God versus Science

[Zhang Wuji]

I haven't had the time to go through all the posts here, which seem most fascinating to me. But when it comes to science, I think it is generally accepted that science (which is a study of natural laws after all) and its methods are still evolving as our knowledge and intelligence progress.

I have many doctor friends, and one of them is an oncologist. One of my earlier childhood dreams was to be an oncologist, and like Old Liu, western doctors have saved the lives of my family on more than one occasion, for which I am forever grateful.

That said, the medical profession has been infested by interest groups - drugs and medical equipment companies. One of the most damning piece of evidence is the introduction of flu vaccines as mandatory health care.

I have loads of work to rush, so I will post more when I have the time. Meanwhile have a fruitful discussion.

P.S.

Well as a social scientist I’m sure Sifu Wong recognises the importance of employing real scientific method if we want real scientists to believe the results.

With respect.

Sure, although as i alluded to above, is there really a set of universal scientic methods, whether among scientists or more pertinently, across time periods. Will scientists 100 years from now wonder how on earth we could have missed something so self-evident by using inferior measurement methods?

[AlexBaranosky]

Here is a substantial link on the New Medicine of Dr Hamer

http://www.newmedicine.ca/

...

By the way , before I posted about Dr Hamer , i have actually read all his post doctoral university thesis and other related works that have been translated into English

Thank you for the link.

How could I get my hand on a copy of the university thesis, in English?

I don't mean to suggest that he is saying that, I'm saying that that is the implication. Do you really believe that tens of thousands of cancer specialists would ignore a cancer cure that works in ninety percent of cases?

It's easy to dislike the establishment, and root for the maverick, but while we celebrate cranky theories and call fake science real, it's worth just considering the real brilliant mavericks, like the people who worked out how to transplant hearts, or genuinely cure people of cancer, as evidenced by real scientific proof. We should remember the real heroes - the people who worked so hard, took no easy short cuts, and got real results.

I believe that it is easy to miss something. I also believe that I always check for myself, because I know I can trust my judgment. I understand Hamer may in fact be totally off-base. That doesn't matter to me. And the opinion of oncologists does not matter to me (in this particular case) because a study or series of studies to test Hamer's theories could be reviewed by myself. If 90% of these people are getting better I could see the studies and evaluate them myself. I know lots of people in science who could help me understand statistical significance and making sure the methods used in the experiments were of sufficient quality, etc etc.

I personally don't get into conspiracy theories. But it doesn't mean that I have to believe everything I hear. I like to exercise my persceptiveness.

In these kinds of situations I think it's valid to accept, as evidence in and of itself, the reactions of other experts in the same field. I mean, obviously we have to accept that oncologists are experts on cancer. I can accept the possibility that the patent for a water powered car was bought and buried by an oil firm, but I can't accept that a cure for cancer is out there, on the net, available to the world, but oncologists are deliberately, or through ignorance, ignoring it - even though it's there. That, I'm afraid is evidence in itself that Dr Hamer's stuff is not real medicine.

As for his actual theory, I find it interesting that it is establishing a new dogma - that if you have cancer it's because you suffered a traumatic incident. So, if you didn't, Dr Hamer's new dogma insists that you did... talk about individuals being suppressed by dogmatic systems!

To the first part I say, no, never accept on the opinion of others, unless you simply have to. I have my own mind and can decide for myself. I don't rely on others to spoon feed me. You are suggesting that when a man tells me he has this theory to help cancer, that I should just assume the current oncology professionals know more than me, and ignore him. But I am curious. And I don't need to be an oncology professional to read the published works that Dr. Hamer has. Nor to read the parameters and results of his studies.

Hmmm.... sounds like several followers of Dr Hamer set up their own group then nominated him for a Nobel prize.

The word followers make him out to be some cult leader. The clever use of words can taint a man before you know much even about him. What if I said it like this: "Hmmm... sounds like several professional peers, who marvel at the new theory of Dr. Hamer are so impressed with his genius that they nominated him for the Nobel prize."

On top of this, who else would nominate him? People who did not appreciate his work? Of course he would be nominated by those who appreciate his work.

...

Old-Liu,

If you read some of the sites about Hamer, it becomes interesting to see that a court of law said that his theories MUST be tested in a University, but they haven't been yet. That is interesting, I don't know why they haven't been tested...

