tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post2503998821832592979..comments2024-03-08T07:31:03.679-08:00Comments on Templestream: A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s ExistenceRick Wardenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-16434089597851579842013-02-06T14:26:44.593-08:002013-02-06T14:26:44.593-08:00Ηere is my page: webpage
Also visit my page - payd...<br /><br />Ηere is my page: <a href="http://cashpayday-loanusa2.com" rel="nofollow">webpage</a><br /><i>Also visit my page</i> - <b><a href="http://cashpayday-loanusa2.com" rel="nofollow">payday loan online</a></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-56991606485039578602013-02-06T11:33:47.597-08:002013-02-06T11:33:47.597-08:00My web sіtе ... web site
My site - payday loans<br /><br />My web sіtе ... <a href="http://cashpayday-loanusa1.com" rel="nofollow">web site</a><br /><i>My site</i> - <b><a href="http://cashpayday-loanusa1.com" rel="nofollow">payday loans</a></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-31743335284561144132012-05-30T21:32:26.621-07:002012-05-30T21:32:26.621-07:00I just noticed you link here from your "Know ...I just noticed you link here from your "Know God" page.<br />Pretty pathetic to claim to have rebutted something when in actuality you've done little more than misunderstand and argue against strawmen.<br /><br />I've been waiting for you to actually support your contentions on this point for over 6 months now Rick (note the date on the preceding comment), with not a peep from you. And yet you continue to arrogantly proclaim "victory".Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-51731530356227354032011-11-06T19:55:52.700-08:002011-11-06T19:55:52.700-08:00Rick: I don't doubt that you can propose &quo...<b>Rick: I don't doubt that you can propose "any sort" of moral judgment as a relativist, but was I propose is that moral relativism can only offer an illogical and unhealthy moral code.</b><br />You can propose it all you want, but what you actually need to do, to support your claims, is to <i>demonstrate it</i>.<br />Even were you to do so (and your linked blog post fails miserably, so don't bother referring to it further), you would <i>still</i> need to demonstrate that <i>your specific</i> moral system is (very probably) true.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-86129767642921354422011-10-20T06:55:15.687-07:002011-10-20T06:55:15.687-07:00Havok,
You wrote, "You're assuming that ...Havok,<br /><br />You wrote, "You're assuming that to make any sort of moral judgement, an objective basis is required, yet this is also merely an assertion on your part."<br /><br />R: I don't doubt that you can propose "any sort" of moral judgment as a relativist, but was I propose is that moral relativism can only offer an illogical and unhealthy moral code.<br /><br />As you seem to wholeheartedly support moral relativism now, I thought you might appreciate the following article,<br /><br />Proof Moral Relativism is False<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/proof-moral-relativism-is-false.htmlRick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-73974710218671380142011-10-20T06:09:43.574-07:002011-10-20T06:09:43.574-07:00Oh! And I need to apologize, I made a mistake. The...Oh! And I need to apologize, I made a mistake. The GMO that makes gain/loose weight depending on gender is not a banana, it is a type of cornAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-46448066268650454762011-10-20T00:47:43.373-07:002011-10-20T00:47:43.373-07:00H:Chiropractic is, for the most part, sham practic...H:Chiropractic is, for the most part, sham practice. There have been attempts in the past to move chiropractic to a more reality based foundation (as occurred to osteopathy in the US), but such moves have been strongly resisted by Chiropractors and have never gained much traction.<br /><br />I am a little ignorant in that sense, I must confess. However, I do know that chiropractors did manage to win several court cases and proved there about the efficiency of their practice. <br /><br />H:They're not all that different in the end, however.<br /><br />That is debatable.<br /><br />H:I'm not aware of those studies. I do know there is a lot of hype and fear regarding GMO's, and much of the noise surrounding their claimed danger is very hyperbolic.<br /><br />There is fear from ignorance, but there is also fear from studies. A complete testing of GMO products could take at least a hundred years and no private company would survive that long without compensating the expensive research. Lobbyists are very active in pushing GMO to the market.<br /><br />H:While it's not great that this happens, it happens in nature all the time, and we've done it with non-GMO plants and animals.<br /><br />In nature things like that are rare. And we have observed first-hand how destructive it is for the environment with Australia. I doubt that man-eating tomatoes will appear, but the habitat in some regions might become hostile for human life. <br /><br />H:Unless the GMO feed can cause mutations, then the meat would be the same as if the cattle were not fed GMO products. <br /><br />We know about mad-cow disease, which started because cattle was fed scrapes from the meat industry. There is no guarantee that GMO is harmless in this case. <br /><br />H:So the proponents of acupuncture seem to be ignoring their own data.<br /><br />I am no expert on the subject, but I thought peer researched papers would have pointed out such contradiction.<br /><br />H:I try to consider reality as the main authority :-)<br /><br />Since humans perceive reality at as subjective level, we still need some authority besides reality 8) <br /><br />H:If something, like homeopathy, requires water have a "memory", something which runs against basic physics and chemistry, and if that something shows no effect above placebo, we're safe concluding that said thing is likely to be simply a placebo.<br /><br />I agree here. But is the effect truly at the placebo level, meaning at a 20% rate? I am not completely convinced here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-15321536692502954322011-10-20T00:45:41.756-07:002011-10-20T00:45:41.756-07:00H:The good studies show no effect from homeopathy,...H:The good studies show no effect from homeopathy, and homeopathy contradicts so much basic science that I really don't see the need to continue<br /><br />Then modern medicine needs to catch up with science, since homeopathy is quite popular 8)<br /><br />H:As far as I'm aware there was no stimulation - this was the controll group.<br /><br />Than maybe it was the result of placebo effect. But I wonder what where the initial illness that was treated.