Heart, Mind and Spirit

[C C]

Are you assuming I believe something rather than I am questioning what is to be believed?

Mmmmm... Apparently I don't get the the suggestion. There was reference to groups rather an individual.

[Carol]

Snye, someone hacked into my computer and I am taking it to shop to get fixed.  Someone ran a red light and hit my car, and have I to get the police report and fill out DMV forms and figure out how to get my car fixed.

You made it clear you would not kindly to me posting what I think your faults are. Please, stop pointing out what you think my faults are, and focus on the research in the OP, or don't post here at all.

Nice sob story. While I have no doubt that it may be completely true, I fail to see the point of interjecting it here, other than as an attempt to draw sympathy. Why would you even expect sympathy from strangers? And why would you expect it to have any weight in a discussion you assert is science?

I said, "Go right ahead" and post what you think my faults are. It won't bother me none, but you might not like the criticism it opens you up to. You know it's hypocritical to tell me "don't post" after stating, "I do not forgive...preventing...freedom of speech."

Here's a good refute of the base assumptions of the OP study: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ene...doscience/
And even just on its surface, if the heart has influence because of its 40,000 neurons (nerve cells), then the gut (dubbed the second brain) has way more influence because of its 100-500 million neurons. It's all pseudoscience.

I did not read past your introductory sentence.  I repeat, I do not read disrepectful posts.

---

Are you assuming I believe something rather than I am questioning what is to be believed?

Mmmmm... Apparently I don't get the the suggestion. There was reference to groups rather an individual.

So in general people want to stay with what they believe?  I can empathize with that because I can get upset when I feel attached to an idea and someone says it is wrong.  And at the same time I think it is sad.  The little child who is curious about everything, is still a part of me, and I guess this isn't so for many grown ups?

Around age 8 our brains start closing, and we start believing we know what to believe and not to believe. But parenting and education can discourage this, and I think past education did.  For sure my parents did encourage being open minded.  Yoga and mystical things were a normal part of discussions that I thought all adults had.  I grew up thinking children didn't discuss these things because they had not learned of them.  Today Deepak Chopra. M.D. seems a little extreme to me but not totally wrong.  Our bodies likelihood of having some cancers seems increased with stress and some cancers do appear to be cured by meditation, but not all.  For sure some forms of cancer are very aggressive and no amount of medication, careful eating and exercise will cure them.

I like the saying that it isn't what happens to us that matters, but what we think about the event.  One of my friends is depressed and may become ill because she is so upset about the Trump nomination.  Another is wearing a safety pin to communicate to the world that she opposes being prejudice and having a different standard for others than we have for ourselves.   I am kind of looking forward to the very interesting news I expect to happen. While I don't want anyone to be hurt, sometimes bad things lead to good things, and perhaps right now an eastern philosophical point of view is most help?   I like your post about the universe having a kind of consciousness that can be expressed through different systems.  By wearing a safety pin or reacting violently we contribute to what is happening.  Getting depressed and sick isn't very helpful.   Religious folks can become part of the problem or part of the solution.       Now that is 1960 thinking, either you are part of the problem or part of the solution.

[C C]

So in general people what to stay with what they believe?  I can empathize with that because I can get upset when I feel attached to an idea and someone says it is wrong.  And at the same time I think it is sad.  The little child who is curious about everything, is still a part of me, and I guess this isn't so for many grown ups?

Around age 8 our brains start closing, and we start believing we know what to believe and not to believe. But parenting and education can discourage this, and I think past education did.  For sure my parents did encourage being open minded.  Yoga and mystical things were a normal part of discussions that I thought all adults had.  I grew up thinking children didn't discuss these things because they had not learned of them.  Today Deepak Chopra. M.D. seems a little extreme to me but not totally wrong.  Our bodies likelihood of having some cancers seems increased with stress and some cancers do appear to be cured by meditation, but not all.  For sure some forms of cancer are very aggressive and no amount of medication, careful eating and exercise will cure them.

I like the saying that it isn't what happens to us that matters, but what we think about the event. [...]

I don't exclude the possibility of anomalies / miracles occurring. It's just that via their very lack of regularity they can't be addressed by lab conditions and subsumed under the usual explanatory generalizations or theoretical tendencies and constructs of science. Thus again, why I'm baffled by believers -- which build around or cherish such affairs -- wanting to defend and justify them in the context of science, ersatz research and cherry-picked data / selective interpretations. As if they are perversely desiring to win the approval of scientists or receive a blessing from the latter for _X_.