Well, I am not too interested in discussing round in circles. Mostly I would like to know where I can get access to the hard data of the situation. The university thesis... the studies done to verify his theory.

All the Best,
Alex

[AndrewBill]

God created evil

I do not agree with "God did not create evil".

God gave us a free will.

How can I talk about free will in a system of an allknowing God?

Imagine you play chess with the Lord: He knows every move you do but still you decide if you move this figure or that figure or you jump up and smash the chess board to the floor. He won't be surprised but he lets you do it.

Without trust there cannot be love. love is based on trust. Or can't you trust a friend? If you can't, there is no friend. trust and belief are there were you as a human being are unknowing about something but still sure.

If you are blind... who is the one you trust so much that he or she can lead you through life? It's someone who love you and care for your good. Parents, friends etc... If you trust them they will be your eyes.

Love and Trust/Faith need another person. A relationship needs two parts. You can't be your eyes if you're blind.

God was so full of love that he created man so that he could share this great love with him. Its the only reason why the Lord who is almighty, allknowing and omnipresent create someone with a free will. similar to him.

what about free will?

Love and Trust/Faith cannot be forced. It's not love or trust/faith if it can be controled by others. Love is based on free will.

There was a white paper. Then god created the dark part by giving us the free will because he loves us so much that he left a place for evil (the absence of god). He created it by not willing to be there.

Amen(?)

[Omar]

Galileo, Darwin and Einstein WERE scientists, opposed and ridiculed by spiritualists. Their ideas help form the scientific way we investigate the world which is also here being called 'head in the clouds'

Yes, they were ridiculed by "spiritualists" as aspecially at Galileos time in Europe the church were the authority on what was right and wrong, like western science has established itself today. The church was offcourse much less flexible in recognizing new knowledge then science is.

Debates among scientists can get hot, but as far as I am aware, none have threathened to burn eatchother on the town square.

Einstein was also opposed by spiritualists, as his research was on the cosmos. But mainly, by far, opposition came from fellow academics throughout his career.

As for Chinese medicine being superior to Western medicine, if that were true it would be easily proved. If people say 'proof doesn't matter', I'm afraid most people would find that a little suspicious - don't you? Why wouldn't proof matter? Proof is only results, but results following the whole process - looking at the whole process, seeing the cancer, observing the qi gong, seeing the remission, doctors amazed. That's easy to prove.

I know Sifu did through a student offer to participate in a chi kung experiment with a hospital; it should be in the Q&A section of his website. I believe the response was that he should write a letter of appliance to the hospital in question for them to consider if he wanted an opportunity to maybe "become famous" and possibly "make money". I read elsewhere his letter elsewhere offering assistance was not even answered.

As for proof; chi kung helped me personally overcome and lessen the effects of depression. This was before the much higher level chi kung learned from Sifu in person, compared to his books.

Offcourse our western medicine can also cure some peoples depressions, but in my opinion removing the cause (energy blockage) is vastly superior to treating the symptoms (chemical medication).

[Charles David]

Dear Old Liu,

This is simply illogical:

I can't accept that a cure for cancer is out there, on the net, available to the world, but oncologists are deliberately, or through ignorance, ignoring it - even though it's there. That, I'm afraid is evidence in itself that Dr Hamer's stuff is not real medicine.

In other words, researchers are ignoring it, therefore it is not real medicine.

Truly illogical.


For You,


Charles

[Old-Liu]

I haven't had the time to go through all the posts here, which seem most fascinating to me. But when it comes to science, I think it is generally accepted that science (which is a study of natural laws after all) and its methods are still evolving as our knowledge and intelligence progress.

I have many doctor friends, and one of them is an oncologist. One of my earlier childhood dreams was to be an oncologist, and like Old Liu, western doctors have saved the lives of my family on more than one occasion, for which I am forever grateful.

That said, the medical profession has been infested by interest groups - drugs and medical equipment companies. One of the most damning piece of evidence is the introduction of flu vaccines as mandatory health care.

I have loads of work to rush, so I will post more when I have the time. Meanwhile have a fruitful discussion.

P.S.



Sure, although as i alluded to above, is there really a set of universal scientic methods, whether among scientists or more pertinently, across time periods. Will scientists 100 years from now wonder how on earth we could have missed something so self-evident by using inferior measurement methods?

