since there are two parents, and two families, this might not be very accurate.....

[Merlin]

>I m very new on Hypnosis, just want to say HELLO

Hello bigdog :)

Good post.
The biggest limitation on hypnosis has been people's beliefs.
They know it can't be done so they never try it.

[Jim Fallon]

Yes, Merlin...it was more than a good post...it was an excellent post.
At this time in the history of this earth, we have a myriad of methods for healing. Things have both changed and stayed the same since your more active days in Camalot.

So what are these methods?

Physcial methods, including herbs, drugs, surgery...
Emotional methods, including forgiveness, color therapy, aroma therapy, music, anger release, etc.

Mental methods, including placebos, hypnosis, nlp, talk therapy, meditation, etc.

Spiritual/methods, including pyramids, crystals, psychic surgery, applied kinesiology, telephy, prayer and soul retrieval.

As Serge King points out in his book, "instant healing", if the body can be healed by all these different methods, and their are countless case historys to support the healing effects of each one, then it seems clear that each and every method is just a means by which one thing, the actual healing process, takes place.

No one theory of the healing process can be considered adequate when another gets the same effect. Therefore, something else is happing instead of, or in addition to.

The "will" alone cannot make the body do what you want it to, but the will can make it do more than you might expect.

It is not in our genetic blue print yet to re grow limbs. Nothing will enhance a penis beyond the genetic blue print of that man. Not even your or my magick.

Again, the "will" alone cannot make the body do what you want it to, but the will can make it do more than you might expect.

One needs to "reprogramm" the blue print for these effects to take place. You can't have SVGA graphics on your computer unless you have both the hardware and install the software....change the "blue print" of the operating system...then you have the SVGA graphics.

For example, with cancer..one may of had successful chemotherapy, or even surgery, and been "free" for the 5 year period..then the cancer comes back...why..it's still in the body's blue print for "making" the cancer.

Jim Fallon

[Frog420]

Merlin, have you got pictures of your breasts at 2 noticably different sizes both taken in the same year :D that would prove your point beautifully *SD*

[Merlin]

Frog,

Every woman has 2 different sized breasts so that would not prove anything.

The majority have breast sizes close enough that it isn't very noticable, but for some it can be as great as 2 cup sizes difference (or rarely even more).

[Merlin]

>Yes, Merlin...it was more than a good post...it was an excellent post.
At this time in the history of this earth, we have a myriad of methods for healing. Things have both changed and stayed the same since your more active days in Camalot.


No Jim. There is still only ONE healing method.


>So what are these methods?

>Physcial methods, including herbs, drugs, surgery...
Emotional methods, including forgiveness, color therapy, aroma therapy, music, anger release, etc.

>Mental methods, including placebos, hypnosis, nlp, talk therapy, meditation, etc.

>Spiritual/methods, including pyramids, crystals, psychic surgery, applied kinesiology, telephy, prayer and soul retrieval.

Only the mind-body heals itself Jim.
None of those methods heal.


>As Serge King points out in his book, "instant healing", if the body can be healed by all these different methods, and their are countless case historys to support the healing effects of each one, then it seems clear that each and every method is just a means by which one thing, the actual healing process, takes place.

It's simply wrong!
You can cut, burn, poison, etc. all you want, but in the end the mind directs the body on how to heal.

>No one theory of the healing process can be considered adequate when another gets the same effect. Therefore, something else is happing instead of, or in addition to.

The *only* healing process is when the mind directs the body to heal. A doctor may reposition a bone, but ultimately the mending will take place from within.
The mind-body team does the healing.

>The "will" alone cannot make the body do what you want it to, but the will can make it do more than you might expect.

No, the "will" cannot.
That's why hypnosis is used.

>It is not in our genetic blue print yet to re grow limbs.


You don't *Know* that.
What you might know is that you personally have been unsuccessful in this regard.

>Nothing will enhance a penis beyond the genetic blue print of that man. Not even your or my magick.

And you know this authoritatively *how*
because you have not been successful?
Because others you know of have not been successful?
Because it is YOUR BELIEF?

>Again, the "will" alone cannot make the body do what you want it to, but the will can make it do more than you might expect.

I agree *will* is insufficient.

>One needs to "reprogramm" the blue print for these effects to take place. You can't have SVGA graphics on your computer unless you have both the hardware and install the software....change the "blue print" of the operating system...then you have the SVGA graphics.