While I personally try to abide in a "before prescriptive formulations" POV which is thereby prior to the preset dogmas of particular schools of thought like philosophical naturalism... That has little relevance to adhering to the rules of a specific "game" slash enterprise when playing in it, working in it, or attempting to represent it accurately. ["When in Rome..."] Science is at least methodologically committed to naturalism and an array of practices and stipulations which serve its progress (as does any job or profession at the concrete level where it becomes distinguishable from others).

A person can have their own standard of "evidence" for themselves or a limited group (slightly inter-subjective); but which still cannot meet the qualifications of a public or global standard for evidence. For instance, if an astute and critical-minded family encounters an extraordinary one-time event which either leaves no trace afterwards (apart from their memories) or the disturbances left behind can be alternatively conceived as conventional causes by the rest of the population... Then that directly observed and shared interpersonal presentation is still their grounds for evidence (sufficient for themselves, but not the rest of the skeptical world). Those who understand that do not waste their time trying to convince others (or at least trying to convince those who have never confronted the extraordinary, and who are otherwise systematically bound to a public or establishment criterion).

Which is to say, one's everyday life consists of contingent, explicit phenomena. Not the implicit, abstract, generic, predictable furniture and statistical objects of a conceptual realm. Which overall humanity and its social institutions recruit as principles and ideas to manage / guide / restrict our activities and cognitive contents and arbitrary impulses. Accordingly allowing the part of the social mass corresponding to authority to proclaim to the aforementioned individual or family that: "You are either deluded or full of ####". Even though this does not prevent their particular, isolated encounter from satisfying their own standard for evidence in regard to their limited circle; it only negates it for the broad public.

[Syne]

Nice sob story. While I have no doubt that it may be completely true, I fail to see the point of interjecting it here, other than as an attempt to draw sympathy. Why would you even expect sympathy from strangers? And why would you expect it to have any weight in a discussion you assert is science?

I said, "Go right ahead" and post what you think my faults are. It won't bother me none, but you might not like the criticism it opens you up to. You know it's hypocritical to tell me "don't post" after stating, "I do not forgive...preventing...freedom of speech."

Here's a good refute of the base assumptions of the OP study: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ene...doscience/
And even just on its surface, if the heart has influence because of its 40,000 neurons (nerve cells), then the gut (dubbed the second brain) has way more influence because of its 100-500 million neurons. It's all pseudoscience.

I did not read past your introductory sentence.  I repeat, I do not read disrepectful posts.

Hey, that's a neat way to avoid anything that may refute your assumptions. It's obvious you're not interested in facts...just your own little fantasies.

[Carol]

So in general people what to stay with what they believe?  I can empathize with that because I can get upset when I feel attached to an idea and someone says it is wrong.  And at the same time I think it is sad.  The little child who is curious about everything, is still a part of me, and I guess this isn't so for many grown ups?

Around age 8 our brains start closing, and we start believing we know what to believe and not to believe. But parenting and education can discourage this, and I think past education did.  For sure my parents did encourage being open minded.  Yoga and mystical things were a normal part of discussions that I thought all adults had.  I grew up thinking children didn't discuss these things because they had not learned of them.  Today Deepak Chopra. M.D. seems a little extreme to me but not totally wrong.  Our bodies likelihood of having some cancers seems increased with stress and some cancers do appear to be cured by meditation, but not all.  For sure some forms of cancer are very aggressive and no amount of medication, careful eating and exercise will cure them.

I like the saying that it isn't what happens to us that matters, but what we think about the event. [...]

I don't exclude the possibility of anomalies / miracles occurring. It's just that via their very lack of regularity they can't be addressed by lab conditions and subsumed under the usual explanatory generalizations or theoretical tendencies and constructs of science. Thus again, why I'm baffled by believers -- which build around or cherish such affairs -- wanting to defend and justify them in the context of science, ersatz research and cherry-picked data / selective interpretations. As if they are perversely desiring to win the approval of scientists or receive a blessing from the latter for _X_.

While I personally try to abide in a "before prescriptive formulations" POV which is thereby prior to the preset dogmas of particular schools of thought like philosophical naturalism... That has little relevance to adhering to the rules of a specific "game" slash enterprise when playing in it, working in it, or attempting to represent it accurately. ["When in Rome..."] Science is at least methodologically committed to naturalism and an array of practices and stipulations which serve its progress (as does any job or profession at the concrete level where it becomes distinguishable from others).

A person can have their own standard of "evidence" for themselves or a limited group (slightly inter-subjective); but which still cannot meet the qualifications of a public or global standard for evidence. For instance, if an astute and critical-minded family encounters an extraordinary one-time event which either leaves no trace afterwards (apart from their memories) or the disturbances left behind can be alternatively conceived as conventional causes by the rest of the population... Then that directly observed and shared interpersonal presentation is still their grounds for evidence (sufficient for themselves, but not the rest of the skeptical world). Those who understand that do not waste their time trying to convince others (or at least trying to convince those who have never confronted the extraordinary, and who are otherwise systematically bound to a public or establishment criterion).

