Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Beyond Human Trust in Science

HF;

Actually hearing that you got something out of this forum is a bonus for all of us. I believe that sharing different viewpoints is what makes this such a rich experience.

Jeff

Folks some of the replies can be construed as personal attacks. I don't think that is the real intention. Just remember to address the message not the messenger.

You'll also help the readers to quote the message not address the person who posted. Not all readers of the forums are PhotoReaders and it troubles them to have to hunt the post and figure what you're replying to. There are a couple of post where it appears the you're making comments about the person and not the message they were attempting to convery.

Just wanted to offer a reminder since I'd hate to see the topic become something other than a discussion or friendly debate.

Alex

Saw this and thought of this discussion:

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/36273/

hartreefoch,

Well, I see nothing wrong with giving the straight dope, you know? It's necessary to hear, I think. And at the same time, there is the importance of the power of the human spirit, the will to live.

I would want a doctor to tell me what he or she thought, and then I would want the doctor to shut the hell up and let me get on with my own decision. Some doctors will fight tooth and nail to try to make the patient do what the doctor thinks is right, because some doctors think they have a copyright on the truth. Seriously. And, when they are successful in their endeavors of injecting their mindset into the patient, sometimes they kill the spirit and end up killing the person.

I mean that. If you break someone's hope, their will to live, and they are terribly sick, you can kill them. That is, you can make them accept a fate instead of trying to fight and pursuing the fate they choose. And who knows? They might win. There are several cases where tenacious patients recover and they force their doctors to admit, "I can't understand it. So and so should be dead." Even then, with cases like cancer, some doctors will not put "cured" on a patient's case file. They'll put "in remission."

There was one program I saw on TV, and it had this woman who survived a cancer that her doctor told her was fatal. She chose to fight it, and the doctor fought her tooth and nail along the way. In the scene on TV they were STILL arguing over it. She had been cancer free for years and the doctor, exasperated, said, "What do you WANT?! What do you want me to do?!" and she said, "I WANT YOU TO MARK MY CASE AS CURED! Why can't you do that? Why can't you simply admit that I am better?"

He just couldn't do it.

So, you see, there is something pernicious about this tendency among some people to believe they know so much better than others. They think they've got it all down pat. They don't know when to let go and let someone do what they need to do, even if it ends up crashing and burning. At least they'll have tried.

I know most of the cases marked terminal ARE terminal. But I think the choice to fight or give in should be the domain of the patient and his or her loved ones, and I think a doctor should respect that decision and try and support the patient regardless of whether his or her choice meets the criteria of the doctor.

Todd Epstein, the partner of Robert Dilts, was an high-powered NLP guy. Robert Dilts is an NLP and health guy who helped his mom recover from cancer. Epstein died an early death from hepatitis. When people heard of it their reaction was, "WTF? Todd Epstein? Friend of Dilts? What? Couldn't NLP help?"

From reports, he *really* wanted to live, but just couldn't fight the disease. He tried. I am sure his friend Robert did the best he could to help. So, there are limitations with every approach. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.

The jury isn't out until the patient is in the coffin.

The reasons why, I suspect, some doctors can be so frustratingly negative and pessimistic is because hope and hanging on takes a terrible emotional toll on the doctors, who must deal with it daily for years and years. I believe the reasons for them being the way they are are not rational; they're emotional. Giving patients the straight dope according to experience and statistics at the outset, that's rational. Once that is done, everything else is for emotional reasons. After the news is delivered and received, the rhetoric about them wanting the patient and loved ones to be rational is confabulation. The real reason is self-protection. It's easier, emotionally, to handle a case with closure than a case with ambiguity.


Congratulations on your epiphany.

...

I appreciate everyone's compliments on my writing. In the future I'll probably stop being such a chicken and try to write a fantasy novel.

'I kept having to correct them for making incorrect statements'

Dear Hartreefoch,
You have really said it all.
How can you possibly say with any certainty that you are are correct and that half the population of the world is incorrect. We have to believe you just because you say so?

I don't think that you can make the type of statements you have done unless you are infallible and that is highly unlikely. We are all individuals and as such have our own views which may not always be in accord with others but that does not make them 'wrong' only different.

You said that' science gives the best result at the time' or something to that effect - and I agree, as we know science can be wrong and what is deemed to be correct at a particular time is later disproved. Science is not exact, it is only as good as the idea and the people who carry it out - much as everything else is. It may have stringent rules (sometimes) but that does not make it correct. It is only the best result (questionable) that can be produced at that point in time.

Re- Master Lin taken from 'Born a Healer'
Quote" In one test I was taken into a room with an electrical transformer. There were two electrical lines. One positive the other negative. They carried 220 volts of electricity. I had to grasp one line in each hand and use my body as a conductor to complete the circuit. It is another way to show your ability to control your own energy." I understand that a lot of Master Lin's energy work is and has been observed and tested by staff of the University of Minnesota.

Having said that, I find your posts interesting and challenging and after all that is what makes a good debate.

Babayada, You really should start your book as you have a talent with words which you should take to another level.

Love and light,
Faune

In my opinion, to take things to the next level (science, society, government, spirituality) and be “Beyond Human”, we will have to start recognizing the things that we believe that are not correct. It is easier to point out the flaws in science, than to point out the flaw in spirituality or government. But they all have flaws.

How many people believe Bernoulli's principle is what makes a plane fly? But people who design planes do not use Bernoulli's principle, they force air in a downward direction with the wings. How many people believe Newton's laws of gravity (with Einstein's corrections) are correct? But people who shoot satellites through our solar system have found that is reality doesn't exactly match the equations. How many people believe in the Big Bang theory of the universe? But it doesn't explain several anomalies such a quantized red shift, quasars having different red shift than neighboring stars, and lack of ever finding a single blue shift. How many people believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Yes, it explains things on a micro scale but not a macro scale. There are many known areas of dispute here.

Science makes for an easy target. But the reason to try and evolve scientific thinking to the next level is that it affects us in many ways. Darwin's survival of the fittest becomes a justification for the politics of capitalism. Does everyone here think that society in the United States right now is the absolute pinnacle of societal evolution, the highest we will ever reach. I recommend a book called Boomeritis by Ken Wilber for people who want to think about the evolution of thought. A major portion of the book is spiral Dynamics, the way we all evolve our thinking through levels and each level is identified by it's traits and given a color. A major theme of the book is that we have understand and nurture people's thinking who are at a lower level.

Spirituality is even worse than science for having many false paths and flawed thinking. But that is for another thread.

Making a Motion to end this thread.

All in Favor say "Aaaarg!"

(please refer to the SFQ forum/thread "can we change Reality" for the background on this.)

Yes - Aaaaaarg! Motion seconded.

Having over the past 6 decades read thousands of books I am now at a stage where I can truly say I know nothing.
Cheers
Faune