It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Biology of Belief, A Presentation That Will Change The Way You Think

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Yeah, Bruce Lipton is an interesting thinker. Biology of Belief was an awesome book, although now and then I'd disagree with a way he's thinking about something, the general idea, that environmental influences guide gene activities, this is true, and it's an extremely interesting, though extremely complex, area of science called "epigenetics".

I also bought Liptons "spontaneous evolution", where he discusses his deeper vision for the type of future he believes we humans can achieve. I love his vision, and I resonate deeply with his compassion and love he has for others. But again, I wouldn't say I agree with everything he says in that book either.


Perception seems to be the key in all of this....We already know how stress affects the body...would be interesting to see how happiness and gratefulness affect our biological processes!

GS




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeminiSky
a reply to: solomons path

Thank you for your OPINIONS...just to be clear not everyone shares them with you...is that alright? I don't agree 100% with everything presented, but I keep an open mind, and this information does resonate with me...dare i say, magnetically=)

GS


Regarding Lipton and Braden . . . They are the one's making the claim. It is their responsibility to present sufficient evidence for their claims. The greater the claim (like the supernatural) the greater the evidence needed. This is philosophical onus probandi:

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.


Legal burden of proof is equivalent . . . the burden lies with the prosecution making the claim to illegality.

It's not an opinion that Lipton's revelation is the product of something that we know happens and why, yet has nothing to do with consciousness. It's not an opinion that neither have evidence to back their claims and rely totally on assertion. It's not an opinion that nobody has provided evidence of the supernatural.

Do you think it merely my opinion that Santa Claus doesn't exist? Or Thor? Obviously, no one believes in those claims due to lack of any evidence . . . at any time. The difference is that there is no movement of pseudo-scientists pushing the idea of Santa Claus and making a better living than you, off of the gullible.

Having an open mind simply means being open to new ideas . . . however, the validity of those ideas rests in the evidence. Eschewing evidence in favor of fanciful tales is not being "open minded" . . . it's called being gullible.

I have no problem with people being interested in the ideas presented . . . the issue is when they are presented as fact, despite lacking any evidence for their claims. I typically don't let con men influence my view of reality.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

Um i dont think you got the memo....Thor and Santa do exist...only at different times of the year (duh)

I think Lipton puts forward a valid argument.

GS



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: GeminiSky

Well, we know endorphins - the feel good chemicals - support and enhance immune function by stimulating interleukin 1 release.

On the other hand, we also know that we need to be at least "a little bit stressed", which probably means eager and interestered in our environments, as opposed to what we would actually call "stress" i.e. mental and emotional agitation.

The biochemical processes that work within our body when were feeling happy and greatful are remarkably complicated. Even what we currently understand from brain chemistry is still but a 1 dimensional view at how biochemical processes actually happen in a synergistic system like the nervous system. No one chemical is acting at once - there are a multitude of biochemical processes happening in the brain as well as in the body whenever we experience an emotion. We can isolate that "this" chemical, lets say dopamine, is being released when an organism is interested and engaged with something. So dopamine is an "excitory" neurochemical. But in addition to this chemical, glutamate, which is a general neurtransmitter, is released whenever an "excitory" behavior is engaged. And on top of this there are a plethora of other neurochemicals. Together, a concoction of neurochemistry engenders specific changes in gene activation that induces electrical changes in neural functioning. And none of these events mean anything in themselves: together they produce each of our unique brain states.

The brain is so complicated. As much as we've learned, we are still remarkably ignorant of not only all the different neurochemical processes occurring between neurones, but of the many different types of neurons in the brain, as well as how these neurons interact with glia cells, etc.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeminiSky
a reply to: solomons path

Um i dont think you got the memo....Thor and Santa do exist...only at different times of the year (duh)

I think Lipton puts forward a valid argument.

GS


Lipton presents an interesting argument, heck even cool . . . I can agree with that. Validity, however, rests in the evidence provided to support the argument. Assertion is not evidence. It's not testable. Now, if he was presenting his view and claimed it rested in "faith" . . . like say Christianity or Hinduism. Or, if he didn't try to promote his "ideas" as scientific, but left them to the realm of conjecture based on philosophy . . . no problem. Philosophy can rest in opinion or conjecture. However, that is not the path that either of these con men have taken.