Which is to say, one's everyday life consists of contingent, explicit phenomena. Not the implicit, abstract, generic, predictable furniture and statistical objects of a conceptual realm. Which overall humanity and its social institutions recruit as principles and ideas to manage / guide / restrict our activities and cognitive contents and arbitrary impulses. Accordingly allowing the part of the social mass corresponding to authority to proclaim to the aforementioned individual or family that: "You are either deluded or full of ####". Even though this does not prevent their particular, isolated encounter from satisfying their own standard for evidence in regard to their limited circle; it only negates it for the broad public.

 I am afraid we have another misunderstanding.  

I like the saying that it isn't what happens to us that matters, but what we think about the event. [...]

I was speaking about the spirit, mind, body connect, with spirit being happy or sad, a high morale or low morale.  If we tend to be positive or negative people, it really matters physically.  Some people can be totally taken down by misfortune, and another, by living with intention, will quickly bypass the obstacles.   I was not talking about an alien abduction report and trying to convince everyone that happened.

[Carol]

Nice sob story. While I have no doubt that it may be completely true, I fail to see the point of interjecting it here, other than as an attempt to draw sympathy. Why would you even expect sympathy from strangers? And why would you expect it to have any weight in a discussion you assert is science?

I said, "Go right ahead" and post what you think my faults are. It won't bother me none, but you might not like the criticism it opens you up to. You know it's hypocritical to tell me "don't post" after stating, "I do not forgive...preventing...freedom of speech."

Here's a good refute of the base assumptions of the OP study: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ene...doscience/
And even just on its surface, if the heart has influence because of its 40,000 neurons (nerve cells), then the gut (dubbed the second brain) has way more influence because of its 100-500 million neurons. It's all pseudoscience.

I did not read past your introductory sentence.  I repeat, I do not read disrepectful posts.

Hey, that's a neat way to avoid anything that may refute your assumptions. It's obvious you're not interested in facts...just your own little fantasies.

Darling, if things weren't so slow I would continue to ignore your effort to bait me into arguing with you, when we have said nothing on topic. Where are the facts you want to argue? Present them without insults and I will read them and reply.

[Syne]

You don't get to dictate the terms of the discussion, deary, especially after you've already completely ignored the facts I offered. Where are they? You just quoted them. There's a link and the comment on the second brain.

[Carol]

You don't get to dictate the terms of the discussion, deary, especially after you've already completely ignored the facts I offered. Where are they? You just quoted them. There's a link and the comment on the second brain.

Oh yes, my dear, each one of us gets to determine how we will be treated, and we can choose to have nothing to do with someone who refuses to respect the boundaries we set for how we will be treated.   You have chosen to disrespect the boundaries I have set.  How well is this working for you?   I told you, I do not read beyond insults.  If you want to remove the insults, fault finding, and disrespect, things will proceed from there.  Try writing a post that is not offensive and see if that gets better results.  

[Syne]

You don't get to dictate the terms of the discussion, deary, especially after you've already completely ignored the facts I offered. Where are they? You just quoted them. There's a link and the comment on the second brain.

Oh yes, my dear, each one of us gets to determine how we will be treated, and we can choose to have nothing to do with someone who refuses to respect the boundaries we set for how we will be treated.   You have chosen to disrespect the boundaries I have set.  How well is this working for you?   I told you, I do not read beyond insults.  If you want to remove the insults, fault finding, and disrespect, things will proceed from there.  Try writing a post that is not offensive and see if that gets better results.  

You just defined your boundaries as willing to address facts, despite your trepidations with my manor:

Darling, if things weren't so slow I would continue to ignore your effort to bait me into arguing with you, when we have said nothing on topic. Where are the facts you want to argue? Present them without insults and I will read them and reply.

And since those facts have already been presented, you demanding I present them anew in a post wholly acceptable to you is dictating the terms of the discussion. My boundaries include not letting others manipulate me into appeasing their sensitivities. I've given you a second opportunity to address those facts, and instead of addressing them, you've chosen to continue your usual holier-than-thou affectation as a means to avoid them.

Since you have yet to demonstrate you can be minimally intellectually honesty, I really don't care what results I get from you. You've repeatedly squandered every chance I've given you to address facts like an adult, which is precisely why I address you as I do. If you want to repair the situation, start addressing facts. Otherwise, just stick to ignoring my posts (there's even a forum feature to do just that).