Flame Dancer, PK abilities are not genetic anyone can do it. We are capable of doing PK. Genetics have nothing to do with it.
I never stated that psychic abilities were genetic. Objects contained within the spatiotemporal topology supervene on the realm of psychic functioning. This would mean that physical objects, such as genes, are contingent/accidental traits that would receive. If we look at it from a purely ontological stand point, one can have parent and child relationships within brackets. Take color, for example. Blue says something of what is to have color, thus, it is predicated and bracketed by the class of color; therefore, we have a parent child relationship of inheritance not dictated by genes. The biggest misconception is that genes are a fundamental unit of inheritance which is grossly incorrect. Ontologically, we do have a system of inheritance if one treats objects as types of classes contained within subsets of a particular class. This, of course, would mean that sociological frameworks would supervene and be contingent on the domain of psychic functioning thereby making it so that one cannot pin point or reduce it that psychosocial frameworks(one would have to look at it from a phenomenological stand point with an inversion of the classic materialistic reductionist stand point).
Inheritance does not mean genetics.If we have two completely
physically identical people(same social experiences, same psychological experiences, same genes, etc.), one might have psychokinetic abilities of a particular
quantitative range and the other might not. We would think that they both would have it, but, as I stated, things contained within the spatiotemporal topology supervene on the realm of psychic functioning where you can have variations in the constraints of the ensuing subsets. Though the two people are physically identical in every way, it would not mean they would have equal psychic abilities. Take 1 and 2. They are both sets of natural numbers, but the functions can yield different values. x and y can be predicated by the same thing. a(x) and a(y) would mean that x and y would supervene on a and thus be indiscernible relative to a, but x(i) and y(i) would not be identical relative to the brackets of x and y. i inherits different set of
relational properties from x and y even though they both supervene on a. For some reason, with people with strong psychokinetic abilities, they ontologically inherited something with a stronger/more coherent relation. What it is or how this happens cannot be determined at this time, though, there is no way it can be genetic. It does alter phenotypical behaviors of cells, though. Research has shown that psi is not even species dependent. The reversal of supervenience would mean there is a teleological trend of formative causation, in a sense, where evolutionary trends are partially influenced by an autonomous self-organization of something akin to abiotic components on that higher level of psychic functioning/existence(see
Part I: Mind, Memory, and Archetype: Morphic Resonance and the Collective Unconscious).
Mathematically speaking, one would have the spatiotemporal manifold of space-time as an immersed submanifold subset relative to the domain of psychic functioning.
A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things can differ with respect to A-properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. In slogan form, “there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference”.