And after all . . . this site's motto: Deny Ignorance

de·ny
diˈnī/Submit
verb
1.
state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
"they deny any responsibility for the tragedy"
synonyms: contradict, controvert, repudiate, challenge, counter, contest, oppose, rebut; More
antonyms: confirm
refuse to admit the truth of (a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence).
"an anti-environmentalist campaign group that denies climate change"
2.
refuse to give or grant (something requested or desired) to (someone).
"the inquiry was denied access to intelligence sources"
synonyms: refuse, turn down, reject, rebuff, repulse, decline, veto, dismiss;



ig·no·rance
ˈignərəns/Submit
noun
lack of knowledge or information.
"he acted in ignorance of basic procedures"
synonyms: incomprehension of, unawareness of, unconsciousness of, unfamiliarity with, inexperience with, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about; informalcluelessness about
"a statement that shows a complete ignorance of the regulations"
lack of knowledge, lack of education, unenlightenment, illiteracy;
lack of intelligence, stupidity, foolishness, idiocy
"both ignorance and poverty contribute to the growing problem of forced child labor"


Far too many people refuse to actually practice this and that is all I'm trying to do here; rejecting a lack of knowledge or information. For instance, how many of Lipton's followers even understand Asymmetrical Cell Division? Lipton surely didn't when he observed it in the 60's. And if he does understand it, as you would suppose he should based on his background, then he is purposefully deceiving people to capitalize on the new agers and make a quick buck. . . . However, if one isn't inclined to actually investigate the claim (any claim), don't be surprised by those that don't buy the assertions and unsubstantiated claims of con men.

Trust me . . . I wish consciousness could effect physical matter. I'm sure I could make a boat load of money in Vegas or Powerball, then spend the rest of my days in someplace like Fiji working on my "consciousness".


Happy investigating . . .
edit on 4/29/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

You are saying that Bruce Lipton is a con man? Is that correct? Could you provide an explanation as to why you feel this way? Your right I don't really understand the advanced bio topics he speaks on, but it does sound plausible...at least to me.

Would love to see an argument against what he says that proves he is a con man.

GS



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path




And if he does understand it, as you would suppose he should based on his background, then he is purposefully deceiving people to capitalize on the new agers and make a quick buck. . . .


That makes absolutely no sense. Have you read this mans other books? To think he doesn't believe what he's preaching is absolutely ridiculous and seems to me to be a very poor assessment of another persons feelings about something.

Lipton is sincere, as we would and should assume about most writers. I am not a fan of attributing conspiratorial motives to people. Probability suggests that people really are emotional beings. And, at our core, we need coherency, and stability, and meaning. Lipton, in my mind, very much believes what he writes.

That said, I do agree that he definitely doesn't support the full breadth of his argument with logical evidences. Theres a lot of suppositions and non-sequitors in his argument.

For example, we can concede that environmental factors guide most if not all genetic activities. The Mcgill university neuroscientist Michael Meaney, for example, details with painstaking precision how environmental signals guide which genes become activated, and which don't. This is related to attachment theory. A positive and secure attachment, for example, will prevent the DRD4 gene variant (a dopamine creating gene) from becoming active. DRD4 is associated with hyper-reactivity, and is implicated in ADHD, autism, and other affect regulatory disorders. But it's been proven in rat pup models - and is daily shown in the lives of people who raise their children in a mindful way - that mice with this gene, if they receive the proper attachment from the mother rats i.e. licking and grooming, then the gene variant will be inhibited from becoming activated.

What happens in the future for such a creature? I'd imagine these early years provide a biogenetic stability for the remaining lifespan. If gene replication in neurons always produces a deactivated DRD4 variant, then the rat pup, despite a genetic "predisposition", should likely possess countervailing genetic forces stabilizing the nervous system in a state of "secure attachment".

What I'm skeptical of, or which definitely has not be definitively proven through research, is whether genes can actually be CHANGED, and not merely deactivated. Lipton mentions one case, and he treats this case as of overwhelming significance. When I read that, I sort of sensed a "wishful thinking" in Liptons thought processes.

