BS: Matter and Spirit

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 12:47 PM

there's nothing wrong in principle with doing many tests at different times. It has the advantage of less effort and the disadvantage of less power (for the error variance term is bound to be inflated this way), but that problem could be overcome by increasing the sample size. Maybe I was wrong (it couldn't be told from your description) but I had the impression that you did not know what the correct sampling for the statistical analysis was.

I don't know what the correct sampling is for the statistical analysis. Would you care to help me out with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 01:25 PM

Carol,

sorry, I thought I was merely repeating a previous point. You should not take the weight/length (or whatever you measure) of the individual plant as the datum to start with but the average value of the plants in each condition. That means one experimental run only gives you these two data to start with.

Amos,

you're right with your point (3). But please tell me what the opposite to 'right field' would be. Wrong field? Little Hawk might not agree.

Clint,

If something would work consistently (or well above chance) not knowing why it works wouldn't be a good reason not to use it. Though to know why something works is always better, for it gives us more control about the situation.
The problem scientists have with many alternative healing methods is not that they do work but we don't know why (that would be great adn a good start for research), but that they do not seem to work better than any placebo cure (and sometimes even worse).

Your example shows beautifully why alternative cures are believed to be valid: and was finally cured of it --instantly-- by a chicken-sacrifice ceremony (my emphasis). That is the post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking leading to a feeling of validity. The correct word would be after (in the eyes of a scientist) because we can never be sure (from one case alone) that the cure was in any way responsible for the healing. The doctor you cite tries his best to give an explanation in terms of placebo effect (and he does it well).

I think that evidence based medicine is working with the placebo effect as well, up to 90% of all times. That's why I seldom go to a doctor when I think a tea and a bit of bedrest will do enough for me (and cost less), but in the 10% or more cases I go to a doctor doing evidence based medicine.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 01:29 PM

sorry, I thought I was merely repeating a previous point. You should not take the weight/length (or whatever you measure) of the individual plant as the datum to start with but the average value of the plants in each condition. That means one experimental run only gives you these two data to start with.

Ok. This I knew. I guess I didn't understand the point you were making that I responded to in my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 01:47 PM

Grab, re: your first point about it being easy to test me for "crystals". It's not quite as easy as you think, but if someone wanted to set it up, I guess it would be possible. Where it becomes complicated is that in order for the Genesa crystal to have a demonstrable physical effect on me (such as making me dizzy, making me vomit, and/or making me feel like I'm going to pass out, the Genesa crystal needs to be at least 24 inches or larger. (And the effect is not always instantaneous.) So there would be some expense involved. The other problem is that the Genesa crystal would have an effective radius of a mile or more, so the experiment would have to be an either/or set-up... either there is a Genesa crystal behind the blind, or there isn't, rather than which blind is the Genesa crystal behind.

Do that yourself for a confidence test, and then move on to James Randi, or the New York Times, or anyone who'll listen. The Center for Complementary Medicine might be worth contacting. If you can do this 100% every time, you're news!

Here's the part that I think you are having difficulty understanding. I don't want to be news. At least not for that reason. I don't want to be famous or notorious for reasons having to do with the way I experience my spirituality. If I become famous for anything, I would rather it be for my writing or my art. It's not important to me to have my way of experiencing spirit "proved" to anyone. I'm only trying to accomodate the people in this thread because they have asked me to. If I am going to do anything like that, I would only want to do it if I could do it quietly and without a lot of attendant publicity. Spirit is an area of my reality that I believe should be treated with respect and not turned into a spectacle.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 05:23 PM

" It's true that a higher power works through us and that we are an extension of that higher power,..."...............

" But they do not really die. They just leave the body behind."

I never cease to marvel, Little Hawk, at the certainty with which you throw those statements out in post after post. I argue and discuss, trying to hedge my bets and leave room for possibilites, but you simply state that "this is how it works".

How did you BECOME so sure? Is this revelation? Did you figure it out?   What are the premises on which you base so many matter-of-fact statements about the universe and our place in it? I can see how a vivid experience with an 'alien ship' might give you confidence in THAT area, but the entire universe and its relation to conciousness??

Some would consider your statements metaphorical poetry, but you seem to be quite serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 05:29 PM

Yeah. I am serious, Bill. I really have no way of explaining it that would satisfy you, and I used to be just like you at one time. You would have to BE me as I am now to know why it is that I say these things with such assurance.

My statements are metaphorical poetry, but they are also absolutely serious when it comes to this general subject. Every perceivable phenomenon in the Universe is a metaphor. The whole process of Life as we know it is a metaphor.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 06:13 PM

Bill:

I think LH is describing as best he can what he sees extremely clearly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 06:30 PM

...*nod*...and if a few words were changed, I could accept the description as a personal world-view. It is one thing to explain "this how I see, feel & express it"....it is quite another to be included and told definitively "this is how it is for you, too, if you'd wake up and pay attention"...*wry grin*...

Like I said before, 'taint fair that if I'm right, I don't get to say "I told you so"....mebbe that's why I work so hard at saying it now...