And so we reprogramme.
That's what it's all about.

>For example, with cancer..one may of had successful chemotherapy, or even surgery, and been "free" for the 5 year period..then the cancer comes back...why..it's still in the body's blue print for "making" the cancer.

Interesting limiting belief.
and if the cancer doesn't return?

Jim, if you're willing, you can learn to change your limiting beliefs.
You can learn to change your programming.
It's up to you.

[neurotic1]

Hi

I can't believe you guys are arguing about breast size on here. However, i would like to point out that you are both right(!)

Genetics do govern breast size in terms of the growth phase during puberty and fatty deposition in the breast at a later date. It is perfectly possible to increase breast size when the fat metabolism is varied within the breast hence increasing or decreasing the turnover of fatty tissue there and utilising or not utilising fat stores. Skin will tend to stretch or shrink across the breast to compensate for gradual changes.

Vascular components also are important - in terms of blood flow, lymph and tissue fluid. If the vasular pressures (in and out) of the breast are altered, then breasts will tend to increase or decrease depending on the vessels. This is not indefinite as the pressures will tend to equalise following growth or reduction.

I would contest that there is no genetic influence though and to prove my point would challenge anyone to increase breast size indefinitely. Of course I wouldn't recommend this and would expect that people would not appreciate massively inhuman outsized breasts and therefore would not wish to rise (or droop if u like) to the challenge. In that sense, there is genetic control over expanse of breast tissue, however there is also a great deal of physiological control and as we know that hypnosis can have physiological (mainly vascular and hormonal) impact, both people are correct in this discussion.

There are many methods for changing breast size however, plastic surgery remains the most prominent (excuse the pun) because it involves doing something far more physically obvious (and also faster) than hypnosis. Also most people are not aware of the potential of hypnosis.

I offer my observations on your discussion from a medical viewpoint and respects you views - however, until we have a randomised controlled double-blinded clinical trial we will not know which has the greatest influence - the mind or genetics. I'm also sure that women in such a trial would be unlikely to be prepared to be kicking their breasts around the room to prove a point.

Having said that, hypnosis is a far safer and preferable alternative to surgical intervention in this issue. May it increase in its uses

[Merlin]

>I can't believe you guys are arguing about breast size on here.

We're not.
We are discussing the absolute control of genes over the body.

>Genetics do govern breast size in terms of the growth phase during puberty and fatty deposition in the breast at a later date.

Does it really?
What is your evidence of this statement?

>I would contest that there is no genetic influence though and to prove my point would challenge anyone to increase breast size indefinitely.

kewl. You volunteering?
I'm not aware of anyone being bigger than a "J". But that is only based on my clients, not a research of the literature.

>I offer my observations on your discussion from a medical viewpoint...

Another sawbones :)
Your thoughts are welcome :)

>however, until we have a randomised controlled double-blinded clinical trial we will not know which has the greatest influence...

That's virtually impossible with hypnosis

>I'm also sure that women in such a trial would be unlikely to be prepared to be kicking their breasts around the room to prove a point.

My experience is that women typically desire B-D size.
It's usually a matter of personal preference on the part of the client.

From personal experience I can say that most women would not want to join an experiment for what breast size growth limitations might be. Even D or DD are heavy and uncomfortable. Of course it does depend somewhat on body frame size. 5' and 100 lbs being different than 6' 200 lbs.

Many women are more interested in looks than comfort, but there is a limit.

Thanks for sharing :)

[Jim Fallon]

Merlin, thanks for your Lesson/response to my post. I honor the wisdom within you.
Jim Fallon

[Neurotic1]

Hi Merlin

Thanks for your response to my post in which i said 'Genetics do govern breast size in terms of the growth phase during puberty and fatty deposition in the breast at a later date'

and you replied;

>'Does it really?
What is your evidence of this statement?'

My evidence is all of the women walking around the planet. I acknowledged that there are other factors including vascular and physiological mechanisms. Both of these factors are governed by genetics. Now I am not saying that such factors cannot be influenced beyond genetic predisposition - however, we know that men and women are men and women due to genetics and we know that men do not produce breast tissue to the same extent unless hormonally (or physiologically) imbalanced. What I AM saying is that there is plenty of evidence that breast size is deeply influenced by genetics, not that it cannot be changed by methods other than surgery. It seems to me that to suggest, as in your question, that breast size is not influenced by genetics is rather naive and that there is far more evidence to support that it is than it isnt. My post offered a more balanced point of view than the two people who were arguing black and white in this issue whereas the answer is clearly grey.