<br /><br />H:Specific points are still needed for both acupuncture and acupressure.<br /><br />In some cases no specific points are needed, an approximate area of the body suffices. Acupuncture and acupressure have the same basis and there is little difference between them as far as I know.<br /><br />H:Many diseases are self limiting, and many regress to the mean, meaning they get worse, then better, then worse etc.<br /><br />Your guess is definitely off the mark this time. I got acupuncture because my parents were concerned, even it did not bother me at all. It is mostly a cosmetic matter, one s body is covered with "stains", they are permanent and are not supposed to disappear (only additional ones can appear). No relapse is possible. It can be treated to some extent with lasers, but with limited success. But the same effect was accomplished with acupuncture. You can check about the disease on wikipedia.<br /><br />H:We're not at that stage when it comes to neurology, and so I don't see that CHi should be included as a serious possibility.<br /><br />I still think it could be studied. For now we can only understand simple processes of the body, while Chi addresses the more complex ones. The alternative would be to wait a couple decades or even more.<br /><br />H:The oil company may have buried the concept, but it's not exactly unobvious. <br /><br />But they did manage to delay the research in that field for quite some time. It only reemerged in the 1990s.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-17508406085069632302011-10-19T22:42:17.356-07:002011-10-19T22:42:17.356-07:00Anonymous: Selective breeding and genetically modi...<b>Anonymous: Selective breeding and genetically modified products are not the same thing. In the first case the subject are already compatible, while in the second one - compatibility is forced upon.</b><br />There are differences, in that the genetic variation needs to be present in the breeding stock in order to expose a particular trait, while GMO's can have the genetic variability added to them. They're not all that different in the end, however.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: There have been some alarming studies about GMO. Like all the rats who were being fed by GMO soya turned out infertile after the third generation. Or some bananas which made men lose weight and women gain weight.</b><br />I'm not aware of those studies. I do know there is a lot of hype and fear regarding GMO's, and much of the noise surrounding their claimed danger is very hyperbolic.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: Not to mention the ecological disaster going on - GMO plants started to mutate with wild plants and are spreading around (being from Australia, you should know how an alien form of life can influence the habitat).</b><br />While it's not great that this happens, it happens in nature all the time, and we've done it with non-GMO plants and animals.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: And we have no idea what can happen to people who are eating meat from cattle, which was fed GMO banned for human consumption.</b><br />Unless the GMO feed can cause mutations (which I doubt, since the stomach breask down basically all food into it's molecular building blocks prior to absorbtion, regardless of the source), then the meat would be the same as if the cattle were not fed GMO products.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: Furthermore, there are several studies which endorse acupuncture, so someone is definitely lying or mistaken here 8)</b><br />The studies I've seen concerning acupuncture, which have decent controls, tend to conclude that acupuncture works. What is curious is that the data they draw from does not support this conclusion (there is no statistically significant difference). So the proponents of acupuncture seem to be ignoring their own data.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: And if we consider WHO as the main authority, they acknowledged acupuncture to be effective enough to be expanded and studied</b><br />I try to consider reality as the main authority :-)<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: also believe that a good scientist should be open to any possibility, including pigs flying out of one s arse.</b><br />It's not only about being open (or closed) minded. We only have limited resources, which to me means that if something, like homeopathy, requires water have a "memory", something which runs against basic physics and chemistry, and if that something shows no effect above placebo, we're safe concluding that said thing is likely to be simply a placebo.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-43396945295960349322011-10-19T22:41:08.278-07:002011-10-19T22:41:08.278-07:00Anonymous: It just means that further studies are ...<b>Anonymous: It just means that further studies are needed.</b><br />I don't think it does. The good studies show no effect from homeopathy, and homeopathy contradicts so much basic science that I really don't see the need to continue - it has failed to demonstrate any efficacy and is not even a plausible intervention.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: Though, for a long time homeopathy was considered mainstream and proven by modern science.</b><br />Scientific medicine is only fairly recent on the scene, as I understand it. Whether homeopathy was ever considered proven by science, it never actually has been.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: However, what do you mean by bedside manners?</b><br />The practitioner still did some non-intervention touchy-feely stuff, making the person feel like they were being looked after, without actually doing any acupuncture (sham or otherwise).<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: There still was some stimulation I believe.</b><br />As far as I'm aware there was no stimulation - this was the controll group.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: As for the other 3 methods, I do not think that they cannot be discarded as placebo effect, since needles are not needed for acupuncture.</b><br />Needles are needed for acupuncture. What you seem to be thinking of is acupressure.<br />Specific points are still needed for both acupuncture and acupressure.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: Besides, one needs several seances to achieve some definite result. Was it done in a one-time sitting?</b><br />I'm not sure whether there was repeated treatment or not - I'd have to track down the study.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: ...but it does puzzle me how come in that case the treatment was not a complete success and why it took me several months to go through.