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 07:14 PM

Well, there are a lot of roles to play in this drama of Life, Bill. I think you and Wolfgang and I are all playing our roles to perfection at this point. So is Amos. It's really a lot of fun when you look at it that way. Consider Martin Gibson. Now there is a role with some meat in it! Not everybody would want that role, but Martin does it with real panache, don't you think? And I've noticed that lately he is doing a somewhat different take on it. That's always an option. When you get fed up with an old role you take on a new one.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 08:48 PM

Martin Gibson does a FINE job of being Martin Gibson... I have seldom encountered such a combination of Martin Gibson-like traits in one individual. He is about as Martingibsonesque as I can imagine. I think he should have a place in the Martin Gibson hall of fame...in fact, I think he should STAY in the Martin Gibson hall of fame.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 08:59 PM

I'd like to add, Bill, that there is perhaps a difference between the kind of attained clarity of viewpoint that LH seems to speak from, and the usual collection and comparison of data as mental representations of states of being or not being in the universe. I would offer that perhaps the reason LH says it IS that way is because he isn't drawing on data but on a kind of first hand elevated spiritual experience (and by elevated I mean more intense than the usual spirit+body run of experience). It is not uncommon for people who get close to or reach clinical death to report themselves coming back to the body with a completely renewed sense of vigor and appreciation of the pleasantness of living life on this plane, when it is done with appreciation; a new lease on life in every sense.

This is not just new "data", it is a shift in viewpoint. Ther emight be a big difference.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 10:14 PM

I suppose that might be the case Amos..but we (you, I, and others) regularly 'doubt' various reports of " first hand elevated spiritual experience" from others, whether they be religious visions, seances, OoB, etc...

If 'attained clarity' is valid for one, why not for all?...even the nuttier ones we both would roll our eyes about?..

LH can, and does, speak for himself (and eloquently) and of course, will not likely be swayed by my kibitzing over form of expression. I just know that I react both emotionally and logically to most statements made in the 'this is how it is' mode.

I suppose I am sorta suggesting that, if one cares how others hear and absorb one's message, it 'might' be easier without quite so absolute a tone to it....but on the other hand, many DO respond to confidence and unwavering sincerity.

(Little Hawk..I'm not preaching here...just musing. And you may be quite right that we are all playing our roles correctly right now...I know *I* am enjoying the comparison of views...I sure am getting an education on some other ways of thinking, as well as clarifying my own)

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 10:35 PM

For sure, Bill. Understood. I am always a bit bemused when people want proof of what is essentially unprovable. :-) Well, gotta get some sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 11:21 PM

For me, Bill there are very telling earmarks of actual clarity of spiritual experinece. The big strange risk in this territory, not suffered by those investigating physics, is the ever-present plasticity of the mind in the hands of the owner. It has been demonstrated over and over again that under duress a being can drum up a convincing replica of any incident, real or imagined, can generate three-D visio of things that never happened and swear they were genuine experiences. But usually when they do this they tend to be dramatic and assertive, so that sort of flavor can be a clue.

How do you tell the difference? You weigh what you are given against a general background of lessons learned, similar tales from others, what is consistent (claiming sky-high awareness while being unable to do anything effective is not consistent, for example) and you look for answers which account for phenomena without interjecting arbitraries, calling into play things that don't need to be brought in to play, authoritarian solutions, and similar arbitraries. You examine the intentions behind the communication. You test whether what is claimed is "bizarre" or generally acknowledged in the range of non-physical experiences. You use any sense you may have developed to detect authenticity and genuineness of anecdote.

ANd somewhere int here, too, you "know". I know that is risky, because of our high respect for empirical logic-based, data-based conclusions, but somewhere i there, the knowing of the Knower has to come in to play. It does anyway, of course, but is usually painted out.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 02:05 AM

'If something would work consistently (or well above chance) not knowing why it works wouldn't be a good reason not to use it. Though to know why something works is always better, for it gives us more control about the situation.'

Well, I thought that's what I said. What I meant to say, anyhow.

"...and was finally cured of it --instantly-- by a chicken-sacrifice ceremony (my emphasis). That is the post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking leading to a feeling of validity. The correct word would be after (in the eyes of a scientist) because we can never be sure (from one case alone) that the cure was in any way responsible for the healing. The doctor you cite tries his best to give an explanation in terms of placebo effect (and he does it well)."

The writer, and the doctor are the ones who said the man in the anecdote was cured. The doctor said essentially that the cure was due to the placebo effect and, as I said, I agree with him, and with you thus far.

What I want to know is why the doctor, with all his knowledge, was not able to help this man, and the 'superstitious savage' could.

I'm not pushing for chicken-blood cures or psychic surgery, I'm pushing for what works. "Placebo effect" is a name, not an explanation. It's like the line that sopoforics put you to sleep because they contain a "dormative quality."