It is good, though to have a forum where people can freely discuss their opinions. I acknowledge freely that I am often as wrong as I am right but here I feel that my understanding of this issue is a little more realistic - no offence please.

[Merlin]

>My evidence is all of the women walking around the planet.

Therefore vlinghoppers must control all aspects of their development?
I'm sorry, I don't follow your reasoning.

>Both of these factors are governed by genetics.

Because?

>we know that men and women are men and women due to genetics and we know that men do not produce breast tissue to the same extent unless hormonally (or physiologically) imbalanced.

OK, The definitive causal link is?

>What I AM saying is that there is plenty of evidence that breast size is deeply influenced by genetics

There is?

>It seems to me that to suggest, as in your question, that breast size is not influenced by genetics is rather naive ...

Perhaps it is more your *faith* in your *beliefs* which is naive?

> and that there is far more evidence to support that it is than it isnt.

No, I disagree.
It's just a conclusion based on what is thought to be a best guess by most experimenters.

>we know...
>What I AM saying is that there is plenty of evidence...

It's just like suggesting the Sun moves around the Earth.
It may be obvious.
Everyone can see the Sun rise above the horizon, move across the sky and set in the evening.

Now, it may seem naive for me to suggest that consensus reality might not be fact, but that's ok with me if I seem that way to you or anyone else.

It's naive of a bumble bee to fly. Everyone knows it's an aerodynamic impossibility. Everyone but the stupid bumble bee.

>My post offered a more balanced point of view than the two people who were arguing black and white in this issue whereas the answer is clearly grey.

Or maybe pink?

>n this issue whereas the answer is clearly grey.

It is good, though to have a forum where people can freely discuss their opinions.

It's a good way to be exposed to other ideas :)

>here I feel that my understanding of this issue is a little more realistic

All beliefs are welcome, including yours :)
I'm glad you're here to share!

- no offence please.

Never!! :)

[Neurotic1]

>Therefore vlinghoppers must control all aspects of their development?
I'm sorry, I don't follow your reasoning.
Well, if you look into research on genetics, you will find that by engineering a rat with two 'X' chromosomes you get a female and by engineering a rat with an 'X' and a 'Y' you get a male. The same has been applied in human fetuses (experimentation which I am not sure I am entirely comfortable with).
Whilst your *vlinghopper* suggestion is amusing, maybe they do have an impact but we know not all women have vlinghoppers whereas all women necessarily have two 'X' chromosomes (ok at least) otherwise they wouldn't have female characteristics as in the above.

>>Both of these factors are governed by genetics.

Because?
Mendel followed the same prinicpals to produce flowers with different traits and these traits were entirely dependant upon the genetic make-up of the plants. Now AFTER the genetic predisposition has been established, other factors can come into play.

>>we know that men and women are men and women due to genetics and we know that men do not produce breast tissue to the same extent unless hormonally (or physiologically) imbalanced.

OK, The definitive causal link is?
see the 'rats' part above


>Perhaps it is more your *faith* in your *beliefs* which is naive?
Well actually there is extensive research to back up genetic influence on human development and the *beliefs* I present are based upon *evidence* rather than *faith*. I would suggest that one would need pure *faith* to support what you are saying. Now don't get me wrong, I have been supporting your belief that other factors may be involved. A good example is cancer - when genetic structure is damaged leading to abnormal growth of cells. The change in genetic structure is due to external factors, such as the carcinogens in tobacco smoke. We know that external influences can and do affect gene expression (and so your theory may have some foundation, which I am supporting with my vascularity/physiology thoughts). However cancer shows us that it is still the genes which cause the change in cell and hence tissue characteristics.


>Or maybe pink?
lol yes probably.

[Merlin]

Hello Neurotic1,

>Well, if you look into research on genetics, you will find that by engineering a rat with two 'X' chromosomes you get a female and by engineering a rat with an 'X' and a 'Y' you get a male. The same has been applied in human fetuses (experimentation which I am not sure I am entirely comfortable with).
Whilst your *vlinghopper* suggestion is amusing, maybe they do have an impact but we know not all women have vlinghoppers whereas all women necessarily have two 'X' chromosomes (ok at least) otherwise they wouldn't have female characteristics as in the above.