To present a more balanced picture, let me say that as someone with an academic background in sociology, I am specifically interested in belief sets - especially information transfer. All of the points raised regarding rhe medical profession I'm not only aware of, but actually hold those views myself.

So I think it's very important that we are sure which 'sphere' we're talking about. The scientific method doesn't cover all things. There are many valid things in people's lives that aren't within its remit - and yes, often over zealous young atheist/scientists accidentally believe, as a dogmatic belief, that ALL things are within the remit of science - they aren't, of course.

It's equally true that the scientific world is an institution, and like all institutions it has its problems, sometimes even its crimes. Even before we get on to humans, the treatment of animals in experimentation, for example, is highly controversial.

But, the scientific method itself is bigger than any one person or issue. Just like one doctor who believes in Dr Hamer doesn't make Dr Hamer any more right. The question we need to face is wht those doctors who don't believe in Dr Hamer don't believe in him.

If, say, Sifu Wong can cure people of cancer with qi gong, the scientific method isn't his enemy just because his methods aren't scientific in the traditional sense. The scientific method is merely a means of harvesting information - something as cmpletely simple as checking with patient's oncologists that the patient really does have cancer, then observing them as Sifu Wong treats them, then having the oncologists confirm the apparently miracle cure.

That's a fairly simple thing, we have to admit - and all the hushed up crimes, drug company cartels and doctors' mistakes in the world don't take away from that most simple thing - just having a look to see if it really did happen. Did the cure happen?

What makes people like me doubtful, and what spreads doubt, feeds doubt, is when the proof isn't simply presented. Or, when the proof doesn't accord with the basic principles of transparency - for example, we can't accept as proof just the testimony of the patient or the doctor - proof has to be independent, and confirmed by actual oncologists.

Clearly, many other ailments are far more difficult to provide proof for, as has been mentioned - but mircale cures for cancer? That could easily be proved - what generates doubt is when people ask for proof but get laughed at. Scientific proof is the TRUE rebellion against dogmatic orthodoxy - actual proving of things, truth, showing it to be true - that's the real maverick victory, in my view.

With resepct.

[Old-Liu]

Dear Old Liu,

This is simply illogical:



In other words, researchers are ignoring it, therefore it is not real medicine.

Truly illogical.


For You,


Charles

Well, I can understand your perspective, and respect it. Sure, it's possible that the world's oncologists are ignoring a cure for cancer. But, why would they?

As rational human beings we have to weigh the evidence on things we can't check ourselves. Like, I've never been to Australia. How do I know it really is there? I'm open to the possibility that my world is an entire illusion, but upon weighing the evidence, in all probability, it is highly unlikely that there is a massive conspiracy to make me believe that Australia exists when it doesn't. There might be, but it's highly unlikely.

Similarly, I have to weigh the probability that oncologists across the world, desperate to cure their patients - people they know and are actually watching die - children, often - and then discussing options with the children's parents, etc - I have to believe that these people are ignoring a cure for cancer that would save those patients?

The one question you need to answer is 'why would they?'

[Old-Liu]

I believe that it is easy to miss something. I also believe that I always check for myself, because I know I can trust my judgment.
I have a specialist knowledge of information exchange. I know that we can’t trust our judgment in certain cases. Even I can’t really trust my judgment. Reason? Manipulation of information is at an advanced level in our society. In areas like medicine especially, the subjects are so complex it’s not possible for us to make informed judgments without specialist knowledge.

For myself, I look, instead, at other factors. For example, the way information on the subject is exchanged, and I look for indicators of misinformation, misguidance, etc. For example, if people tell me that oncologists don’t accept it because they are part of a conspiracy, or because they are too ignorant too understand it, I ‘flag’ that information as manipulation of me, via information. It is known, sometimes, as ‘preparing the ground’ meaning, the information giver knows full well that oncologists don’t accept the information as true, so to get the information ‘through’ to me, the information giver needs to undermine the oncologists in my mind – undermine their authority, their credibility, before I even get the information. I may even be flattered by suggestions that I’m able to perceive information on ‘higher’ levels than those highly educated, learned specialists with years of specialist training and study, lol. That’s a very common means of manipulating information reception to make it more positive.

All of a sudden, what used to be false ideas, rejected by real experts, transforms itself in to information on a ‘higher’ level, which only ‘special’ people can understand. Those ‘special’ people aren’t the real experts in the field – the oncologists, for example. They’re ‘not special’.