My-daughter-the-pharmacist had some literature on Rogaine; it seems Rogaine (at that time) appeared to be restoring hair better than anything but the placebo in the tests. The placebo was second best. I think anything that can make a sugar pill (or whatever) grow hair on the head of someone with male-pattern baldness is rather amazing. I talked to my doctor about it, and he just dismissed it, as though "placebo effect" may exist but it doesn't count.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 03:15 AM

The amazing thing, Clint, IMHO, is that so any wonderful results are attributed to the "placebo effect" that on the whole it is almost miraculous. But usually this effect gets dismissed as though it were some kind of cheap trick (because it is a loose cannon, so to speak) and rarely does anyone dare to suggest the exploration of why it works.

It's funny we should have such a dismissive turn of phrase for something more powerful than most drugs!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 05:02 AM

Placebo research

Placebos are funny things. Once you convince everyone that something is a placebo, it no longer works as one...

Thats why I am conflicted on what to do about a lot of alternative therapies that don't seem to work better than placebo, and hence to my mind actually are placeboes. One part of me thinks that we should find out the truth about everything, so that everyone knows what they are getting and can make informed choices about treatments. But to do that we might be destroying something very valuable - the placebo effect they produce. And then again, it doesnt matter how much science proves something producing a response at placebo level, people will continue to go on believing the theory behind their particular therapy, because it is that theory and belief structure that makes the placebo effect effective. So maybe the main work of science should be to work out what is and isnt placebo just for curiositys sake and for those of us who like our medicine evidence based, and also to check for harmful effects of these therapies.

I sometimes wish I wasnt so rational about these things, I would then have a lot more things that might improve my health. I just can't bring myself to suspend my critical side tho, and "just believe" in something that probably isn't true in order to get the benefits.

Theres something rather quantum about it isn't there?

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 07:11 AM

any wonderful results are attributed to the "placebo effect" (Amos)

That's simply not true. If in a test of any healing method (alternative or not) the group that gets nothing (or the opposite of the treatment) but is led to believe it gets the treatment performs as good as the group getting the treatment but both perform better than people getting nothing (and knowing about it) then the effect is called placebo effect. Any wonderful cure doing better in the treatment group would not be attributed to the placebo effect.

And that is just a term, as Clint says, far from any explanation yet. But it is a term very useful in grouping things together that display similar characteristics, namely that the result seems to depend only on the patient believing the action has been done and not on doing the action as such. What is dismissive about using the Latin term for 'I shall please' to group these things together I am not able to understand.

The term placebo effect is extremely helpful when talking about studies in psychology or medicine. A recent survey about the effectiveness of psychological interventions of all kinds has listed the effect sizes of the intervention. The effect sizes ranged roughly from -.2 to +1.3 standard deviations with a maximum at about .6 standard deviations. It is then very useful to break up these studies into studies using a no-treatment control and those using a placebo control. The effect sizes were .3 on the average with a placebo control, smaller than with a no treatment control but still significant. If anyone at a congress tells she has found an effect size of her intervention of .8, the first question (if she hasn't told) is what was her control group (placebo, wait list, no treatment?).

Any person with a bit of responsibility would like to know whether a treatment works even if the patients are told they are not treated, when the effect is larger than placebo alone. As a doctor I'd like to know whether a medication I give has been shown not to work better than a placebo control, especially if that is a medication with side effects. If it doesn't work better than a placebo control but has side effects I'd choose something harmless and cheap instead for that has the same potential effect.

Behind the classification 'placebo effect' are lots of potential really causative agents. People are doing a lot of work to find them out. That's very useful in order to know when this effect may be useful. Contrary to popular belief, the placebo effect is very close to nil with life threatening illnesses when there are objective indicators of the state of health. Don't expect any help from placebo effects when you have an appendicitis.

It has a much larger effect when the state of health has a strong subjective component, e.g. chronic pain. If it helps in these situations it is preferable to a long-time use of pain killers. A good doctor would give a patient in this situation first pain killers and then say that it would be good to reduce the dosis for the sake of the liver and to learn to cope a bit with the pain. And then he'd reduce the dose to ever smaller levels up to nil, if the patient reports she can cope now.

The placebo effect is not only found to be restricted to health. For instance, take an additive for petrol to make it last longer or a very cost consuming apparatus to reduce the lime in the water coming to your house. How do you get a placebo effect here? Easyly, by using a subjective outcome measurement. You ask the person if the water now tastes better or if she feels she lasts longer with on tank filling. With such a dependent variable, you will have a positive effect of the intervention. But wouldn't you like to know before whether the costly action works better than a placebo control?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 07:19 AM

Wolfgang, there is also another name for the effect of any intervention having an effect merely because of it being an intervention. I think it is the Hawthorne Effect, named after the researcher in a group of experiments which showed that workplace productivity increased whenever a new factor was studied, and was ascribed to the fact the workers felt singled out and made to feel important by the study.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 07:27 AM

Now that I check, Hawthorne was the name of the factory where the experiments were carried out, not the researcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 07:39 AM

article about placebo and the mind body link.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 07:47 AM

Bagpuss, yes, and it's not always easy to separate the two. Roughly: If I tell a group you'll get a treatment and we expect that it works for you and it does, we call it Placebo. If I tell a group you'll get a treatment but we don't know yet what it does positively or even negatively and we want to find out and if that group does better than a group which get that same treatment but don't know we watch their performance, it would be called Hawthorne effect.