I do not argue whether genetics is involved in determining gender in rats, mice, monkeys, or hymans.
I do question whether genetics controls *all* aspects.
You seem to believe so. What is your evidence?

>Mendel followed the same prinicpals to produce flowers with different traits and these traits were entirely dependant upon the genetic make-up of the plants. Now AFTER the genetic predisposition has been established, other factors can come into play.

Yes, I know of such experiments.
There are *some* traits genetically determined.
Yet you seem to take it on faith that all traits must be genetic.
I'm suggesting to you that most human traits are not based on genetics.

>see the 'rats' part above

OK, there is a causal link determining gender.
That doesn't mean every aspect of human characteristics is genetically based.
Unless you have researched all possibilities yourself, you are merely accepting by faith that it is true.

>Well actually there is extensive research to back up genetic influence on human development and the *beliefs* I present are based upon *evidence* rather than *faith*.

There are *many* things genes influence. Many more that they do not.
If you have not personally done the experiments, then it is based on *faith*.
In this case *faith* that the work was done reliably and it was reported to you accurately.
Anyway, do *you* posess *evidence* or do you take it on *faith* that there is such evidence?
Do you then extrapolate your beliefs based on the information you have?
Since you believe genes effect many characteristics have you made a leap-of-faith that genes effect most characteristics, or even all characteristics?

>I would suggest that one would need pure *faith* to support what you are saying.

Any viewpoint other than yours is faith?
I say genes do not control all aspects of human development, probably not even most. You claim genes control everything.
What is the difference?
Why is one concept faith and another not?

>Now don't get me wrong, I have been supporting your belief that other factors may be involved

Not just genes?

[Brian Carr]

Hello, Neurotic1.

Forgive me for interjecting, but with all due respect to both you and Madame Merlin, you seem to be missing Merlin's point. Each of you is approaching the subject along completely different planes. She can understand yours but you are apparently unable to grasp hers.

Perhaps you should keep in mind Merlin has neither truly denied nor affirmed any idea you've presented. Her goal seems only to induce you to think more broadly; she is attempting to have you question your beliefs. Indeed, belief systems of any kind are inherently limiting factors simply because they exclude one set of ideas even as they incorporate others. It is in the best philosophical tradition to accept that absolute truth may not exist.

René Descartes believed he'd discovered a truth when he declared, "I think, therefore I am." Yet he never dared question if he truly thought.

Brian

[Neurotic1]

Hi Merlin



I do not argue whether genetics is involved in determining gender in rats, mice, monkeys, or hymans.
I do question whether genetics controls *all* aspects.
You seem to believe so. What is your evidence?
I think we are missing each other's point or at least I concede that maybe I missed yours! As women tend to grow breasts and men don't, perhaps the first key is in the establishment of physical gender? Ok so maybe genetics do not cause breast development but in the sense that it is (at least) a major) determinate for physical gender and men do not grow breasts, perhaps it is the first step? It is certainly possible that other factors can be involved in and even may be solely responsible for breast growth however, this is not usual in males.


>Yes, I know of such experiments.
There are *some* traits genetically determined.
Yet you seem to take it on faith that all traits must be genetic.
I'm suggesting to you that most human traits are not based on genetics.
I never said that all traits must be genetic. Perhaps the language I have used has led you to believe that. I said that genetics are bound to play a part as in the establishment of physical gender above. Certainly I am sure that other factors can have an influence on gene expression and other development which may be independant thereof. I did not say that breast size cannot be changed without the influence of genetics. I did suggest that it couldn't be proved to be entirely independant of genetics unless people with breasts were willing to be involved in such a trial.


>Any viewpoint other than yours is faith?
I say genes do not control all aspects of human development, probably not even most. You claim genes control everything.
What is the difference?
Why is one concept faith and another not?
Again I never said that any viewpoint other than mine was faith. I was suggesting that a repeatedly performed scientific study might be more reliable than anecdotal evidence, even though the anecdotal evidence may prove to be correct. I also never claimed that genes control everything - just that it would seem that they have a major influence. I haven't personally done the research and you are correct that we cannot trust what other people tell us unless we have methodically produced the evidence ourselves, with minimal bias, in which case still nobody else should believe us:) Evidence of gene expression has been published on many issues from normality to disease however I guess we cannot trust it?