What makes me special? ‘Agreement’. If I agree with the information, my reward is I am advanced to ‘special’ status. So it’s really like a bribe for my ego. That’s a very standard way of getting people to believe unlikely or discredited information. Unfortunately, the key way to recognise it is if the real experts are attacked personally – like, oncologists are called limited in their understanding. That’s a reversal of the truth – the real experts become ‘limited’ while someone like me can pretend I know more than an oncologist simply by agreeing to ‘receive’ the information they rejected.

I understand Hamer may in fact be totally off-base. That doesn't matter to me. And the opinion of oncologists does not matter to me (in this particular case) because a study or series of studies to test Hamer's theories could be reviewed by myself. If 90% of these people are getting better I could see the studies and evaluate them myself. I know lots of people in science who could help me understand statistical significance and making sure the methods used in the experiments were of sufficient quality, etc etc.



I personally don't get into conspiracy theories. But it doesn't mean that I have to believe everything I hear. I like to exercise my persceptiveness.

The thing is, oncologists ARE people in science who can help you. And they ARE helping you. Their opinions are there to help you.

To me, what’s really happening there is an extension of anti-intellectualism. The oncologists are being undermined as experts, and now anyone can interpret the information – because the opinions of oncologists don’t really matter.

Well, actually, cancer is a difficult, complex study. But, even more so, what you really need is perceptiveness in the field of research and information exchange. Who are those 90%? Use your perceptiveness to ask if it’s really true. Every cancer breakthrough is on TV. A 90% success rate would be all over the world. Even the figure itself ‘90%’ smacks of falsehood. Mugabe is elected with a 90% mandate. It’s a typically manufactured figure. Not 67%, not 56%, 90%!

That alone piques my suspicion.

Start with open minded scepticism. Then consider, where are the independent oncological confirmations of cancer and then cure?

No where.

Why not?

Because they don’t exist.

Why not?

Because the cures never happened.

Consider a case where a woman has a psychological condition, believing herself to be very ill, seeking attention. That does happen. Medical doctors fob her off. She needs some help, but not Dr Hamer’s help. But, ultimately, the only people who will see her are the crystal healers, or the ‘out there’ therapists. They give her attention, care, consideration, an lo! Her cancer is ‘cured’. But it never was cancer – it was always a psychological condition.

To really see through Dr Hamer’s research you need access to the real, previous patient files – the real files, and to the method of gathering, researching and calculating the information. You can’t get those things, and there’s a reason why. That should pique your suspicion.

Because patients have confidentiality, the only real way is a proper, independent, double blind test.

But remember, real scientists already are helping you interpret the information. All you need to do is accept their help. Unless you can think of a good reason why tey would be lying to you?

To the first part I say, no, never accept on the opinion of others, unless you simply have to. I have my own mind and can decide for myself. I don't rely on others to spoon feed me. You are suggesting that when a man tells me he has this theory to help cancer, that I should just assume the current oncology professionals know more than me, and ignore him. But I am curious. And I don't need to be an oncology professional to read the published works that Dr. Hamer has. Nor to read the parameters and results of his studies.

Again, It think that stems from an unwarranted anti-intellectualism. It sounds right in theory, and you use emotive language to ‘prepare the ground’ for belief in your stance, such as ‘I don’t need to be spoon fed.’ Well, we are a society of pooled resources, each with our own specialities. Oncologists have specialist knowledge of cancer. I haven’t. I DO need their expertise to help me make sense of information pertaining to cancer. That isn’t being spoon fed, it’s called being educated by others who know better.

Thinking for yourself is good, but, it’s a lot easier when we use resources such as other brilliant people with specialist knowledge. I choose to believe that there’s little reason to believe that the world’s oncologists are in a conspiracy to lie to me – I rather choose to believe that they are a resource I can use to find out true facts about the world. They protect me from charlatans and con men with their profound, high level expertise.

And I would think it a mist tremendous insult to suggest that my opinion on cancer is just as valid as theirs. It isn’t. Their opinion is educated, learned, based on years of detailed study and experience of actually treating people and saving lives – provenly, by all standards, curing cancer. No, I don’t have the necessary credentials to over rule their decisions.

Remember Chairman Mao, and the way he so easily manipulated the Chinese youth by making them believe that intellectuals were nothing, and glib youth views were just as, if not more valid, than their view of the world.