And then there is the Pygmalion effect (experimenter expectation, Rosenthal effect)...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 07:56 AM

(and the John Henry effect, the halo effect and Jastrow's effect... but now I'm just pulling these off the website of a lecturer I had in the past...)

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Grab
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 08:56 AM

Sure, Carol, I know you don't want fame for the sake of it. No well-adjusted person would. My point was just that something like that, carried out to correct standards, is not open to media manipulation.

As far as this being personal, if you go back a few hundred years then the wise women and apothecaries kept their herbal remedies secret and made rituals out of it. Early doctors were widely regarded as ineffectual, but they had no access to this body of knowledge, so all that they heard about was the rituals and not the contents of the herbal remedies. Today, we know that some of these herbal remedies would have had physical effects on the human body, and doctors (via the pharmaceutical industry) use them to heal people. But the first step was always finding what the herbs were and trying them out in controlled conditions. (And equally, we know that some of the herbal remedies and some of the doctors' techniques would have had no effect or actually been harmful, so not all old knowledge is good knowledge! ;-)

Now doctors today get some flak for not being open to the possibility of spiritual healing, especially in cases where "conventional medicine" has no answers yet. It seems there are two possibilities here. Firstly, people who practise "alternative therapies" can stay shtumm. Some of their patients will get better, some won't. The practitioners won't know why because they're not approaching it in the right way to test their therapies, nor will the patients, and no-one else with the same illness will ever be helped. Or secondly, people who practise "alternative therapies" can actively follow this stuff up. If it works, "alternative" will become "mainstream", and everyone with that illness, forever into the future, will be helped.

Maybe my mind just isn't set up to work with crystals. I've been into quite a few "mind-body-spirit" shops and felt nothing except occasional nausea from the incense sticks. ;-) But it seems to me that this is a time where "amateurs" rather than big business can really make a difference - it's in the same place that science, medicine and astronomy were 200 years ago. It seems odd to me that the people who could make a difference are prepared to say "we can do this" but then aren't prepared to take the next step towards backing it up which would benefit all humanity.

Bagpuss, thanks for that link - I'd forgotten about that one. :-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 09:10 AM

Wolfgang:

I mis-typed in my last, which should have read "The amazing thing, Clint, IMHO, is that so many wonderful results are attributed to the "placebo effect" that on the whole it is almost miraculous." I would never have implied or said intentionally thast any result deemed wondeArful was also deemed Placebo Effect.


And I understand what you;ve said about the placebo effect as an important part of results analysis.

The point that too often gets missed is that if positive cures can be induced under certain conditions by belief, it is perhaps very desirable to know how belief works, and under what conditions it can effect such cures, since it cannot do so uniformly, apparently. How does this "non-effect" somehow manage to induce a reversal of symptoms? How many cases has it actually done so in, and what common denominators if any do they have?

Are you aware of any such studies?

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 09:29 AM

There are all sorts of factors which affect the strength of the placebo effect Amos. I'll see if I can find some literature for you - though there may be some pointers in the last website I mentioned. I may be a while tho as Im busy for the next few days.

But off the top of my head, even things like the colour of the pill can have an effect. Something like a red pill being more effective than a blue pill, and larger pills have more of an effect than smaller ones, and injections even more so.

And one mustnt forget that conventional medicines that work better than placebo also exhibit the placebo effect. For example it has been shown that pills that have more noticable side effects often have a greater effect than those without. Which in turn raises the question that the placebo used in these studies may not be a good control, as those on the real pills are more likely to suspect they are in the experimental control group real because of the side effects. This in turn can cast doubt on the validity of the results.

Completely by the by, but I remember an experiment on conditioned learning in animals in which rats were killed by sugar water! The taste of the water had previously been paired with a poisonous substance, on numerous occasions, but not enough to kill them. Then when they were given larger doses of the sugar water without the poison, the rats reacted as if they had been given the poison in a large dose, and many of them died!

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 09:53 AM

Here you can find the reference, Amos. This is a review article and the original studies are referencend in it.

The good news is that the placebo effect can make us feel better, and the bad news is that in the worst case that may be all it can.

Again with the example of the one selling a petrol additive for more mileage:
- We know for sure that a positive effect (of the additive) is there if we don't look at the actual miles done with the car but ask the driver how it feels driving with the additive (and the driver says, yes it feels better, whether the additive is in there or not)
- We suspect that there may be no effect upon the mileage at all and that everything the buyer gets for the money is a better feeling.
- There could be a (much smaller than placebo) real effect lurking. Perhaps a driver with the additive thinks more about saving gas and therefore drive a little different which would make a difference even with an objective outcome measure. But we would know then that not the additive but the behaviour change is the relevant thing.

What always surprises me in these discussions (about nonconventional medical treatments) is the following: The believers say it works and when asked how they know they say it's their experience. When asked what are the constituents of their experience they say it comes down to counting cases where it has worked and compare it with cases where it has not. Basically, they do a (informal, more like estimating, but humans are not bad at estimating numbers) counting procedure and nothing else.

