Jump to content

VincentRJ

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    2298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VincentRJ

  1. The placebo effect alone will not fix a broken bone or a heart attack, but there is evidence it will help the recovery process, and reduce the pain and anxiety. The placebo effect in heart failure "Many patients who are enrolled in controlled clinical trials of new drugs for the treatment of heart failure show favorable hemodynamic and clinical responses to placebo therapy. This "placebo effect" results from both the creation of a supportive therapeutic environment and the spontaneous improvement that is commonly seen when measurements of symptoms and cardiac function are repeated frequently over long intervals of time. Three months of treatment with a placebo produces a reduction in symptoms in 25% to 35% of patients, an increase in cardiac output and a decrease in pulmonary wedge pressure, and an increase in exercise tolerance of up to 90 to 120 seconds. Physicians commonly seek to maximize the "placebo effect," since the goal of treatment in the clinical setting is to improve the quality of the patient's life. On the other hand, clinical investigators seek to minimize the "placebo effect, since the goal of a research study is to test the hypothesis that the new drug is superior to a placebo." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2248215/
  2. In such circumstances, any cure, or reduction of symptons, is due to the belief of the individual. Such belief is a pre-condition for any cure. It's known as the placebo effect. The following quote from the Bible, is an example of this placebo effect. "Luke 8:43-48: “Now there was a woman who had been suffering from hemorrhages for twelve years; and though she had spent all she had on physicians, no one could cure her. She came up behind Jesus and touched the fringe of his clothes, and immediately her hemorrhage stopped. Then Jesus asked, ‘Who touched me?’ When all denied it, Peter said, ‘Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you.’ But Jesus said, ‘Someone touched me; for I noticed that power had gone out from me.’ When the woman saw that she could not remain hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before him, she declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.’” Science is still trying to understand the processes of the placebo effect, but there's no denying that the effect exists. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/306437#clinical-usage-of-placebos Robert Buckman, clinical oncologist and professor of medicine, concludes that: “Placebos are extraordinary drugs. They seem to have some effect on almost every symptom known to mankind, and work in at least a third of patients and sometimes in up to 60 percent. They have no serious side-effects and cannot be given in overdose. In short, they hold the prize for the most adaptable, protean, effective, safe and cheap drugs in the world’s pharmacopeia.”
  3. I don't believe it has stopped, but it does seem to have been significantly reduced. "Now around 70% of Queensland’s crop is harvested without burning. But wherever you are through our vast sugarcane regions, there is still the possibility that the dusk or dawn sky will be lit up with a cane burn – a big, bright whoosh and then it’s done." https://www.canegrowers.com.au/page/media/latest-news/why-pre-harvest-cane-fires-still-light-up-the-sky#:~:text=Now around 70% of Queensland's,whoosh and then it's done "Any cane grower can still apply to burn cane under the authority of a Permit to Light Fire." https://www.qfes.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-04/QFES-InfoSheet-CaneBurningNotification.pdf
  4. Thanks for the explanation. I'm learning something new today. I did an internet search to find out more information, and was surprised to find that pre-harvest burning of sugar cane is also done in parts of Australia and the USA, because of the economic benefits. However, I'm still a bit puzzled why the stems (or the stalks) of the sugar cane plant are resistant to burning. "Farmers burn sugarcane crops before harvest to remove the leaves and tops of the sugarcane plant leaving only the sugar-bearing stalk to be harvested." For those interested, the following article explains some of the benefits of pre-harvest burning. https://www.bdbcanegrowers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Reasons-for-Burning.pdf "With large lodged crops it can be difficult to harvest due to the tangle of cane in the paddock. This lodged crop can increase the cost of harvesting to the growers if cut green, as the harvester may only be able to cut one way and or at a reduced rate. This increases the amount of diesel used to harvest the crop. By burning the crop the harvester is able to reduce fuel use, decreasing the cost to growers. The burning also enables the harvester operator to see the rows in the lodged cane and enables them to follow the rows. This reduces the damage to the cane improving its ability to ratoon for the following year." (Ratoon is the part of cane left underground after harvesting, and a loged crop is a crop where the stems have been displaced from their vertical position as a result of buckling). "Another benefit of the burning in this situation is the improved quality of the billets sent to the mill (less dirt, extraneous matter) that increase the return to the grower and miller (there is less wear and tear on the mill machinery from improved billet quality). Burning also has the ability to improve the quality of the sugar that is made at the mill."