>>Now don't get me wrong, I have been supporting your belief that other factors may be involved

Not just genes?
Again I did not say that. I suggested that breast development is likely multifactorial and that genes probably play the major role. If this role is merely in the establishment of gender (and therefore a gender which will, without intervention, grow breasts or not in normality) then that may be the only role of genes but it is the first step to expected breast development.

>She can understand yours but you are apparently unable to grasp hers.
I'm not sure that is entirely true but I take your point.

>Perhaps you should keep in mind Merlin has neither truly denied nor affirmed any idea you've presented.
Her goal seems only to induce you to think more broadly; she is attempting to have you question your beliefs. Indeed, belief systems of any kind are inherently limiting factors simply because they exclude one set of ideas even as they incorporate others. It is in the best philosophical tradition to accept that absolute truth may not exist..Yes essentially, I agree with you. I feel that we are coming from different viewpoints and have conceded that perhaps I misunderstood Merlin's posting (see above) to me that Merlin feels I hold a slightly different opinion of genetics to that which I hold. I have repeatedly suggested that issues such as breast growth are multifactorial. Ok so I feel, in my opinion that gene expression is important because it has been demonstrated to be different in various body tissues and in the presence of certain hormones, which leads to the sort of chicken/egg debate that we are having.
This has certainly made me think more deeply about the issue and Merlin, I thank you for that. :)

[Brian Carr]

I have repeatedly suggested that issues such as breast growth are multifactorial. Ok so I feel, in my opinion that gene expression is important because it has been demonstrated to be different in various body tissues and in the presence of certain hormones, which leads to the sort of chicken/egg debate that we are having. Careful . . . CAREFUL! You missed the most important part of my post, and methinks you are still on the wrong track.

As I understand it, this thread is no longer about breast sizes, genetics, or any subject remotely related to hypnosis. Instead, it appears to me to be about the different ways people think, and the limitations they impose. I hope Merlin will forgive me for speaking for her, especially if it's a misinterpretation. Yet it's not about mere misperception but a fundamentally different manner of thinking.

Again, Merlin has not denied what you've said, she simply wishes to know how you know what you say is true. And the answer is . . . you don't? Does anyone?

No.

You could certainly spend an indefinite amount of time discussing theories, laws, evidence, anecdotes, or all manner of examples. But you cannot know what you say is true. You're simply basing your ideas on what you've heard, ideas that long ago became so thoroughly immeshed in your consciousness that you had no choice but to believe them true. And they may be.

But you can't know.

[Merlin]

Hi again,

>I haven't personally done the research and you are correct that we cannot trust what other people tell us unless...

I only point out to accept the research is an act of *faith*
You *believe* the information to be reliable and accept it on *faith*

>This has certainly made me think more deeply about the issue and Merlin, I thank you for that.

That's the real goal. To consider other *possibilities*.

It's said that at a quanum level particles behave as if they can mystically appear wherever they want. Researchers set up experiments to prove this.
Many well meaning people then assign the quantum effects to the macroscopic world.

But wait. When the experiments were set up, the temporal dimension of phase was left out!
When phase is reintroduced, the mysterious quantum effects disappear!

Everything taught by mainstream science about quantum physics may be invalid.
Everything from Quarks to Strings may be in error!


In my own experience I have found it more useful not to accept absolutes as ABSOLUTES.
It works better for me to accept 'facts' as *useful models* which may or may not be fact.

This I apply to genetics and everything else.
Just as all of science was certain the sound barrier could not be broken, science today teaches genes are in control.

From my perspective: maybe, maybe not.
I'm not prepared to say authoritatively what is or isn't genetic.

The current discussion is around breasts. Yet there really is no structural difference between a male's or female's breast pre-puberty. I could take any man and using hypnosis have the breast develop and produce milk.
Genetics? I don't thnk so. I could also have a woman's breasts shrink to be indistinguishable from a man's.
Genetic predisposition? I don't think so.

Some people teach that anything that happens was destiny and prewritten. There is then no possibility than for us to go along for the ride.
I do not subscribe to this theory.
Some people believe there is genetic destiny. We only go along for the ride, controlled by our genes.
I do not subscribe to this theory either.