Scientists do more or less the same with some minor differences:

(1) They replace estimating by actually counting
(2) They try to define before counting what constitutes a success (or a failure)
(3) They try to control some biases in judgement by proper design (for instance, they do not let someone with a bias do they counting or at least let the one doing the counting not know what she counts, so any bias doesn't interfere with the results)

That's basically how these studies are done: Both ask the same question, namely, does it help (on the average) and both let the same procedure, namely (implicit or explicit) counting, decide.

The interesting difference comes when the one procedure ('experience') leads to positive results and the other (scientific study) leads to a result of no effect. Then the believers say, your procedure doesn't grasp the realities of life and all that, and forget that the scientists have done more or less the same what they do. The scientists point to the possibility that the differences (better control, no influence of bias,...) may account for the results.

The believers often cannot even admit that possibility for they have invested too much (financially and emotially) and perhaps profit a lot (think again of the gas addtitive salesman; would he be interested in a study showing it doesn't help the buyers, only the sellers?). They'll use all kinds of ad hoc explanations to avoid the one they fear most.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 12:58 PM

Maybe my mind just isn't set up to work with crystals. I've been into quite a few "mind-body-spirit" shops and felt nothing except occasional nausea from the incense sticks. ;-)

I don't know if you saw the link for Genesa crystals earlier in this thread, and I don't know if you are refering to crystals that are mineral formations or if you know that a Genesa crystal is a shape and not a mineral. At any rate, as I've said before, most people don't experience energy in quite the same way that I do. That's not due to anything special about me, but rather from something a bit defective about my body.

But it seems to me that this is a time where "amateurs" rather than big business can really make a difference - it's in the same place that science, medicine and astronomy were 200 years ago. It seems odd to me that the people who could make a difference are prepared to say "we can do this" but then aren't prepared to take the next step towards backing it up which would benefit all humanity.

I don't think you need to worry about this, Graham. I think it's happening, but maybe not in a way that you would be able to see just yet. In my own experience, things have come a long way even with the established medical community. I've noticed that a lot of doctors are much more prepared to believe what patients say about their own experiences than they used to be. Eventually, some of them will begin to apply their scientific expertise to the task of making these things understandable and available to humanity at large.

On the other hand, if you are qualified, and you want to come test me, be my guest. I don't have the resources to conduct experiments on the effect that large Genesa crystals have on me, but I do have the resources to conduct experiments on the effect that spiritual energy has on plants. As far as allowing myself to be put in the public spotlight for this work... sorry. I don't see that as being of any benefit to mankind. If someone wants to do this quietly, out of the public spotlight, and they are willing to respect my privacy, and if they are willing to come here to do their testing, they will be most welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 04:06 PM

I just had a look around the Center for Complementary Medicine site. It looks like they are doing good work. In my case, I can't just contact them and tell them that I experience a physical reaction to high concentrations of spiritual energy. For one thing, it's not a disorder. Because it's not a disorder, there aren't likely to be people who would benefit from scientific research being done on this phenomenon.

Secondly, there would need to be a treatment that is being proposed and studied. In the case of my experience of being easily overloaded with energy, the only treatment that would be likely to produce results would be one that corrects the deformities in the bones of my neck. They don't have any studies like that, and I wouldn't expect them to since this is a problem that may be unique to me. And if not, I think it's pretty easy to figure out what is causing the problem and how to fix it. Personally, I don't want anyone messing around with the bones in my neck. At least not any doctors. I'm still trying to decide if I even want any spiritual healers like Two Bears to mess with it. It's a pretty important part of my body, being the part just below where my spinal cord enters/exits the bottom of my skull.

I looked in the list of disorders for which they are doing studies. There are a few that I might be eligible for, but I would have to live close to where the study is being conducted. I didn't see any that are being conducted near where I live. But at least they are doing the research and I'm guessing they aren't having any difficulty finding test subjects for their studies.

Here's a link to their site in case anyone's interested:

http://nccam.nih.gov/

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Two_bears
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 09:54 PM

OK, I don't really believe 2Bears can detect auras, but the screen experiment is not proof of much. After all, many kinds of screen will block vision, but eyesight exists.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion; even when they're wrong.

ANL - 2B

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Two_bears
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 09:58 PM

The problem with the conditions that the Amazing Randi sets up is the same kind of thing as what you get if you sign up to appear on the Jerry Springer show. You have no control over how the content of your work gets used. Randi will have ownership of all of the results and he will have the right to use them any way he sees fit. He could make a real circus of your life if he wanted to. And I'm guessing, if he thought it would get him some publicity (and maybe a lot of money), he wouldn't care if the way he used your results hurt you personally in ways that have nothing to do with the results of the tests. It's all about entertainment to people like that.

Carol:

You should contact Lin Kong Jing Qigong master Richard Mooney about his experience with the Unamazing Randi.

ANL - 2B

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Two_bears
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 10:10 PM

Wolfgang:

why don't you come for a visit and find out how I teach people how to see and experience the aura?