  5. Did you miss the following point I made in the post you are responding to? "As I mentioned in a previous post, the mind/body often over-reacts to experiences which are interpreted as some sort of threat to our well-being, such as various types of stress, loss, discomfort, anxiety, pain, feelings of extreme cold or heat, and so on. I believe that control of the mind through meditation and mindful practices does help to reduce such over-reactions." The results of this experiment are interesting, as I mentioned, but not surprising. Science is a continuous process of experimentation and enquiry, in order to improve our understanding. To continue this experiemnt and increase our understanding of the potential power of meditation, I would suggest comparing the reactions of experienced Thai monks, who are used to warm weather, with the reaction of non-meditating Eskimos who are used to cold weather, both sleeping with the same type of clothing in the same cold weather. If it was discovered that the Thai monks were able to sleep as peacfully as the Eskimos, or even more peacefully, in those same conditions, that would be remarkable, and surprising for me.
  6. That's an interesting article, Sunmaster, but the subject does need more research. As I understand, the human body adapts to cold temperatures, given a sufficient amount of time. The monks in the study you linked, appear to be used to cold weather, but not the scientists doing the study. From the article: "Working in isolated monasteries in the foothills of the Himalayas proved extremely difficult." As I mentioned in a previous post, the mind/body often over-reacts to experiences which are interpreted as some sort of threat to our well-being, such as various types of stress, loss, discomfort, anxiety, pain, feelings of extreme cold or heat, and so on. I believe that control of the mind through meditation and mindful practices does help to reduce such over-reactions. I would expect anyone who has been living in a cold climate in the Himalayas for a significant period would be able to withstand the cold weather much better than someone who is used to a warm climate. If they are well-practised meditators who have also acclimatised to the cold weather, as in this study, they should be able to increase that acclimatisation when meditating. I'll address a couple of quotes from the Harvard Gazette artticle. (1) "In a monastery in northern India, thinly clad Tibetan monks sat quietly in a room where the temperature was a chilly 40 degrees Fahrenheit." 40 degrees F is above the freezing point, and 'thinly clad' is a rather imprecise term for a scientific study. I imagine a 'thinly clad' Eskimo, who is used to much colder temperatures, would feel very comfortable at 40 degrees F, without engaging in any meditation. (2) "They also documented monks spending a winter night on a rocky ledge 15,000 feet high in the Himalayas. The sleep-out took place in February on the night of the winter full moon when temperatures reached zero degrees F. Wearing only woolen or cotton shawls, the monks promptly fell asleep on the rocky ledge, They did not huddle together and the video shows no evidence of shivering." Now zero degrees F is certainly cold. That's around minus 17 degrees C. But note, 'temperatures reached zero degrees F'. That suggests the minimum temperature was zero degrees F. But for how long? 10 minutes? Perhaps most of the night was much warmer. Also, 'wearing only woolen or cotton shawls'? One shawl, or perhaps two or three per monk? A woolen shawl can be used like a blanket. The scientists engaged in this study, should have compared the Tibetan monks' reaction to the cold weather, with some Thai monks' reaction to the same weather. They would then be able measure the difference between normal adaption to extreme cold, and the controlled effect resulting from meditation.