There’s a reason, in information exchange, why people use that technique – but it’s never to educate us; it’s always to de-educate us. If experts aren’t the people with real knowledge, the world really is on its head!

The word followers make him out to be some cult leader. The clever use of words can taint a man before you know much even about him. What if I said it like this: "Hmmm... sounds like several professional peers, who marvel at the new theory of Dr. Hamer are so impressed with his genius that they nominated him for the Nobel prize."

Then I’d ask who those peers were. But, that’s really by the by – what’s happening here is the implication that a group of doctors can over rule the scientific method. I’d like to know if they even are real doctors, where their degrees come from, etc. What their specialities are in. How old they are, etc. I’d like all that information, to see the real picture.

But, again, a doctor who decides that the scientific method doesn’t apply to his research isn’t a peer amongst peers, he’s some kind of cult leader. Why? Because the moment you start asserting information, claiming it to be true, but denying any chance of real scrutiny, simply insisting that it is true and that anyone who can’t simply see that it’s true is ignorant, then you are a cult leader – or trying to be one. The very definition of a cult leader is a person who issues ‘information’ then expects others to simply believe it, not question it. I.e. Dr Hamer.

On top of this, who else would nominate him? People who did not appreciate his work? Of course he would be nominated by those who appreciate his work.

Well, Wah Nam could nominate Sifu Wong, couldn’t you? Then you could say ‘Sifu Wong, nominated for the Nobel prize for science…’ To outsiders that would sound hugely impressive, but on closer inspection, it wouldn’t be all that it seemed – despite the impression it gave.

Many people are ‘nominated’ for Nobel prizes – it mostly means nothing at all, other than an attempt to garner publicity or false kudos by interested, partisan groups nominating one of their own.

Sorry.

...

Old-Liu,

If you read some of the sites about Hamer, it becomes interesting to see that a court of law said that his theories MUST be tested in a University, but they haven't been yet. That is interesting, I don't know why they haven't been tested...

Well, courts of law don’t issue instructions to do things like that, as we all know. What they do is say that something needs to be properly tested before it can be sold, used, or, in this case, said to be confirmed. What the court actually meant, of course, was the opposite of everything you are implying- they meant that Dr Hamer’s work simply hasn’t been proven to be true in a proper test.

Most universities wouldn’t even touch it unless there was some indication that it was true. You’d think they’d be falling over themselves to study something with a 90% success rate in curing cancer, wouldn’t you? The fact that they aren’t should tell you that his work almost certainly doesn’t even pass the most basic professional scrutiny.

Well, I am not too interested in discussing round in circles. Mostly I would like to know where I can get access to the hard data of the situation. The university thesis... the studies done to verify his theory.

All the Best,
Alex

Well, if you do find that independent research, do post!

All the best, OL.

[Old-Liu]

Yes, they were ridiculed by "spiritualists" as aspecially at Galileos time in

Europe the church were the authority on what was right and wrong, like western science has established itself today.

And Galileo was one of the people who helped establish it. Are you now saying, like the Church did, that Galileo was wrong?

Look, just because something is ‘established’ doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. Establishments can, of course, have their own politics, trajectories, etc. but the scientific method itself, established by Galileo et al, is bigger than any specific trajectory, because it is the simple triumph of ‘observe, test, see what is really true.’

It doesn’t apply to all things, but it DOES apply to seeing if a tumour is there one month and gone the next!

Support Galileo; don’t use his name to attack the thing he worked so hard to bequeath us – the process of knowledge and reason.

The church was offcourse much less flexible in recognizing new knowledge then science is.

Debates among scientists can get hot, but as far as I am aware, none have threathened to burn eatchother on the town square.

Einstein was also opposed by spiritualists, as his research was on the cosmos. But mainly, by far, opposition came from fellow academics throughout his career.

Of course there are disputes within science. Einstein’s theories didn’t cover everything. New science over took him in some areas. But what we’re missing here is that Einstein’s theories aren’t the issue – the scientific idea of actually demonstrating the truth of what you say applies to all of them. It’s a method of gathering knowledge for Galileo and Einstein and those that came after, regardless of how their theories differed. Not only that, it is a protective shield for new ideas – not a suppressor of them. New ideas in science have the protection of the scientific method, not the barrier of it; if you can prove your idea, nothing, ultimately, can stand in your way.