As far as your comment about my oversteping my knowledge of a subject.

Kirlian photography CLEARLY shows an energy field around fingers and hands, and the Unamazing Randi categoricaly states "There is NO energy field around the body".

"There are only two opinions that matter to me; and neither of them is yours" Two Bears 1996

ANL - 2B

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Two_bears
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 10:24 PM

I'm expressing myself poorly in these posts. I have always assumed that the aura, if it exists, is not an optical phenomenon, but is seen in the mind's eye, perhaps "a mixture of feeling the body heat radiation (most times higher than the surrounding air) and perhaps some imagination in his pupils." or perhaps something else. The question to me is, can the aura-seer do anything useful with his/her aura-sight, whatever the explanation of it is?

Hello Clint. The aura CAN be seen via normal sight; but it does require the use of a technique or two; in order to train yourself to see them.

Yes; someone who can see auras can easily use this knowledge to see when one is lying, check the health of the person.

If so, let him alone. If therapeutic touch only works without a screen, then don't use a screen

I use Therapeutic Touch on people 2000+ miles away on at least a weekly basis.

ANL - 2B

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 07:48 PM

why don't you come for a visit and find out how I teach people how to see and experience the aura? (Two Bears)
I'd love to if I was close enough.

Kirlian photography CLEARLY shows an energy field around fingers and hands (Two Bears)
As so often in threads about this theme, your main mistake is that you don't differentiate between observation and interpretation. Of course, there is something visible around a body in Kirlian photography, visibility and spread of that phenomenon depending upon pressure and moisture. Nobody denies that. That's an easily replicable and fairly well understood phenomenon. The interpretation of what you see is what really matters. Once you realise that Kirlian photographs of not living matter lead to the same observable phenomena, you quickly drop the interpretation of the effect as an energy field, because it makes no sense any longer. You're fighting above your weight here.

"There are only two opinions that matter to me; and neither of them is yours" Two Bears 1996
If you are contented with so little, well, not my problem. I can't recollect any field of knowledge I'm really interested in in which I would be contented with so little. On those fields I'm interested in opinions that really matter to me are rarely less than about a dozen; and not the same dozen on the next field. That's the difference between relying upon authorities/teacher or whoever and the way of critical thinking.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Two_bears
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 09:05 PM

I'd love to if I was close enough.

Wolfgang:

What part of the country do you live in? Maybe we could meet if I happen to be in your area.

As so often in threads about this theme, your main mistake is that you don't differentiate between observation and interpretation. Of course, there is something visible around a body in Kirlian photography, visibility and spread of that phenomenon depending upon pressure and moisture. Nobody denies that. That's an easily

Right. There IS an observable field which the Unamazing Randi states "does not exist."

replicable and fairly well understood phenomenon. The interpretation of what you see is what really matters. Once you realise that Kirlian photographs of not living matter lead to the same observable phenomena, you quickly drop the interpretation of the effect as an energy field,

Wolfgang: you are not looking at the world from a metaphysical or mystical point of view.

I know for a fact that there is a field emanating from generator quartz crystals, and other things that are inanimate.

This universal energy (the Chinese call it ch'i, the Hawai'ians called it mana, the Cherokee called it nuwati, the Pueblo indians called it itaki, etc.

The Hawai'ians and others learned how to use mental focus and intent to store mana in a stick, and the stick need not cause any injury; but merely by touching another person with the stick would cause the mana surcharge to be released into the person and knocking them unconscious.

It would all depend on what item the kirlian photograph was of, and whether someone stored an energy surcharge in the item previously.

because it makes no sense any longer. You're fighting above your weight here.

That may be.

That's the difference between relying upon authorities/teacher or whoever and the way of critical thinking.

Sorry; but first hand experiences trump a second rate opinion.

ANL - 2B

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 09:54 PM

Wolfgang Hell lives in Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 10:41 AM

"Sorry; but first hand experiences trump a second rate opinion."

that is, IF the experience is real clear & unambiguous, and IF the opinion is flawed.

cute quotations do not settle arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 06:46 PM

There is no "not living" matter, Wolfgang, and that is the fallacy in your argument. Every single atom in existence is alive. That does not mean that a stone is alive in the same way as an animal or a plant, but the atoms that make up the stone are alive. Therefore Two Bears in fact is not in error as you say he is.

Even an atom has a living spirit. It would not exist if it didn't. A group of associated atoms have a group spirit.

But, hey, I know you'll never accept that notion! (grin) I wouldn't have accepted it once either. Nor would Two Bears have accepted it before he had an experience that transformed his outlook.

Wolfgang, there is absolutely nothing in the manifested Universe that is not alive. Life is the norm. "Death" is a name we give to a dramatic change of outer form and function...and the disappearance of a specific bundle of intelligence from obviously inhabiting an individual outer form that we have grown accustomed to observing...or ourselves inhabiting for a period of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 11:05 PM

To follow up on what LH and Two Bears have said, in my first post to this thread, I said:

some of us don't see "matter" and "spirit" as being separate at all.