  7. I bet they are not naked when meditating in the snow. They surely must rely upon external, material clothing to prevent frostbite. Are you suggesting that deep meditation can prevent frostbite? Frostbite can cause permanent damage to the limbs. I don't believe even the most experienced guru or meditator can prevent frostbite occurring in an extremely cold environment without the material protection of clothing. The suffering that Buddhism addresses is the unnecessary suffering resulting from the mental exaggeration of the basic processes of pain. The basic feeling of pain is an essential biological process for our survival. It's a message which informs the mind that something is wrong with the body. If one is able to completely ignore such messages of pain, and one does so in certain circumstances, then one could die. "It might sound extreme, but I think that if you are not the master of your mind, then you are its slave. If you believe you are the mind/body, then you are its slave. There is only one way to find out whether this is true or not. Practice looking within regularly. " I completely agree that we should strive to be in control our mind, thoughts, and desires, as much as possible. Most people seem unable to have sufficient control of their thoughts and desires, which is the cause of many (if not all) of the problems in the world. An obvious example is the prevalence of obesity. It should be obvious to anyone with basic intelligence, that overweight and obesity is not healthy and is caused by eating too much. The solution is very simple. Eat less and exercise more. When I see a politician, or religious leader, who is significantly overweight, I tend to think 'this is crazy'. Here's a man (or woman) who is seeking a position of control over other people, yet they don't even have a basic control over their own eating habits.
  8. Even if you are meditating in a cave, focussing on your breath, you are still totally dependent upon an accommodating environment. If there's no atmosphere, there's no breath to concentrate on, and you die. If one meditates in a quiet and safe forest where the atmosphere is not polluted and the temperature is not too cold or too hot, and your seating position is comfortable, you are more likely to experience calmness and happiness. However, you cannot completely separate such experiences from the environment, although, with a strongly developed 'observing' mind you can reduce the negative effects of a disturbing environment. This concept of 'observing the mind' is problematic, because it's also the mind that does the oberving. What makes sense is that one part of the mind can observes other parts of the mind, such as arising thoughts. In other words, there are two main aspects of the mind, a 'thinking mind' full of chatter, and an 'observing mind'. I would suggest that separating the 'oberving mind' from the 'thinking mind' is the process of meditation. "You haven't answered the first question though. What is your source of happiness?" There are many sources. Here are some of them. I'm retired with an adequate pension, so I no longer have to do uninteresting work to sustain myself, or follow the orders of others. I feel free and independent. I take care of my own health by eating nutritious food and exercising regularly. I have a 5 acre property outside the city area where I can enjoy the quietude of the countryside and can often get close-up to the wild wallabies that freely jump around as I do my gardening. I'm surrounded by beautiful mountains, forests and landscapes which I enjoy hiking through, and taking photos, and I've trained my mind not to worry about anything. Reading about Buddhism has helped.
  9. I agree that the brain needs an input from the mind to trigger the release of endorphins and so on, which result in happiness, but the mind, through perception from the five senses, also needs an input. I think it's more precise to say, 'the conditions which allow happiness to occur are in the mind and the brain, in the form of past events and experiences which are stored in the brain'. For example, it's known that the developed fetus in a woman's womb, prior to birth, can hear music and experience the mother's pleasure or displeasure, and associate that pleasure or displeasure with the type of music the mother is listening to. If the mother experiences great pleasure when listening to Mozart, whilst pregnant, and that same music is later played to the child after birth, the child will show great joy. However, if the music of Mozart is never played, the joy related to Mozart will not arise. The mind and the brain are essential for all knowledge and all experience, but so is the external environment. However, the mind and brain cannot exist without an accommodating environment. But the environment can exist without a human mind and brain, so what is the true source of all experiences?
  10. If the good times never last, shouldn't the 'bad times' also never last?
  11. I sense a certain imprecision in the language used in your above quote. I would rephrase it as follows. "Happiness results from activities in several areas of the brain, including the right frontal cortex, the precuneus, the left amygdala, and the left insula. This activity involves connections between awareness (frontal cortex and insula) and the “feeling center” (amygdala) of the brain." The external sources that often stimulate those feelings of happiness in the brain, vary enormously, and are related to each individual's background, lifestyle, and genetic characteristics. The Marcus Aurelius quote from Red Pheonix is very relevant in this context.