Scientific method isn’t the enemy of the original, brilliant, maverick thinker; it’s his ultimate weapon.

I know Sifu did through a student offer to participate in a chi kung experiment with a hospital; it should be in the Q&A section of his website. I believe the response was that he should write a letter of appliance to the hospital in question for them to consider if he wanted an opportunity to maybe "become famous" and possibly "make money". I read elsewhere his letter elsewhere offering assistance was not even answered.

What Sifu Wong needs is letters from actual oncologists or independent doctors confirming the cures for cancer he has performed. If he has those, he would easily get a university to accept to test him. Wouldn’t he? The scientific method is his weapon, not his oppressor.

As for proof; chi kung helped me personally overcome and lessen the effects of depression. This was before the much higher level chi kung learned from Sifu in person, compared to his books.

Well, depression isn’t the same as cancer, is it? Maybe qi gong has a big future in treating depression?

But cancer is a physical thing – it can be seen, tested and shown to be there. Helping people with depression isn’t proof of curing cancer. It might be that just doing some exercise, getting out, meeting others, believing in yourself or the method helped you kick depression.

Making cancerous growths go away is quite another story. That can easily have independent confirmation. And I don’t accept that the proof isn’t there because some hospital wouldn’t accept Sifu Wong to come in. If the cures have happened, then there must be some real record of diagnoses, then cure.

Offcourse our western medicine can also cure some peoples depressions, but in my opinion removing the cause (energy blockage) is vastly superior to treating the symptoms (chemical medication).

That may be true. But when it can cure cancer – that’ll be something!

[Andy]

Do you believe that thinking too much can cause an 'energy blockage'?

I dont believe that thinking too much causes energy blockage, I know it for a fact; having thought too much and having given myself energy blockage.

Does it necessarily transfer to other people? Is it really a 'qi' blockage?

Energy blockage is something everyone understands intuitively; you can substitute "energy blockage" for "information blockage" or more commonly "disease".

Most people consider disease as part of their map of reality.

The reason I bring up thinking too much is that most non-meditators are prone to this condition; being addicted to thinking and building thoughts on thoughts.

Just because this does not have a currently accepted label such as "obsessive-compulsive disorder" does not mean that this is not a valid disorder which should be both recognised, discussed and addressed.

What worries me just a tint, is if that idea then extended in to 'thinking is bad for you'.

This in no way means thinking is bad for you. I would give the example of this thread -> the members of this discussion forum may highlight the dangers of over-intellectualisation but the intellectual standard of the discussions is high.

As has been observed by Andrew; insights can come in non-thought and the quieting of the mind actually increases thinking and rationalising ability;

One's ability to think is improved.

[Old-Liu]

I dont believe that thinking too much causes energy blockage, I know it for a fact; having thought too much and having given myself energy blockage.

I believe we all have our own ‘structures’ – ways of looking at the world. Your ‘structure’ and my structure are different in some ways, but both are completely valid – for us.

As a community of beings we naturally ‘synthesise’ our shared knowledge by sharing information that we can all check is true. You ‘know’ that it is true, within your structure – but that’s a personal truth. On a social level, it’s not a confirmed truth – and that’s the difference. Something may be true and only one person know it, but it isn’t a confirmed truth. In your structure you explain something that happened to you in terms of an ‘energy blockage’ which is perfectly valid for you. I don’t happen to believe in qi or energy blockages, so I don’t see it like that.

So, despite you knowing it, it isn’t actually confirmed to be true. ‘Truth’ has to have a meaning – and its usual meaning is that which everyone can confirm is true.

Secondly, I can accept that morbid obsession causes problems, or worrying, etc. But the idea that ‘thinking is bad’ is straight our of Orwell’s 1984, and I’d personally be very suspicious of any body which tried to tell me that. The next phrase would be ‘obedience is good.’

Energy blockage is something everyone understands intuitively; you can substitute "energy blockage" for "information blockage" or more commonly "disease".

Most people consider disease as part of their map of reality.

Yes, but most people don’t consider it to be an energy blockage. Looked at from another perspective, disease could in many cases be other living beings inhabiting your body – germs, viruses etc.

If we can substitute anything we want, then I substitute the standard medical explanations.

The reason I bring up thinking too much is that most non-meditators are prone to this condition; being addicted to thinking and building thoughts on thoughts.

Do you have any scientific proof of that? It sounds more like prejudice.