</b><br />Many diseases are self limiting, and many regress to the mean, meaning they get worse, then better, then worse etc. I'm not sure about the details of your specific disease, but often people will seek out treatment when things are getting worse, and the course of treatment carries on while the issue gets worse and then starts to get better. This is a completely normal part of the progression of the illness, but in these instances the intervention is claimed to have helped (when it likely did not).<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: I do not think that we have enough evidence to discard "Chi" completely. We know a lot about the body, but there is still a lot of gray areas. </b><br />We know enough about physics, chemistry and biology to disregard CHi as a probable/likely explanation until and unless there is something which requires something like it for an explanation.<br />We're not at that stage when it comes to neurology, and so I don't see that CHi should be included as a serious possibility.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: One example would be the invention of the hybrid car (the concept was invented in the 1970s, but the patent was bought by an oil company and the invention only was implemented several years late).</b><br />The oil company may have buried the concept, but it's not exactly unobvious. AS I think current hybrid cars show, they've only recently become viable due to technological reasons (battery capacity, energy density, materials tehcnology etc), not because an oil company shelved a patent.<br /><br /><b>Anonymouys: A second example could be the crusade against chiropractic (years of trials and accusations of "sham" practice).</b><br />Chiropractic is, for the most part, sham practice. There have been attempts in the past to move chiropractic to a more reality based foundation (as occurred to osteopathy in the US), but such moves have been strongly resisted by Chiropractors and have never gained much traction.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-68702669644047369462011-10-19T22:18:13.357-07:002011-10-19T22:18:13.357-07:00H:Since it would be a non-drug intervention, such ...H:Since it would be a non-drug intervention, such research is unlikely to come from a drug company. As such it would be widely available. <br /><br />I disagree with you on that point. Huge corporations have a big range of measures to sabotage unwanted progress. One example would be the invention of the hybrid car (the concept was invented in the 1970s, but the patent was bought by an oil company and the invention only was implemented several years late). A second example could be the crusade against chiropractic (years of trials and accusations of "sham" practice). There are countless other examples.<br /><br />H:GMO's generally are fine - we've been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years through selective breeding. <br /><br />Selective breeding and genetically modified products are not the same thing. In the first case the subject are already compatible, while in the second one - compatibility is forced upon.<br /><br />There have been some alarming studies about GMO. Like all the rats who were being fed by GMO soya turned out infertile after the third generation. Or some bananas which made men lose weight and women gain weight. Not to mention the ecological disaster going on - GMO plants started to mutate with wild plants and are spreading around (being from Australia, you should know how an alien form of life can influence the habitat). And we have no idea what can happen to people who are eating meat from cattle, which was fed GMO banned for human consumption.<br /><br />At least if a catastrophe occur, it is going to hit our decedents, so we can relax and pollute as much as we want 8)<br /><br />H:My point is that during the whole process, even when it was speculative, hypothesis concerning radiation were treated as speculative by scientists. What I see a lot of alternative medicine, eastern mysticism proponents do is treat their supposed phenomena as real, and then go about trying to demonstrate this reality. <br /><br />Personal bias is always present, be it for or against. The deal would to accept the possibility and try to be as open-minded as possible.<br /><br />I am a little skeptical about the presented clinical studies (partly because of personal experience, partly because of a possible forgery). Furthermore, there are several studies which endorse acupuncture, so someone is definitely lying or mistaken here 8)<br /><br />And if we consider WHO as the main authority, they acknowledged acupuncture to be effective enough to be expanded and studied. <br /><br />H:I'm just trying to indicate what seems to be a pattern for "true believers", whether it's acupuncture, homeopathy or God :-)<br /><br />I agree that blind faith cannot lead to anything good. However, I also believe that a good scientist should be open to any possibility, including pigs flying out of one s arse.<br /><br />H:Speaking of which, Rick has been absent for at least a week now. I wonder if he'll venture back any time soon :-)<br /><br />I am sure that he is writing another article about the Antichrist or something similar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-66905825703920817712011-10-19T22:14:31.940-07:002011-10-19T22:14:31.940-07:00H:Proponents of Homeopathy don't like these st...H:Proponents of Homeopathy don't like these studies, and tend to nit pick them, but also fail to do them on their own. <br /><br />It just means that further studies are needed. Though, for a long time homeopathy was considered mainstream and proven by modern science.<br /><br />H:The results of the study were that the controll group receiving nice bedside manner, recieved some benefit, while the other 4 groups received greater benefit. The difference between the 4 groups was not statistically significant.<br /><br />I must admit that I am not aware of this study. However, what do you mean by bedside manners? There still was some stimulation I believe. As for the other 3 methods, I do not think that they cannot be discarded as placebo effect, since needles are not needed for acupuncture.<br />Besides, one needs several seances to achieve some definite result. Was it done in a one-time sitting?<br /><br />And speaking from personal experience (which can make me biased) acupuncture did help me a little with the symptoms of my vitiligo (a genetical disease that causes some depigmentation of the skin). It might be part of the placebo effect (even if I did not have much expectation and did not care much in the first place), but it does puzzle me how come in that case the treatment was not a complete success and why it took me several months to go through.