  12. Wow! Everyone is searching for happiness. Who would have known? How profound! The guy also looks overweight. Probably due to the happiness he feels when eating delicious food.
  13. It doesn't seem sensible to build a home on land which is susceptible to flooding during the monsoon periods. Following is a quote from the 'Businessinsider' article, which describes the cause of the delay in building the house. "Our whole land was flooded, which meant the builders had no access to the site. When the water subsided, it took a lot of the access road with it," Ben said. "It was another two months before the government rebuilt the road so the builders could get back to the house."
  14. As I've mentioned before, a fundamental characteristic of all life involves a competition for resources, in order to survive and replicate. There are no exceptions that I'm aware of. Whist we are very much aware of the many examples of our own competition, as in football and cricket matches, commercial activities, political elections, theft and corruption, and the slaughter of our fellow citizens during wars and armed conflicts, the competition that other life-forms engage in is usually under the radar of most people. Here's an example of the competition that ants engage in. "Ants are also aggressive toward each other, fighting to the death over their tree territories. The consequences for losing colonies are stark: loss of territory or colony death. After a fight, victorious colonies have to defend their newly gained territory with a workforce heavily depleted by fighting. In a new study, researchers found that victorious colonies might offset this challenge by recruiting members of the losing colonies to help." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160318181610.htm Perhaps the main threat of human extinction is a full-scale, world-wide atomic war, but I doubt that would cause extinction. There would be at least a few remote areas where the populations would survive. Also, the potential devastation of an atomic war is so obvious, that I doubt that any government could be so stupid as to start one.
  15. That's an interesting question. I personally do not believe in God, but I also do not believe that the universe was created from nothing. The hypothesis that the current universe began with a 'Big Bang' is no more than an extrapolation of our current scientific theories, which are always open to questioning, and many theories have eventually proven to be at least partially wrong, throughout the history of scientific enquiry. For example, a theory might be well-established within the limited scope of human activity, at a particular time, and might seem to work perfectly well in practice. However, there is usually a margin of error in our calculations. If that margin of error is too small to quantify, and/or too complex to quantify, then we cannot know if the error exists. An error which is too tiny to measure on a human scale, and is therefore considered to be non-existent, might be very significant on a cosmic scale where huge distances, huge quantities of energy and mass, and huge time-scales are involved. I should also add that the hypothesis of the Big Bang does not state that the universe was created from nothing. A 'singularity' is not nothing. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity "Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state."
  16. What you've just expressed is one of the many examples of the imprecision in the normal use of language. Another example is describing a leaf as green or yellow. We have to simplify our use of language in order to be brief. It would be more perecise to say, 'I'm experiencing a sensation of greenness when I observe that leaf,' but that is not as brief as 'the leaf is green'. However, such imprecision does cause confusion when one expands upon the topic. I wonder how many people actually believe that the leaf itself has the property of being green, and don't understand that the leaf appears green because it has the property of reflecting a particular wave length of light that the normal human brain interprets as green. The leaf itself is devoid of color. All your thoughts are part of you, just as your arm, and your leg, and your heart, and your brain with billions of neurons, are all a part of you. We don't say 'I am the thought', because we understand that we are more than just the thought, just as we don't say 'I am the hand, or 'I am a big toe'. So to answer the question, 'What is the "I"?, I would suggest that the "I" is a conbination of all the parts that are required for the human body to exist and function. However, not all parts are of equal significance. Probably the most significant part of the human body related to the concept of "I", is the Cerebral Cortex in the brain, which is possibly the 'seat of consciousness', although it is also reliant upon other factors for consciousness to flourish. Hope I have enlightened you.