Just because this does not have a currently accepted label such as "obsessive-compulsive disorder" does not mean that this is not a valid disorder which should be both recognised, discussed and addressed.

What about addiction to meditation? Should that have a medical label? Isn’t it true that pretty much all dogmas like to consider opposing viewpoints as mental illness?

This in no way means thinking is bad for you. I would give the example of this thread -> the members of this discussion forum may highlight the dangers of over-intellectualisation but the intellectual standard of the discussions is high.

As has been observed by Andrew; insights can come in non-thought and the quieting of the mind actually increases thinking and rationalising ability;

One's ability to think is improved.

One should not confuse the two – anti-intellectualism isn’t the same thing as pro-meditation. Confusing the two is a dangerous manipulation of our awareness. An awareness-blockage, I might call it, in my structure.

[Andy]

I’m afraid that that is really a misunderstanding of how natural selection works. Random mutation is happening all around you.

If I was not familiar with evolution by natural selection and random mutation, then I would not have achieved an "A" in Evolutionary Biology at Higher Degree Level.

If I was not familiar with the current scientific physical, biological and evolutionary paradigm, then I would not have a Degree in Molecular and Cellular Biology.

The current evolutionary paradigm:

Random chance generated the universe, which functions according to randomly generated deterministic laws. Random chance and deterministic laws gave rise to increasingly complex chemical interactions leading to the development of organisms. These organisms are no more than expressions of their genetic code. These organisms compete, driven by their genetic code. Random chance leads to random mutation which alters the structures of genes, affecting their expression thus competitiveness and replicatability. Random events change conditions which in turn affect the competition and gene selection by affecting the competitiveness/destroying certain individual organisms (thus genes); survival of the fittest. Random mutation and natural selection therefore explain all life and all evolution.

This is Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" thesis in a nutshell, and the basis of the Neo-Darwinian "Theory of Everything".

Some Base Assumptions:

Linear cause-and-effect from genes to cells to organisms.

Competitive interactions within and between species; a blind "survival of the fittest".

=> A mechanistic linear cause and effect model of interaction between organisms, and between genes and organisms.

Problems with these base assumptions:

We know for a fact that there are non-DNA/RNA "epigenetic" hereditary data within cells; and that gene expression and gene replication can be internally altered and manipulated by cells (as a response to conditions) and are not as fixed as sometimes presumed.

We know for a fact that individual cells are self-regulating and cooperate within the overall self-regulation of an organism.

We know for a fact that individual organisms respond to their environment, and that organisms exist in the context of an ecosystem, which is also a self-regulating system.

Points of note:

Conscious adaptability of individual cells (and ultimately, organ systems, organisms, ecosystems) is not properly accomodated within this model. I consider this a grave error.

The existing model is reductionist (parts=whole) and does not accomodate the multilevel systemic interactions within living systems (whole>parts).

The existing model postulates competition and survival of the fittest as the explanation of evolution.

However, observation of nature shows us that both within and between species cooperation and communication are the primary interactions that define life.


Your example corresponds to the Neo-Darwinian viewpoint:

A slight change in our environment, say, to a shortage of food over a long period of time, would cause changes – for example, smaller people would be better able to survive on less food. Bigger people might evolve also, but be less populous but more aggressive.

Slightly increased radiation from the sun would weed out people less able to cope with it.

Your observations here are simple linear logic: IF food shortage THEN smaller people, IF increased sun THEN less melanistic people.

In the real world such "slight" changes would result in complex cascades of interactions between all members of whole species, and all members of whole ecosystems. There would be change and adaption across entire ecosystems even before there were any "adaptations by weeding". I am not suggesting that weeding would not eventually occur, just that weeding would not necessarily be the only explanation for the changes and adaptation observed.

To return to my earlier Mauritius ecosystem example:

Humans out-competed the Dodo and the fittest survived (IF people eat all the Dodo THEN no Dodo). However the extinction of the Dodo damaged the entire ecosystem. The extinction of the Dodo also damaged the people (less fertile ecosystem and one less food source).

Interspecies relationships can therefore be seen to be primarily cooperative not competitive.

Is random mutation involved in evolution? I would say yes. Is it a primary driver? I would say no; if this were the case then the entropy of random mutation would have destroyed all life over the course of the history of the universe.

