Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Filtering out the stupid stuff.

But it's still not a fact if I, (I'll use age too), state I am 72. I nearly am, it's only a slight variance as to-morrow I will be! But at the moment I am still 71.

Is this because there is such a thing as an absolute truth? So even if you wrote my age as 17 (please feel free to do so!), and published as a mistake to all the world on Twitter, I would still be 72 to-morrow! Truth is not an honest opinion.

And surely an inadvertent inaccuracy does not make a mistake into a truth. Actually having read that last statement-- imagine what a joy-filled world this would be for politicians if it were to be true.

Penblwydd Hapus, Ellis!

Just to keep on topic with "stupid stuff"; I think that makes you an Aquarian Dragon.

On the subject of stupid stuff; my wife wants to know if you have trouble with your candles if your cake is upside down.

There seems to be some confusion between what is a fact, and what is mistakenly believed to be a fact.

Looks like we are heading into the samantics mire once more.

When we believe something to be a fact, being confident that we have good reason to do so, we refer to it as a fact; but taking it to the extreme, you might say that there are no facts, except perhaps, "I think, therefore I am".

Who or what is the "I" and what is "Am-ness"? Does it extend beyond the flesh or is it contained and born of the flesh? What facts will support the fact?

You walked into that, Rede. Step into the mire and who do you find there?

It says nothing about what it is and doesn't assume the existence of anything else, including the flesh. Simply cogito ergo sum.

So it (the"I") is separate from the flesh, and am-ness being related to thinking, is or isn't of or related to the flesh?

Verification <> falsification.

"I have never engaged in any activity that could remotely be confused with actual homework on this subject; nevertheless, I browsed a web page, consulted several religious authorities, as well as a number of acquaintances who are equally ill-informed, and so I feel completely justified in saying the scientists are full of crap."

This is in reference to the previous posts regarding the "I" and am-ness?

I'm not a student of philosophy, much less of Descartes, but the statement "I think, therefore I am" says nothing about the existence of anything other than thought. Neither does it deny the existence of anything else. It's stated as a self-evident 'fact', and whether or not you take it be the only fact of which you can have complete certainty is for you to decide.

Could it be we are getting somewhere?



We have a fact that is, presumably, true. Can we take it a step further and say: "Therefore, something must exist"?

Since we are in the NQS forum, we might then go on to consider whether we can discover what it is that exists.

Sorry, But Descartes was trying to figure out what there is that he can know for certain. And that was the only thing he could come up with. Beyond that will be only speculation.

Bill Gill

So you are making an assumption...?

It would seem to suggest the idea that thought has an origin, as well as influencing or following the experience or experiencer of thought, in self recognition.
Similar to Eastern spiritual teachings which describe.. The known, the knower and the process of knowing, referenced in the Upanishads, Christian and Buddhist teachings, and Vedic literature which predates Buddha and Jesus' teachings.



However... in the determination of ego as related to Eastern philosophies and spiritual sciences in (Self evident) comparison and study of the Self/self. The I in this case is determined to be the individual self rather than the Universal/higher Self (as in the "I" you previously suggested which in itself makes no determination of itself.)



This might rile The Fiend a bit.. but regarding self evident facts: Self evidence.. without evidence being the same evidence (being that it is identified as being individual and unique to the personal, tho similar in that fact that each individual can have their own unique experience), may stretch the scientific hypothesis or the definition of fact.

Arguments which come about thru comparison where one decides ones experience is more real than another's, and trying to find the authoritative marker to determine reality within the boundaries of personal determination in fact and authority often confuse the ego..

Getting back to my original question:
What is the "I"
What or who is thinking?
And who or what recognizes and determines self evidence as Am-ness, and finally...what is Am-ness?

Smolin's Second Law

"In every period and every community there is something that everybody believes, but cannot justify. If you want to understand anything, you have to start by ignoring what everyone believes, and thinking for yourself."

I thought this article from NS might have a place in here.

Heal thyself: The power of mind over body

• 25 August 2011 by Jo Marchant
•
A free drug can help treat many disorders with no side effects: our minds. New Scientist reveals six ways to exploit its power

"I TALK to my pills," says Dan Moerman, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. "I say, 'hey guys, I know you're going to do a terrific job'."
That might sound eccentric, but based on what we've learned about the placebo effect, there is good reason to think that talking to your pills really can make them do a terrific job. The way we think and feel about medical treatments can dramatically influence how our bodies respond.
Simply believing that a treatment will work may trigger the desired effect even if the treatment is inert - a sugar pill, say, or a saline injection. For a wide range of conditions, from depression to Parkinson's, osteoarthritis and multiple sclerosis, it is clear that the placebo response is far from imaginary. Trials have shown measurable changes such as the release of natural painkillers, altered neuronal firing patterns, lowered blood pressure or heart rate and boosted immune response, all depending on the beliefs of the patient. There is even evidence that some drugs work by amplifying a placebo effect - when people are not aware that they have been given the drugs, they stop working.
On the flip side, merely believing that a drug has harmful side effects can make you suffer them. The nocebo effect, as it's known, can even kill (New Scientist, 13 May 2009, p 30).
It has always been assumed that the placebo effect only works if people are conned into believing that they are getting an actual active drug. But now it seems this may not be true. Belief in the placebo effect itself - rather than a particular drug - might be enough to encourage our bodies to heal.
In a recent study, Ted Kaptchuk of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues gave some people with irritable bowel syndrome an inert pill. They told them that the pills were "made of an inert substance, like sugar pills, that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes", which is perfectly true. Despite knowing the pills were inert, on average the volunteers rated their symptoms as moderately improved after taking them, whereas those given no pills said there was only a slight change.
"Everybody thought it wouldn't happen," says study co-author Irving Kirsch, a psychologist at the University of Hull, UK. He thinks that the key was giving patients something to believe in. "We didn't just say 'here's a sugar pill'. We explained to the patients why it should work, in a way that was convincing to them."
As well as having implications for the medical profession, the study raises the possibility that we could all use the placebo effect to convince ourselves that sucking on a sweet or downing a glass of water, for example, will banish a headache, clear up a skin condition or boost the effectiveness of any drugs that we take. "Our study suggests that might indeed help," says Kirsch. While Moerman talks to his pills, Kirsch recommends visualising the desired improvement and telling yourself that something is going to get better.