<br /><br />H:It seems that pain, being a subjective feeling in response to the firing of C-fibres (I think) would be a prime candidate for ignoring through concentration.<br /><br />Can t argue with that. But it does not make it any less interesting.<br /><br />H:It's not surprising that we don't know everything as neuroscience is a very young field.<br /><br />Maybe I am just impatient and I am not an expert on the subject either, it is not even in the field of my major interest. 8)<br /><br />H:We do have an explanation - mental focus/concentration techniques. We have no evidence to support the traditional understanding of "Chi" and lots of evidence against it.<br /><br />First of all, not everyone agrees with the exact definition of "Chi" even in the East. Secondly, we do not have any understanding yet of how that focus/concentration is being done. "Chi" can be used as speculation about the mechanism at work. <br /><br />I do not think that we have enough evidence to discard "Chi" completely. We know a lot about the body, but there is still a lot of gray areas. <br /><br />H:If one has little to nothing to gain, why undergo unecessary suffering?<br /><br />We often undergo unnecessary suffering to gain some peace of mind and avoid some greater mental suffering.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-36358750974795988862011-10-19T16:24:07.883-07:002011-10-19T16:24:07.883-07:00I felt this needed an additional comment:
Anonymou...I felt this needed an additional comment:<br /><b>Anonymous: After all, the phenomena of radiation was also unknown in the past and was only speculation</b><br />I think that while radiation was responsible for some unexplained phenomena at the time, an understanding of it came about due to Maxwell and his theories of electro magnetism. Maxwells equations, which matched well with reality regarding electric and magnetic fields, also showed that an "electro-magnetic wave" which would propagate at the same speed light had been measured at, existed. After this, experimenters started trying to produce/record such waves.<br />My point is that during the whole process, even when it was speculative, hypothesis concerning radiation were treated as speculative by scientists.<br />What I see a lot of alternative medicine, eastern mysticism proponents do is treat their supposed phenomena as real, and then go about trying to demonstrate this reality. This seems to be why clinical studies which show no statistical significant effect above placebo for acupuncture, for example, don't tend to conclude that acupuncture doesn't work, but that something is going on in the control and/or placebo groups which needs to be understood. The phenomena being studies is assumed to be effective, and the results don't matter.<br /><br />I'm not saying you're doing this here, as I think we agree on much, and some of the places we disagree is likely due to language and or culture (you're Russian, correct?) and resulting miscommunication.<br />I'm just trying to indicate what seems to be a pattern for "true believers", whether it's acupuncture, homeopathy or God :-)<br /><br />Speaking of which, Rick has been absent for at least a week now. I wonder if he'll venture back any time soon :-)Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-12632819902275647772011-10-19T16:14:18.927-07:002011-10-19T16:14:18.927-07:00Anonymous: I do agree with you here. Magic potions...<b>Anonymous: I do agree with you here. Magic potions against headaches ended up being Aspirin. I just believe that when science finds itself in an impasse it should at least start from something. Even if the assumption is ridiculous. </b><br />I agree. I'm not sure that science is at an impasse regarding the mind however. Progress is being made in leaps and bounds.<br />It's not surprising that we don't know everything as neuroscience is a very young field (imaging technology of sufficient resolution is quite recent) and the brain is incredibly complex.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: I am no neurosurgeon, so I will trust you on that one 8)</b><br />Neither am I, but I (try to) read a lot :-)<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: By "metaphysical" I mean the "Chi" phenomena and so on. Since we do not have an explanation for those techniques, we do not really have a choice, but to study those alien esoteric systems.</b><br />We do have an explanation - mental focus/concentration techniques. We have no evidence to support the traditional understanding of "Chi" and lots of evidence against it, so I'm inclined to accept the naturalistic account, even though it isn't a "complete" explanation.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: Some information from them at least should be useful. After all, the phenomena of radiation was also unknown in the past and was only speculation, so the existence of some invisible "Chi" is not that improbable.</b><br />Except that, thanks to various conservation laws and a fairly detailed understanding of biology, chemistry and physics, there is no room left for "Chi" to fit in - we understand how our bodies are fueled and have a fairly good understanding of how individual cells function, and no where do we find "Chi", nor do we find an energy gap of sorts.<br />What we should be studying (and I suspect some people are) is what is going on in the mind when people employ these focus/concentration techniques.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: We can either wait for some breakthrough in a similar field or try to work for now with what we got.</b><br />I'm all for working with and from what we already know. A belief in "Chi" is not knowledge since it is not backed up by scientific evidence.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: If one has nothing to loose, why not try something else?</b><br />If one has little to nothing to gain, why undergo unecessary suffering?<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: If a method to cure a person through meditation was discovered one can be sure of a strong opposition, despite the possible efficiency of such practice. </b><br />Since it would be a non-drug intervention, such research is unlikely to come from a drug company. As such it would be widely available. Since it would be widely available, and most medical professionals care more about their patient's health than buying another car, you can be sure that this cure would be prescribed routinely. I don't see that the drug companies could stop it.