Is natural selection involved in evolution? I would say yes. Is it a primary driver? I would say no; if this were the case there would not be such deleterious effects across whole systems observed as a consequence of the extinction of a single species. That natural selection results in observable dramatic changes I would agree. Your postulate: Dramatic change results in natural selection which equals evolution. My postulate: Evolution is an ongoing interaction in a whole system, and that life can adapt even to dramatic changes (events that cause an increased intensity of natural selection).

I would conclude that the primary driver of evolution would therefore be shown to be the actual process of life itself.

But so do facts, and truth, and provable, demonstrable connections.

All of the above points are engagements with facts and a search for truth, and are results of observation of provable, demonstrable connections. Rational and scientific, not just semi-Buddhist.

There is an emerging scientific view of life which combines systemic understandings of cells/organ systems/organisms/ecosystems. There is also an emerging view of the self-regulation of whole planetary environments "Gaia theory".

So far the gap between cosmos and planet has not been reflected on or studied greatly...but there are emerging systemic views of cosmology also i.e. "Electric Universe". I think that these developments will eventually result in a fuller scientific understanding of evolution.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


So ends my list of objective points on evolution.

My next points on evolution are subjective. I would not expect you, Old Liu, to agree or concur, or even entertain any of these points as they are currently objectively unprovable {well, evidence by the comparative method would be available, but I dont have a large body of data to hand).

Subjective observation 1)

If human beings (and presumably all life forms) have an internal energy network consisting of meridians (conduits) and dan tiens (fields), then current scientific assumptions which do not reference these internal structures are incomplete, to say the least.

Subjective observation 2)

If it is possible for human beings to draw in energy from the cosmos, using the conscious mind, and to use this energy to power and ultimately effect changes to the biological structure of the human body, then many objective scientific assumptions about the nature of energy, the nature of information, the nature of matter, the nature of space-time, the nature of biology, indeed the nature of consciousness and existence are incomplete, to say the least.

Subject observations 3)

If time can be subjectively shown to be a relative construct rather than an ultimate reality, then linear causality (such as underlies our current assumptions on evolution) and the utimate nature of creation is something different than it currently objectively seems.


I thought Id add these musings to give additional food for thought, and not just to be mytho-poeic.

I believe science will eventually be allayed to internal exploration of consciousness to shed further light on these issues. Then we will really see the interconnections in the universe.

[AndrewBill]

You will just come to this conclusion:

It's a question about faith.

example:
you can believe in God
or
you can believe in evolution THEORY

free will:
you can decide if you are evolved from a monkey or created by God. you can even legitimate a murder. It's up to you.

Imagine God is proven.
Everybody would do what he would like to because if he exists for sure the enemy does also exist. God wouldn't be love because we're just scared.

[AlexBaranosky]

To me, what’s really happening there is an extension of anti-intellectualism. The oncologists are being undermined as experts, and now anyone can interpret the information – because the opinions of oncologists don’t really matter.

Old-Liu,
You make a lot of good points in your post to me, though I think you miss my point. What is being undermined is not their expertise. What is being undermined is the human tendency to appeal to authority. People tend to believe an authority, and I have turned that part off. I don't care what a person's position is in life; I care what is true. I want to see for myself. You make it sound like the ability to understand science is beyond me. I think that is ridiculous. It says more about your assumptions than about me. Ridiculous, and absurd. Science is no more impossible to understand than anything else.

Maybe someone who reads your posts will get something out of your ideas, but to suggest that I am not capable of understanding something is just plain wrong.

Peace,
Alex

[AlexBaranosky]

Scientific method isn’t the enemy of the original, brilliant, maverick thinker; it’s his ultimate weapon.

I also don't see the scientific method as an enemy of some sort. Anyone who thinks that doesn't really know what it is. At its root form the scientific method just means "thinking clearly." --> Add up all the details and analyze them for patterns: do they fit the theorized pattern that was suggested? Yes, ok great we have new way to see the world. No, oh.

We all know that there have been scientists who are hailed as great people now, that were ridiculed in their time. So let's not act like scienTISTS are infallible. The method might be a theoretically infallible method, but the humans doing it can be quite biased.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is all moot, however. Let's just check the information. What does the orange taste like? We cold bla bla bla about it til the cow come home and not know. So let's taste the orange i.e. check the data ourselves.

Until I see the papers, I can only say the answer is "inconclusive"... I am comfortable with that ambiguity.