  17. Okay. I'll try to answer it for you, to dispel your confusion. Mind, memory and thoughts are not objects like a house or any other inanimate object, but they are related to, and dependent upon the body. 'No body' equates to 'no mind', and 'no mind' equates to 'no thoughts'. What science reveals is the enormous complexity within all the objects and life-forms that we observe. Such complexity can only be addressed by specific scientific disciplines directed at specific aspects of an object or subject. The normal description of all objects and subjects that the average person is aware of, involves simple and basic labels to identify the object or subject. Most people understand what a car is, or a house is, or a tree is, and even what consciousness is, at a basic level. If they don't, because they are a bit illiterate, all they have to do is search a dictionary for the meaning of the word. Consciousness is awareness, which everyone experiences when they wake up after a sleep. However, if one wishes to go into the details, within and related to, each 'labelled' object, one could spend a lifetime discovering more and more information. Consider the simple example of 'what is a car?' Most people understand what a car looks like, and what its purpose is. They can identify the model, if it's printed on the car, and its identity in terms of the number plate. However, if they wanted to know the full details related to the car, they would have to ask thousands of questions, such as 'how was the car manufactured', 'what are the materials used', 'where were the materials sourced', 'who designed the car and who designed the individual components, and how do those individual components work and contribute the the functionality of the car, and so on, and so on.
  18. What an amazing amount of confusion over a simple concept of 'what and where' is the "I". Do we have such confusion about 'what is a car', or 'what is a house', or 'what is a tree'? The quality of consciousness in humans, and our capacity for abstract thought, gives us the ability to name both objects and subjects, and make distinctions between them, which is a necessity for all scientific enquiry and all human activity. Can you imagine anyone being able to function and survive if they were not able to distinguish between a house and a car, or a rock and a tree, or their arm and their leg, or themselves and someone else, and so on? The reason why this issue of 'who am I?' becomes a problem, is due to greed, and attachment to things which or not "I". Because people usually 'feel' attached to their beautiful house, for example, they consider it a part of themselves. They are the owner. When the house is destroyed during a flood or cyclone, the owner will probably suffer emotionally, even though they themselves have not been injured in any way. If they are not the owner, and are just renting the house, they will probably not suffer nearly as much, unless their material possessions (which are not them) were left in the house when it was destroyed. What's the point of suffering because a material object has been damaged or destroyed? Oh! I see! You think material objects have consciousness, just like you do.
  19. You seem very confused, Tippaporn. Why do you assume that my intention was to find 'dirt'? I'll repeat what I wrote in the post you are responding to. "I'm no expert on 'Seth', and I have to admit that until I searched the internet for information about him, I assumed he was a real person rather than a 'fictional' character created by the female writer, Jane Roberts, whilst she was in many states of some type of trance, communicating with the paranormal. Her life and writings should be a fascinating subject for parapsychologists. Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs and her background, which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings." I have an enquiring mind, and don't accept anything simply because a particular authority claims it is true. However, I have a high degree of faith in the 'true' methodology of science, and whenever I see that the requirements of that methodology have not been fully applied, as in the case of Anthropogenic Climate Change, I believe it is sensible to be skeptical. Likewise, if a poet and fiction writer, whilst in a state of trance, claims that 'consciousness creates all the matter in the universe', then I would search for validated evidence that confirms this hypothesis, before accepting it as true. However, I also accept that there are many, many issues that are far too complex for the successful application of the 'Methodology of Science', which is why many 'so-called theories', are really in the category of 'Hypothesis'. The concept that 'consciousness creates all matter' is a hypothesis, similar to the concept that the universe was created by God. I should also address a part of my quote that you might have misinterpreted. "Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs and her background, which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings." The sentence does not state that 'her beliefs' seem quite awful, but just her background. If I included both beliefs and background to seem awful, I would not have used the word 'seems'. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd changed the position of the commas, as in: "Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs, and her background which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings." Everyone throughout their life is influenced by their background and early experiences, but not in the same way because no two situations are identical. Some people become criminals because of traumatic experiences during their childhood. Jane Roberts became a famous writer, which is obviously a remakable achievement.
  20. Well, one of my points is that Seth is a fictional character created by a female author who suffered a very traumatic childhood, and who had many health problems throughout her life, dying at an early age of 55.