...and Wolfgang gave us this:

Once you realise that Kirlian photographs of not living matter lead to the same observable phenomena, you quickly drop the interpretation of the effect as an energy field, because it makes no sense any longer.

I'd say this point from Wolfgang actually supports the idea of matter and spirit being the same thing, much more than it undermines it.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 06:27 AM

I'd say this point from Wolfgang actually supports the idea of matter and spirit being the same thing, much more than it undermines it. (Carol)

You're so right, Carol, but do you realise what that means what you have posted? If you read the first posts you can easily see that I'm not a dualist but a monist (like, for instance, Little Hawk too). So neither he nor I expect any proof either way from Kirlian photography, for we both would make the same prediction: Living and not living matter (I use these words as abbreviations for something more complicated) lead to the same photographs.

To mention it as anything resembling a proof only makes sense for a dualist. The people usually offering Kirlian photographs as a proof are dualists (so I have to guess that either Two Bears is dualist or doesn't realise that taking Kirlian photography as an empirical argument is completely senseless). They claim that Kirlian photographs from dead matter are different from Kirlian photographs of living matter (like for instance a leaf still at a tree or a fallen leaf). My argument that dead matter leads to the same pictures can only be directed at those claimants (and in this context it was only directed at Two Bears' argumentation). For a dualist, a result contrary to his world view would make a problem.

I never would have offered Kirlian photography as an empirical argument to, for instance, Little Hawk (though he seems to think so), for I know we both expect the same result. To quarrel about empirical results (or to look for them in the first place) only makes sense, if it matters one way or the other. Some of you could profit a lot from reading about the methodology of science and what makes a theory testable and what not.

first hand experiences trump a second rate opinion (Two Bears)
Two Bears, you seem to think and to imply that you see there a big difference between you and me. And I have the impression that you have little knowledge of what an empirically working scientist does besides reading books.
(1) Many of your arguments are like many of mine arguments you have read, second hand arguments.
(2) A part of my job is doing experiments, empirical experiments. I have first hand experience doing experiments near the absolute threshold of perception and also about human errors. When I talk about the difference between what stimuli humans have actually been subjected to and what they report and what their interpretation of their experiences is, I speak not from books. The notion I read so often that scientific findings can be dismissed out of hand in comparison to personal experience is mostly rubbish.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 11:24 AM

Are you saying, Wolfgang, that Kirlian photography isn't usable as a test to determine whether or not there is spiritual energy in matter for people who are monists because there can be no control?

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 11:53 AM

In a remote way, yes, Carol, though I wouldn't have put it that way. For the materialist, under both living matter/nonliving matter conditions Kirlian effects are to be expected. For the spiritualist of Little Hawk type, under both conditions, Kirlian effects are to be expected. So finding Kirlian effects for both states of the matter cannot be used to tell which of them is correct.

Technically speaking, there is of course a control condition possible, for Little Hawk as well as I can easily differentiate between say a dead leaf and another.

But any general Kirlian effect is neither for him nor for me a test of the theory. We both expect that.

For a dualist, the situation is different. He expects differential effects for dead leaves and not yet dead leaves. For him, consistently not finding a difference would be a blow to his using Kirlian effects as argument.

Similarly, finding differential effects, that is different effects for dead leaves and fresh leaves, are a difficulty for both monist positions, be they materialist or spiritualist.

My point is that you can't have it both ways. If you use Kirlian effects for the spiritualist position then this only makes sense as an argument pro spirit as different from matter. I have argued with that position and nothing else. If Little Hawk calls my Kirlian argument a fallacy it just shows that he has little understanding of scientific argumentation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 12:11 PM

Unless, Wolfgang, the results of Kirlian photography were to show an energy field around a "dead" leaf as well as a "living" leaf, but the kind of energy field was consistantly different for the dead leaf than for the living leaf, and different in the same way each time. But I don't know enough about Kirlian photography to know if this would be possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 12:18 PM

I had another post back there which vanished for some reason. Let's see if it's in the buffer...

Yes it is! It's from yesterday, as follows:


Yes, Carol, that's exactly what I was thinking. Matter is simply spirit at a lower rate of vibration.

Example:

Slowest spirit - solid matter
Faster spirit - liquid matter
Still faster spirit - gaseous matter
Some much faster forms of spirit - radio waves, radiation, magnetic fields, electricity, sound, heat, light
And faster than that - astral thought (memory and emotion)
And faster than that - causal thought (formative, creative ideas and concepts that give birth to various phenomena and outcomes)
And faster than that - something we cannot define because it completely encompasses AND is within every part of our whole field of relativity and we can't get outside it or next to it or away from it because it is not separate from us...so it cannot be measured. (Some have called it "God", and in so doing have usually invested it with all too human characteristics...thus creating God in man's image! This is the kind of old-fashioned religiouse belief that Wolfgang rightly objects to, as it is putting the cart before the horse and creating an unreal God. A myth, in fact.)

The above list is only partial, I'm sure, but it gives a general idea of the principle of spirit (which is intelligent consciousness taking form as matter or energy or pure thought). It is not a human phenomenon, it's beyond human. Human beings, like other living and even apparently inert things, are a manifestation of it, that's all. And they are NOT the only manifestation of it by any means.