So in reference to the above post:
And considering the following statement..


...The idea that something doesn't work for all doesn't mean it doesn't work.

The drug companies make a lot of money with drugs that sometimes work but also come with a list of possible side effects that do not, in their verbiage, inspire a great deal of confidence if one absorbs the conflicting idea into their way of thinking.

In fact if the idea that the mind is key in changing the way the body works, if one was to take a pill with the belief in the side effects it is very possible one will experience what the mind suggests. Leading one to experience more harm from the prescription than good.

"...The idea that something doesn't work for all doesn't mean it doesn't work."

The idea that something appears to work (or even does work) for a a few does not mean that "it" works. People get better on sugar pills. Scientists are trying to understand the placebo effect and make use of it. There is at least one study showing that placebo effect may even work when the patient KNOWS they are taking a placebo.

Lay article on it: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-22...tudy-finds.html

Actual study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015591#top

One reason why we have studies - to see if an effect produced by a drug is different than the effect produced by a sugar pill - for better or worse. It's also true that many drugs have harmful side-effects and the scientists also try to study those and will usually have a list of contraindications listed for the drugs. Contraindications are conditions under which one should not take a drug. For example, some people should not take some vaccines.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm

The brain is important - scientists know this. Whether it is the "key" is ambiguous. But scientist are trying to figure ways to trick the brain.
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmake...?printable=true

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc071927
(Yea, the "House" episode was based on real science)

OTOH, actually STUDYING something (applying science to it) is not the same as spewing stupid crap about it and pretending to do "research."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8XYUixuw8g

For decades, I've been saying that common sense does not exist or, that if it does exist, at any rate it is not desirable. If it actually existed, then most people would have it and agree on what it means. But most people view common sense as whatever they happen to know (or believe they know) and what their circle of acquaintances agrees with. In any case, I've always been suspicious of it. When I was growing up, I was frequently accused of not having common sense by my fellow trailer park denizens and others - many with encyclopedic knowledge of false or at best unconfirmed facts. Simply, the people asserting this "knowledge" took it for granted that they possessed it to significant degree and that anyone who disagreed was an idiot. Actually researching a topic before expressing an opinion earned one special contempt - it's mere "book learning" or "you're just buying into the elitists are saying."

I reached an inescapable, if personal, conclusion. What is wanted is not COMMON sense (whatever the hell that means), but GOOD sense - and that insofar as sense is good, it was seldom very common, and insofar as it is common, it was seldom very good.

It's comforting after all these years to listen to and read scientists making exactly this point.

"Science has nothing to do with common sense. I believe it was Einstein who said that common sense is a set of prejudices we form by the age of 18. Inject somebody with some viruses and that’s going to keep you from getting sick? That’s not common sense. We evolved from single-cell organisms? That’s not common sense. By driving my car I’m going to cook Earth? None of this is common sense. The commonsense view is what we’re fighting against. So somehow you’ve got to move people away from that with these quite complicated scientific arguments based on even more complicated research. That’s why it’s such an uphill battle. People start off with a belief and a prejudice—we all do. And the job of science is to set that aside to get to the truth." &#8213; Simon Singh in Wired Magazine, Aug 2010

Well to conversely imply that it doesn't work would be deceptive and illogical. The idea that it works for a few may even be ambiguous.

http://www.wrf.org/alternative-therapies/power-of-mind-placebo.php
To say the brain is important but not key is ambiguous.
Doctors know that operating conversations have an affect on their patients. They know that if someone is under anesthesia they can hear their conversations and be affected by comments such as "Holy Crap, this person is going to be dead in a week!" The mind takes that information and processes it into similar patterns of reactive thought that would affect the overall health and state of the patient in just the same way the placebo affect works.
The funny thing is witch doctors and holistic healers have known this long before our present system of medicine figured this out.
Granted this system is not infallible but it may be that the system is not at fault but instead the state of mind of the patient.
Just how far does the mind reach in its ability to alter the way the body works? How far does it extend itself into the body-world?
Some scientists/physicists are suggesting the mind can affect the very substance within the nothing or vacuum that forms the matter in our bodies and around us.
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/mar2/tiller.htm
http://www.mindmatter.de/resources/pdf/hileywww.pdf