However, I imagine Lipton is aware of this in his thought processes. And maybe he just '"skips" that point because he nevertheless believes that his yet scientifically proven intuition will one day proven true: that quantum processes enable mental control of genetic processes.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: solomons path




And if he does understand it, as you would suppose he should based on his background, then he is purposefully deceiving people to capitalize on the new agers and make a quick buck. . . .


That makes absolutely no sense. Have you read this mans other books? To think he doesn't believe what he's preaching is absolutely ridiculous and seems to me to be a very poor assessment of another persons feelings about something.

Lipton is sincere, as we would and should assume about most writers. I am not a fan of attributing conspiratorial motives to people. Probability suggests that people really are emotional beings. And, at our core, we need coherency, and stability, and meaning. Lipton, in my mind, very much believes what he writes.

That said, I do agree that he definitely doesn't support the full breadth of his argument with logical evidences. Theres a lot of suppositions and non-sequitors in his argument.

For example, we can concede that environmental factors guide most if not all genetic activities. The Mcgill university neuroscientist Michael Meaney, for example, details with painstaking precision how environmental signals guide which genes become activated, and which don't. This is related to attachment theory. A positive and secure attachment, for example, will prevent the DRD4 gene variant (a dopamine creating gene) from becoming active. DRD4 is associated with hyper-reactivity, and is implicated in ADHD, autism, and other affect regulatory disorders. But it's been proven in rat pup models - and is daily shown in the lives of people who raise their children in a mindful way - that mice with this gene, if they receive the proper attachment from the mother rats i.e. licking and grooming, then the gene variant will be inhibited from becoming activated.

What happens in the future for such a creature? I'd imagine these early years provide a biogenetic stability for the remaining lifespan. If gene replication in neurons always produces a deactivated DRD4 variant, then the rat pup, despite a genetic "predisposition", should likely possess countervailing genetic forces stabilizing the nervous system in a state of "secure attachment".

What I'm skeptical of, or which definitely has not be definitively proven through research, is whether genes can actually be CHANGED, and not merely deactivated. Lipton mentions one case, and he treats this case as of overwhelming significance. When I read that, I sort of sensed a "wishful thinking" in Liptons thought processes.

However, I imagine Lipton is aware of this in his thought processes. And maybe he just '"skips" that point because he nevertheless believes that his yet scientifically proven intuition will one day proven true: that quantum processes enable mental control of genetic processes.


Yes perhaps he is skipping a few things...skipping a few steps...but nonetheless something rings true in what he is presenting here..to me atleast=)

GS



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeminiSky
a reply to: solomons path

You are saying that Bruce Lipton is a con man? Is that correct? Could you provide an explanation as to why you feel this way? Your right I don't really understand the advanced bio topics he speaks on, but it does sound plausible...at least to me.

Would love to see an argument against what he says that proves he is a con man.

GS


I'll readily admit that is my opinion (con man) . . . my opinion of this is stronger for Lipton than Braden, as Braden is simply a new age author with no scientific background in what he claims. But, just as I demand evidence of them, the con man claim is not testable. Meaning, unless they are found guilty of fraud, how can one prove that they are intentionally swindling people. Both might "believe" what they claim, thus taking them out of con men category and placing them in "full of BS" category.

My opinion of Lipton, however, is based on his background (developmental biology) and the fact that as a scientist should be fully aware that he (as well as everyone else) has no evidence to support his claim that consciousness can effect gene expression. However, he does not claim simply this COULD be possible, keeping it at conjecture. He claims this as fact. Here is what wiki says of Lipton:

Bruce Harold Lipton, born 21 October 1944 at Mount Kisco, New York, is an American developmental biologist best known for promoting the idea that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person's beliefs. He is a visiting fellow lecturer at the New Zealand College of Chiropractic.

Sometime in the 1980s, Lipton, who had been a life-long atheist, had a mystical conversion and came to believe that the way cells functioned demonstrated the existence of a god.