Everything is made in "God's image", not just human beings. And that doesn't mean that God looks exclusively like a man, a bird, or a rock! It means that they all look the way a bundle of highly intelligent energy looks when it slows down and takes purposeful form as a physical item or being...like a cloud, a star, a comet, a rose, an ant, or a human being...or a single atom, seen under a microscope.

And no, Wolfgang, I cannot prove any of it, nor would I expect to be able to prove it. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 04:58 PM

Why should I try to prove something which you yourself say (wisely) that it is unprovable.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 05:09 PM

Well, of course you shouldn't, Wolfgang. I don't expect anyone to prove or disprove these matters. I investigate these things not because I am seeking proof but because I'm seeking inspiration. It's spiritual philosophy. One does not prove philosophy, one attempts to understand it, that's all, and hopes to be uplifted by it.

I prefer positive philosophies to negative ones, given the choice.

That's why I am not fond of negatively based religious ideas such as: original sin, punishment for sins, human unworthiness, hellfire, damnation and that sort of thing.

Such ideas strike me as unproductive, fear-based, and entirely false in concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 06:18 PM

the point about not being able to prove these matter is even more significant than noted by Little Hawk....

when two physical scientists compare notes and opinions on some test, theory or fact, they usually have a standard of reference and can look at each other's ideas and experiments and perhaps double-check for accuracy. When even two serious Philosophers compare notes, they have logical and linguistic standards for being sure they are speaking the same language and referring to the same ideas, though it can take longer and be trickier.

But when two proponents of meta-physical phenomena compare experiences, they are both referring to subjective phenomena and 'personal' experiences, and can never be sure their referents ARE inherently comparable. Since they, by definition, deal with what is untestable, there is no way to easily separate the experience from the linguistic expression of the experience.

such statements as "Matter is simply spirit at a lower rate of vibration." and the examples given, become circular and merely linguistic constructions which are essentially about the mind of the proponent, rather than objective reality.

(I tried to formulate this in a way that did not sound insulting or condescending...I'm not sure I succeeded. When I re-read it, it sounds like all I am saying is: "Oh, you're just talkin' about air"...*wry smile*...but there is really an attempt to get a handle on the basis of our different approaches.)

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 06:49 PM

Agreed, Bill. Let's put it this way...if I were trying to solve a crime, I would look for physical evidence, and anecdotal evidence of witnesses, and I would also look for those imponderables (such as motive or motivation of the criminal)...depending on the situation. If I were searching for gold in the ground, I would look almost entirely for physical evidence, I suppose. If I were searching for the meaning of life I would consider physical evidence as part of the picture, all right, but I would mainly be looking for things I cannot touch physically...I would be looking in the realms of allegory, metaphor, emotion, thought, moral tenets, spiritual ideals, parables, and so on.

Those are mostly things one can have opinions about, but not prove. One can try them out over a period of time though, and see how they work in practice. If they seem to work well, then that is proof enough for me.

The great philosophical questions are what fascinate me.

Is everything alive? (I think so.)
Is everything conscious in some way? (I think so.)
Did all this happen by accident or by intention? (I think the latter.)
Is the Universe mostly dead matter or is it manifested consciousness? (I think the latter.)
Is life essentially good? (I think so.)
Are people essentially sinful? (I think not.)

What a person believes about such things is important, because his conduct tends to flow directly from what he thinks. So too for a whole civilization. A civilization which does not see importance in anything but itself and its own creations is a dangerous civilization...headed for a fall. Nature does not tolerate such self-centredness forever...not because Nature gets angry, but merely because it always works to maintain a balance. When things get too far out of balance Nature brings about a re-adjustment.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 07:28 PM

It's most promising to see a new generation of young scientists and medical students with the desire and the potential to make big big waves in the practice of health care, no less --- who are not only interested in spiritual healing and energy work but experiencing such success, so easily! - in both giving and receiving it.

I'm confident that the next generation will find the required scientific "standards of reference" to qualify and measure subjective "meta-physical" experience, turning debates like this into the stodgy old museum pieces.

People like the young medical student who directly experienced the instant healing of an painful month-old athletic injury (which doctor's prescriptions had done little to relieve) as I laid my hands on his shoulder for a minute, using HUNA spiritual/energetic techniques. He was so relieved and impressed he attended the HUNA workshop I gave with Two Bears a couple weeks later, and has since been using his new techniques with great success - from the healing of his girlfriend's sprained ankle a couple weeks ago, to finding exactly the accomodations he wanted at the university campus this fall.

It's people like this bright and promising young man, the scientists of the future, who give me hope. And look out .... there's gonna to be a LOT more like him!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Two_bears
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 10:04 PM

"Sorry; but first hand experiences trump a second rate opinion."

that is, IF the experience is real clear & unambiguous, and IF the opinion is flawed.

cute quotations do not settle arguments.

Open your mind and heart and you will have real and unambiguous experiences.

ANL - 2B