<br />Also, such a thing ought to show up in statistical studies of population groups, but I don't think that is the case (after controlling for other variables).<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: The interest of Corporations often come first, that is why the WHO accepted the GMO, even if it was clear that additional studies where needed. </b><br />GMO's generally are fine - we've been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years through selective breeding. While approval may have been slightly too fast, the vast majority of so called concerns about GMO's are sparked by an irrational fear of them rather than evidence (or so it seems to me).Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-62024884287929078112011-10-19T16:13:39.854-07:002011-10-19T16:13:39.854-07:00Anonymous: But it does seam to work and the succes...<b>Anonymous: But it does seam to work and the success rate far exceeds the 20% of the placebo effect. We just need to find the reason.</b><br />It's my understanding that in properly conducted, placebo controlled, double blind studies, the difference between placebo and homeopathy is not statistically significant.<br />Proponents of Homeopathy don't like these studies, and tend to nit pick them, but also fail to do them on their own. THe studies which show some action for homoepathy tend to be loosly controlled - the sort of study which may indicate further attention is needed, but not the sort of study you base claims of efficacy upon.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: 1) Some ares of the body do not require an exact point for stimulation.</b><br />The double blind study's which have come out recently, which compare no treatment (the practitioner just does the bedside manner part), actual acupuncture in the "proper" location (needles in specific locations), sham acupuncture in the "proper" location (gives the patient a sharp jab but does not enter the skin), actual acupuncture in a more or less random location, and sham acupuncture in a more or less random location. The "needles" were in a sheath, so the practitioner didn't know if they were using needles of sharpened tooth picks (I'm not sure, off the top of my head, whether or how they controlled the location variable).<br />The results of the study were that the controll group receiving nice bedside manner, recieved some benefit, while the other 4 groups received greater benefit. The difference between the 4 groups was not statistically significant.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: Blocking pain = Blocking the mind = Ignoring the pain. It would be mostly a semantic discussion in my opinion. </b><br />It seems that pain, being a subjective feeling in response to the firing of C-fibres (I think) would be a prime candidate for ignoring through concentration (pain is also, incidently, something which responds very well to placebo).Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-33294678610016595282011-10-19T08:10:56.728-07:002011-10-19T08:10:56.728-07:00H:My point was that the magical component has neve...H:My point was that the magical component has never survived critical enquiry and adequate explanation<br /><br />I do agree with you here. Magic potions against headaches ended up being Aspirin. I just believe that when science finds itself in an impasse it should at least start from something. Even if the assumption is ridiculous. <br /><br />H:We do have some reasonable knowledge of the boundaries of that fuzzy zone :-)<br /><br />I am no neurosurgeon, so I will trust you on that one 8)<br /><br />H:I'm still unsure what you mean by "metaphysical" here.<br /><br />By "metaphysical" I mean the "Chi" phenomena and so on. Since we do not have an explanation for those techniques, we do not really have a choice, but to study those alien esoteric systems. Some information from them at least should be useful. After all, the phenomena of radiation was also unknown in the past and was only speculation, so the existence of some invisible "Chi" is not that improbable. <br /> <br />H:I don't really see that. I see science making rather great strides in understanding the mind/brain at present. <br /><br />Science is constantly making progress, but we are still far away from understanding those techniques. We can either wait for some breakthrough in a similar field or try to work for now with what we got.<br /><br />H:This is true, but if the "chaining someone to the bed" gave them 6 months of life, and giving them palliative care also gave them 6 months of life, I know which one is the more reasonable option to choose - false hope is no hope at all.<br /><br />Accepting the fact of a terminal disease is not easy and there is always the slim possibility of a mistake. The mental condition is also very important for the state of the patient and a medical sentence to death can drastically affect the condition of the sick person. If one has nothing to loose, why not try something else?<br /><br />H:When something is found to be efficacious (such as massage, diet and exercise, etc) they become a part of established medicine (not "Eastern" or "Western" or "Alternative").<br /><br />That would be the ideal way, but, unfortunately, it boils to much more than that. First of all, medical care has become an incredibly huge business. The pharmaceutical industry alone is about billion of dollars. If a method to cure a person through meditation was discovered one can be sure of a strong opposition, despite the possible efficiency of such practice. The interest of Corporations often come first, that is why the WHO accepted the GMO, even if it was clear that additional studies where needed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-73432897757975111952011-10-19T08:09:29.697-07:002011-10-19T08:09:29.697-07:00H:That may be the claim. In most homeopathic remed...H:That may be the claim. In most homeopathic remedies there is no actual "active ingredient" left - it's just water. And the claims that water has a memory are unfounded.<br /><br />But it does seam to work and the success rate far exceeds the 20% of the placebo effect. We just need to find the reason.<br /><br />H:It has been demonstrated that where you place the needles makes no difference. It has also been shown that puncturing the skin is not necessary <br /><br />1) Some ares of the body do not require an exact point for stimulation.<br /><br />2) Puncturing the skin is not necessary, it is just easier to use needles than to remember all the places that were touched or to use excessive physical force to stimulate a difficult point. Chiropractic use the same basis as acupuncture and for a long time it was considered "sham" practice.