I think we are more than predestined robots.

Respectfully,

Myhrrhleine :)

[Brian Carr]

As a follow-up, please allow me to apologize, Neurotic1. It is absolutely not my intention to provoke, belittle, or offend you. I'm sorry if I've done so.

You should be aware you're not the only person with this kind of trouble. Often I'll come across a "conversation" Madame Merlin is having with her esteemed and impeccably credentialed colleagues to which I'll silently shout at the screen, "NO! You IMBECILES! You just don't get it--that's not what she means AT ALL!" And though the subject is far less complicated than here, I usually think it best to keep my fingers off the keyboard. Pretty wise, don't you think? After all, it can be tough to get people to think differently.

Sigh. . . . I must be in love with Merlin. Poor me! Do you think I had an affair with her in a past life????? :p

Anyway, thanks for keeping us abreast!

Brian

[Jack]

Hello All,

My apologies for not continuing this discussion but I have been away for a few days, so have lost the thread a little.

Brian says: "Merlin has neither truly denied nor affirmed any idea you've presented".

Merlin says:" I'm suggesting to you that most human traits are not based on genetics". Now, I think that Merlin does little else except either affirm or deny ideas, which, of course she is entitled to do. Indeed, if she didn't then there would be no debate. In fact, in over a year on this board I have never seen her accept any other idea which did not equate with her own position.

" I'm suggesting to you that most human traits are not based on genetics".The key word in this example is 'most'.

My 'belief' is that final breast size is dependant on genetic potential, that is, the extent to which genes affect organic growth.

Merlin and others say that 'most' human traits are not based on genetics. Eye colour, height, hair colour, physical body type etc., are presumably not based on genetics therefore. So, if that is the case then logically they must be based on some other factor since it is apparent that the physical appearance of parents and grandparents affect the appearance of their offspring in an obvious and profound manner.

Now, to me, since there does not appear to be any other factor which can be physically proven, genes are, until proven otherwise responsible for physical appearance. I have not stated anywhere that genes are responsible for anything other than physical characteristics. If there is another factor responsible for physical appearance apart from accidental damage, birth defects or genes then perhaps those who believe this would like to share it with us? If, as I suspect, they cannot then perhaps they might remove themselves from the debate. If not, prove me wrong. Both ways I will learn something new.

'Traits' is an imprecise word in this context and is not relevant to the debate because we are discussing organic potential. Genetic influence is not a trait, it is a biological imperative at this stage of human knowledge. No-one would be foolish enough to suggest that human knowledge will not increase but for the moment we have what we have.

When we come to faith, then my contention would be that my faith is in that which can be proven, and not in aspects of human development that are the result of conjecture, supposition or unsupported belief systems. It is very easy and intellectually lazy to maintain that everything is possible. It is also attractive because humans have a deep seated desire for certainty and most would prefer to think that someone else has the answer to all problems. It is the basis of 'guru' worship and may, philosophically, have something to do with the removal of God from Western culture, but I digress.

Brian said: "Indeed, belief systems of any kind are inherently limiting factors simply because they exclude one set of ideas even as they incorporate others. It is in the best philosophical tradition to accept that absolute truth may not exist".

I agree with this in totality. But. It has to be applied both ways. Belief systems are based on many different factors but ultimately the only one we can trust for now is logic. We cannot trust personal experience, supposition, conjecture or mystery. Trusting in logic does not mean that belief is fixed. It means that at the time the belief is true, but that it may be supplanted by another truth as new information is uncovered, which will be equally valid at the time. So, although belief may be limiting without it there is no foundation for change. Truth appears to be a movable feast, but is still a feast at the time.

We have many examples of belief systems which operate without proof, apart from Merlin's. Religion is one. I'm not against blind faith as a method of experiencing the world but it ultimately adds nothing to the sum total of human progress (it could be said to be regressive) and excludes any experience which does not tally with its own. Blind faith cannot be debated because it is not based on anything more than a fixed idea in a fluid universe.

So, logically I may have the belief that breast size cannot be increased beyond genetic potential but I am, as always open to other ideas that may contradict that thesis. What I am not prepared to do, under any circumstance is accept an alternative which cannot be substantiated except by supposition, conjecture or fuzzy thought processes.

Others on this board are not, unfortunately, open to the reverse, thus denying their own credo.

Jack