  21. I'm no expert on 'Seth', and I have to admit that until I searched the internet for information about him, I assumed he was a real person rather than a 'fictional' character created by the female writer, Jane Roberts, whilst she was in many states of some type of trance, communicating with the paranormal. Her life and writings should be a fascinating subject for parapsychologists. Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs and her background, which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings. https://sethresearchproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cunningham_Contribution-to-the-Study-of-the-Possession-Trance-Mediumship-of-Jane-Roberts_Journal-of-Parapsychology-2019-832-248-267.pdf "Dorothy Jane Roberts was born in Saratoga Springs, New York, on May 8, 1929, the only child of Delmer and Marie (Burdo) Roberts. In 1931, when Jane was two years old, her father and mother divorced. For the next five years, Jane lived on welfare with her mother in half of a rented house shared with her mother’s parents in a relatively poor neighborhood of Sarasota Springs. It was during this time that Jane’s mother began to develop a long-standing rheumatoid arthritis condition that eventually made her bedridden—the same disease of which Jane would die in 1984 at the age of 55. Being raised a Catholic, priests in the parish regularly visited the house to offer help to the family. The sexual overtones of these visits is disclosed in Jane’s recollection about “how the one priest who put her to bed when she was but 3 or 4 years old would ‘play’ with her sexually, and how Marie finally figured that out” (Roberts, 1997, p. 222). My mother was a strong, domineering woman, probably scared to death of the position she found herself in. She was psychotic, attempting suicide several times and scaring the devil out of me as a kid with threats . . . One day [she] would say that she loved me, and the next day she’d scream that she was sorry I’d ever been born—that I’d ruined her life . To escape this unhappy childhood, Jane wrote poetry. By the testimony of those who knew her during these early years, Jane always wanted to become a writer and devote her life to writing poetry, novels, and short stories." This next article addresses her psychic, mediumship processes. It's very convoluted. https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/9856/ShawA0516.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y "Writing from the 1960s through the early 1980s, Jane Roberts claimed to channel the teachings of a discarnate energy personality named Seth. My purpose in this project will be to show that the Seth material, even as a product of the New Age movement, can be read according to the same principles that scholars have developed for approaching the channeled texts of previous eras. Because the Seth material comprises dozens of works over thousands of pages, I have focused my investigation on a single text: The God of Jane: A Psychic Manifesto. Written by Roberts, the book is a memoir which describes her experiences as a medium. Through various close readings of the manifesto, and by situating the work in a historical and cultural context, I demonstrate that The God of Jane functions as an interpretive guide for reading New Age channeled texts. In addition, I find that Roberts is not only a literary medium, she is also a literary theorist, who translates the tradition of mediumship into the latter half of the twentieth century."
  22. I don't see how that question debunks the theory of evolution in any way. 'Consciousness' is a very broad term. The simplest definition is 'awareness', that is, 'the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings'. According to this definition, it seems reasonable to assume that all forms of life, including plants, must be conscious to some degree and in some way. However, because there are numerous types, levels and degrees of consciousness, one has to clearly define what type and level of consciousness one is referring to when examining consciousness from a scientific perspective. A unique quality of human consciousness is our higher capacity for abstract thought, which allows us to develop complex languages and make distinctions between numerous 'forms', and label them, using language. Form is created by 'human consciousness', because 'form' is a word created by humans. Every idea, concept, thought, word, scientific theory, non-scientific theory such as a creator God and all the other Gods throughout human history, are creations from human consciousness. However, the issue that's most relevant to any life-form, including microbes and bacteria, is the accuracy of its 'conscious creations' and its ability to adapt to a changing environment, and avoid accidents and mistakes, for the purpose of survival and reproduction. All life is in a constant competition for survival and reproduction. There are no exceptions that I'm aware of. If you know of any, please enlighten me. A Buddhist monk might be stting peacefully in a temple or cave, pleased that he avoids all activities that can kill life, such as digging the soil whicn can kill worms and insects. Yet he is probably not aware that within his own body there's a constant battle between competing microbes and bacteria and the human immune system. The number of 'killings' each day within just one human body is astronomical; far too numerous to count.
×
×
  • Create New...