<br /><br />3) The most convincing evidence for acupuncture in my opinion would be the ability to diagnose all the major disease of the patient, depending on the reaction from the stimulation.<br /><br />H:It wouldn't be blocking pain signals, as the nerves would still be firing. It would be a mental technique to ignore the subjective sensation of pain. <br /><br />Blocking pain = Blocking the mind = Ignoring the pain. It would be mostly a semantic discussion in my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-81207705240001756682011-10-19T07:23:05.598-07:002011-10-19T07:23:05.598-07:00Hm... for some reason my commentaries seem to disa...Hm... for some reason my commentaries seem to disappear...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-77050257071508223752011-10-19T07:21:38.809-07:002011-10-19T07:21:38.809-07:00H:This is true, but if the "chaining someone ...H:This is true, but if the "chaining someone to the bed" gave them 6 months of life, and giving them palliative care also gave them 6 months of life, I know which one is the more reasonable option to choose - false hope is no hope at all.<br /><br />Science does not have all the answers and accepting the fact of a terminal disease is not easy. The mental condition is also very important for the state of the patient and a medical sentence to death can drastically affect the condition of the sick person. If one has nothing to loose, why not try something else?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-22915633775131660542011-10-18T14:47:09.735-07:002011-10-18T14:47:09.735-07:00Anonymous: Some would try anything just to stay al...<b>Anonymous: Some would try anything just to stay alive even if it would mean being chained to bed for the rest of one s life.</b><br />This is true, but if the "chaining someone to the bed" gave them 6 months of life, and giving them palliative care also gave them 6 months of life, I know which one is the more reasonable option to choose - false hope is no hope at all.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: Eastern and Western medicine have different methodologies, but both are working in their own way.</b><br />While it may have arisen in the West (due to the influence of the sciences I would guess), there really is no "Western" and "Eastern" medicine. There is that which has been shown to work, that which has been shown not to work, and things whose efficacy has yet to be established.<br />A lot of things which fall into the "Eastern Medicine", like the ubiquitus "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" has been shown not to work (homeopathy, accupuncture, Reiki, Energy Healing, Gonzales protocol for cancer, iridology and many/most of the practices of naturopaths, etc). Some of it has been shown to be of marginal benefit (Chiropractic for lower back pain, for instance). And some of it has no demonstrated efficacy(many so called sures for cancer simply have no evidence in support of their claims). Many of them go against basic science (homeopathy).<br />Some things in medicine are in the same boat. Some has been shown not to work (antibiotics for viral infections, injecting "glue" into cracked vertabra), some has been shown to work (antibiotics for bacterial infections, chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer) and many are in the trial stage, or have limited evidence for efficacy (the previously mentioned cracked vertabra was only recently found to be of no benefit, but was being used in practice).<br />When something is found to be efficacious (such as massage, diet and exercise, etc) they become a part of established medicine (not "Eastern" or "Western" or "Alternative").<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: For some illnesses it is better to visit Europe, while for others - Asia. Each system has its pros and cons. Uniting them would be a goal for the future. </b><br />There is no need to unite them. Simply test interventions in solid, rationally designed double blind placebo controlled trials (after assessing the intervention for its likely scientific merit, and carry out earlier in vitro and animal studies of course) :-)Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-19214678479658560062011-10-18T14:46:19.587-07:002011-10-18T14:46:19.587-07:00Anonymous: As I understand, our body uses even the...<b>Anonymous: As I understand, our body uses even the microscopic elements in homeopathy as a model to reproduce the same elements itself.</b><br />That may be the claim. In most homeopathic remedies there is no actual "active ingredient" left - it's just water. And the claims that water has a memory are unfounded.<br />Even in homeopathic remedies which have some active ingredient, the claim of "like cures like" is unfounded, and the whole idea goes against the dose response curve of scientific reality.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: And acupuncture has shown consistent results, which does not appear in the case of the placebo effect.</b><br />It has been demonstrated that where you place the needles makes no difference. It has also been shown that puncturing the skin is not necessary (sham needles which contain something sharp to cause a sensation of the needle without penetrations. Hidden in a sheath so that neither the practitioner nor the patient knows which needles they're using). It shows a marginally higher level than "no intervention" mainly, I believe, because of the touchy feely quality of the practitioner - bedside manner is important :-)<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: The most primitive would be the ability to block pain signals which is already being used in medicine when anesthetics are undesirable. This is exactly what I mean as the interconnection of the mind and body.</b><br />It wouldn't be blocking pain signals, as the nerves would still be firing. It would be a mental technique to ignore the subjective sensation of pain.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: In the past the maritime tides were considered a magical mystery and are still considered magical by some Fox News anchors.</b><br />Fox is often hilarious!<br />Many things which have been considered magical or divine have been found to be mundane. My point was that the magical component has never survived critical enquiry and adequate explanation (which is why I'm fairly convinced that some form of materialism/physicalism is likely correct, and why I'm also convinced that methodological naturalism/intersubjective empiricism is the best (and possibly only) means of gaining reliable knowledge of reality).<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: When I say it is "magic" I am just saying we do not have an understanding of the process today (just like the tide was "magic" in the past).</b><br />Fair enough.<br />I think the heart beat could be explained by feedback in the brain. The available level of mental and physical capacity which can actually be placed under "conscious control" is a grey area, though we do have some reasonable knowledge of the boundaries of that fuzzy zone :-)<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: The main issue would be that we do not have a good understanding of it yet. I believe we should be open to any possibility, including the possibility of some metaphysical capacity of the brain.</b><br />While I agree in principle, we need to ensure that we're being epistemologically responsible with our methodology.<br />I'm still unsure what you mean by "metaphysical" here.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: For now modern science appear to be in an impasse.</b><br />I don't really see that. I see science making rather great strides in understanding the mind/brain at present. Though it is still early days and there is much we do not understand, I don't think that is surprising given that the brain is basically the most complex item we know of.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-74218498916119496152011-10-18T09:27:39.016-07:002011-10-18T09:27:39.016-07:00H:Double blind trials tend to weight against your ...H:Double blind trials tend to weight against your belief here.<br /><br />As I understand, our body uses even the microscopic elements in homeopathy as a model to reproduce the same elements itself.<br /><br />And acupuncture has shown consistent results, which does not appear in the case of the placebo effect.<br /><br />H:It depends on what you're claiming for meditation ;-)<br /><br />I am speaking about different techniques used in the East to alter the body. The most primitive would be the ability to block pain signals which is already being used in medicine when anesthetics are undesirable. This is exactly what I mean as the interconnection of the mind and body.<br /><br />H:It's never been that way in the past, why would that change in the future?<br /><br />In the past the maritime tides were considered a magical mystery and are still considered magical by some Fox News anchors )<br /><br />H:Not perfectly. Breathing can control your heart rate to a degree.<br /><br />That is the mystery since those monks do seem to control their heart to a degree superior to what modern science believe is possible. When I say it is "magic" I am just saying we do not have an understanding of the process today (just like the tide was "magic" in the past). This sort of knowledge is not well incorporated in modern science, but it is more or less explained in the religious/medical system of Buddhism.<br /><br />H:Which is entirely physical in nature, implying no "magic" happens here either (though we don't understand it in great detail yet).<br /><br />The main issue would be that we do not have a good understanding of it yet. I believe we should be open to any possibility, including the possibility of some metaphysical capacity of the brain.<br /><br />H:It likely comes down to considerations of epistemology. I'm not familiar enough with Buddhist epistemological claims to be able to say much regarding compatibility with scientific epistemology<br /><br />That makes two of us )<br />I fully acknowledge, that the Buddhist concepts might be incompatible with science, but we will never know for sure, unless some scientist does try merge them. <br /><br />H:I would be surprised if there weren't people looking into focus techniques of this sort, and while science doesn't have an answer as yet, I don't think buddhism has a valid explanation either, especially if it relies upon non-existent "Chi" energy as a part of it's claims<br /><br />Scientist do study these techniques, but there has been limited progress for now. The buddhist explanation might be completely off the mark and is incredibly opaque, but it can be a good start to study the phenomena. For now modern science appear to be in an impasse.<br /><br />H:Such "slim hope of a cure" would be, in my opinion, far worse than a realistic assessment of reality as we understand it ;-)<br /><br />Depends largely from the person. Some would try anything just to stay alive even if it would mean being chained to bed for the rest of one s life.<br /><br />H:Which brings us back to questions of methodology.<br /><br />Eastern and Western medicine have different methodologies, but both are working in their own way. For some illnesses it is better to visit Europe, while for others - Asia. Each system has its pros and cons. Uniting them would be a goal for the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-3242175326960398182011-10-17T20:15:13.950-07:002011-10-17T20:15:13.950-07:00Anonymous: At least some slim hope of a cure is be...<b>Anonymous: At least some slim hope of a cure is better than no hope at all.</b><br />It depends though. The "Gonzales Protocol" which is purported to be a cure for cancer, leads to suffering on the part of the person since it is a fairly tough protocol. It has been demonstrated to not offer any benefit over standard care (and I believe, in the case of a recent-ish trial, showed negative benefit).<br />Such "slim hope of a cure" would be, in my opinion, far worse than a realistic assessment of reality as we understand it ;-)<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: It does not mean that Eastern medicine is content with its level of advancement. It does search for more efficient ways of treatment. </b><br />Which brings us back to questions of methodology. If the search is conducted via methods which are unable or unlikely to lead to knowledge concerning reality as far as disease goes, then the search would seem to be pointless.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-63181498996303969532011-10-17T20:14:24.849-07:002011-10-17T20:14:24.849-07:00Anonymous: I do not consider homeopathy and acupun...<b>Anonymous: I do not consider homeopathy and acupuncture to be part of the placebo effect. At least those methods affect far more patients than the classical "pill".</b><br />Double blind trials tend to weight against your belief here. In the case of homeopathy, there is so much basic science which runs against it's claims, that considering it as being possibly effective seems irrational to me.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: Though, I am also skeptical about Reiki and other healing practices like that.</b><br />Reiki and other "energy" therapies tend to abuse the term energy in order to sound plausible.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: But I do consider meditation another matter.</b><br />It depends on what you're claiming for meditation ;-)<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: And as far as I remember Eastern techniques, their main premises would be the interconnection between the physical and metaphysical.</b><br />I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you explain in a little more detail?<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: Well, the "magic" and "mysticism" of today is the science of tomorrow )</b><br />It's never been that way in the past, why would that change in the future?<br />It seems to me that the "magic" and "mysticism" of the present becomes the delusion and false belief of the past :-)<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: Altering one s body temperature would mean to control perfectly one s heart rhythm.</b><br />Not perfectly. Breathing can control your heart rate to a degree.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: It exceeds the calm/excited degree and a few years ago it was considered impossible.</b><br />Which doesn't mean that magic happens. It would just mean that on current evidence, it doesn't appear possible. This would only be a serious problem if someone were claiming a complete theory.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: The initial mechanism still starts with the brain, though.</b><br />Which is entirely physical in nature, implying no "magic" happens here either (though we don't understand it in great detail yet).<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: The problem would be that Science and Buddhism have different priorities and have built different systems which may be incompatible even. </b><br />It likely comes down to considerations of epistemology. I'm not familiar enough with Buddhist epistemological claims to be able to say much regarding compatibility with scientific epistemology. Suffice to say that things like subjective experience and "revelation", which are hallmarks of most religious systems, are not reliable sources of knowledge and therefore any epistemology which relies upon these sources of information appear to be flawed by definition.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: However, mental focus techniques do work in most cases. Science does not really offer an explanation for them yet, but Buddhism does (granted, in a very vague way). At least it can be used as a starting point to science.</b><br />I would be surprised if there weren't people looking into focus techniques of this sort, and while science doesn't have an answer as yet, I don't think buddhism has a valid explanation either, especially if it relies upon non-existent "Chi" energy as a part of it's claims.<br /><br /><b>Anonymous: Again, it is about different priorities. Is it about expanding knowledge and systemize it or about reaching a personal mental balance and health? </b><br />While an invalid methodology might gain you mental balance and health (for example, Rick's subjective and irrational methodology for knowledge seems to keep him somewhat balanced), it does not therefore follow that information gained through using such methodology equates to knowledge concerning reality (or even about oneself).Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-18847835277557491512011-10-17T19:34:32.791-07:002011-10-17T19:34:32.791-07:00H:I think the current evidence shows far greater e...H:I think the current evidence shows far greater effect from "sham" practice as compared with expectations alone.<br /><br />I do not consider homeopathy and acupuncture to be part of the placebo effect. At least those methods affect far more patients than the classical "pill". Though, I am also skeptical about Reiki and other healing practices like that. But I do consider meditation another matter.<br /><br />H:Unexplained doesn't equate with incomprehensibility.<br />The body can also alter the brain in remarkable ways - it's a big interconnected whole.<br /><br />That is true. But I have some doubts, that the mechanism can be explained without some new discoveries or incorporation of some other traditions. <br /><br />And as far as I remember Eastern techniques, their main premises would be the interconnection between the physical and metaphysical. Or else it would be impossible to study as you pointed out with the soul discussion. <br /><br />H:There doesn't seem to be any indication that anything "magical" is going on.<br /><br />Well, the "magic" and "mysticism" of today is the science of tomorrow )<br /><br />Altering one s body temperature would mean to control perfectly one s heart rhythm. It exceeds the calm/excited degree and a few years ago it was considered impossible. The initial mechanism still starts with the brain, though.<br /><br />H:This sort of mystical energy has no scientific basis and seems to be nothing more (and nothing less) than a mental focus technique.<br /><br />The problem would be that Science and Buddhism have different priorities and have built different systems which may be incompatible even. <br /><br />However, mental focus techniques do work in most cases. Science does not really offer an explanation for them yet, but Buddhism does (granted, in a very vague way). At least it can be used as a starting point to science.<br /><br />H:Actually, I'd say that methodology is what matters most. <br /><br />Again, it is about different priorities. Is it about expanding knowledge and systemize it or about reaching a personal mental balance and health? <br /><br />But to be honest, esoteric practice can be very harmful. During the perestroika era, "healing" through TV was very popular. Many seriously diseased people started to fall into denial about their curable illness. You can guess the consequences.<br /><br />H:As our host amply demonstrates, being delusional is not particularly healthy :-)<br /><br />Some are just unable to live on without such illusions. Not everyone values honesty.<br /><br />H:The mind/brain is able to fool itself into thinking it's perception of the body is reflective of reality when it is not.<br /><br />That would be the main problem. The brain/mind and body has its limits. <br /><br />H:I don't see that as making it superior. There are diseases which are (on present technology) incurable.<br /><br />At least some slim hope of a cure is better than no hope at all. The body is incredible and the placebo effect does prove that an incurable disease today can be cured by the body itself somehow. It does not mean that Eastern medicine is content with its level of advancement. It does search for more efficient ways of treatment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com