Lipton states that he came up with his claims while working with stem cells in the late 60's. What he observed, and is common knowledge among biologists today, is asymmetric cell division (I posted an explanation of this in my first post). At the time, Lipton couldn't explain it. Instead of doing further research, he continued to believe there was something mystical at work. Until his "conversion" to new age spirituality, when he started the claim that states that consciousness must effect the growth and development of cells/form/function. Any credible scientist that went that direction, should have admitted that he has no evidence for his claim and even reneged on it when we understood more about how stem cells operate and divide.

Lipton didn't do this . . . he continued to promote the idea and finally wrote books asserting his claims as truth. All the while, he continued working in medicine and wrote other scholarly papers that had nothing to do with spirit or consciousness and presented clear evidence (mostly in muscle development). His claims of conscious directed development are only presented in his (non-scholarly) books and at new age conventions.

Lipton may really believe what he says, but knows, as a scientist, that his claims hold no weight and have no evidence to support them. This is the reason he doesn't present his claims to other biologists for review. To the new age crowd, his claims sound cool, possible, plausible, or simply fall in line with what they want to believe. He further deceives his audience by making his faith based claims sound "sciencey" . . . and after all he is a biologist and a doctor, so he must know what he is talking about . . . right?

To me . . . that's a con man. Taking advantage of those that don't know enough to call him out on his BS. If there was any evidence or truth to his claims, he has plenty of cache in the scientific community to get them published. Whether he really believes in the idea or not, he knows that his claims are not based on anything we've seen in reality. He also purposefully misrepresents known scientific concepts to help shoehorn is ideology in to the physical realm (like the stem cell example). To those without a background in biology . . . you would think he has some evidence for this . . . but, it's nothing but assertion.

Here is an example of what biologists think of his books (not his work at the University level):

Lipton's second claim is where the bulk of his ideas come from. He asserts that since proteins control gene expression that we somehow have power over that mechanism with our consciousness and proceeds to tell stories of miracle cures via hypnosis and meditation that can most likely be explained by cases of misdiagnosis or a very lucky recovery. The problem here is that proteins are made with instruction from DNA and specific proteins regulate the expression of certain genes. No gene, no regulatory protein, so genes indirectly control their own expression. As discussed in the previous point, changes in DNA are random, so we cannot control which gene is going to change to produce which protein unless we use genetic engineering. The misconception comes with epigenetics. The most dramatic epigenetic changes are permanent and happen early in development. Epigenetic changes in mature individuals are usually superficial, such as eye color changes, hormone levels, sleep cycle, and other processes that are already very self-regulated. More can be read on that topic here and here. Lipton claims that these processes can somehow be controlled with our beliefs and be used to unlock DNA that can help us live healthy and peacefully without the help from government or pharmaceutical companies. A classic snake-oil salesman who sells false hope to sick patients.

(FYI - Lipton's "First Claim" is that mutations do not happen randomly . . . they are under the control of the organism. Which begs the question: Why doesn't every boy grow up to be a big time athlete (tall, muscular, fast, strong), by simply wishing themselves better genetics?)

So, no, I can't show you a list of people he's defrauded ('cuz you can't defraud the willing) or a prison sentence for fraud . . . however, knowing what he knows and working in medical research utilizing all of the mechanisms that he claims (in his books) don't exist, I find it hard to reconcile that he doesn't really know he is bilking people and purposefully deceiving them into a false reality.

Hope that helps . . . I could get much more technical . . . but this is just a message board.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Yes . . . I know his work. As I said, above, I can't know if he really believes it or not. Just as you cannot. All we can go by is what he is saying or writes. Neither of us know what is in his heart and mind.

Regardless, as a scientist he knows he has no evidence leg to stand on and is the reason he writes new age books and attends new age conferences, as opposed to writing actual papers outlining his evidence and presenting a Biology conferences.

Furthermore, he should be well aware of asymmetrical cell division among stem cells and why you can separate stems cells once they begin division and they still form their disparate parts. He also misrepresents how proteins/genes interact in the developmental process. His claim is that proteins control genes and we can control proteins; therefore we are in control of our genes. That's a gross misrepresentation of the process and ignores that a gene regulates the protein to begin with and has production of the protein ensues it triggers other genes . . . which go on to regulate more proteins . . . etc.

I think he is a con man regardless . . . at best intellectually dishonest.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

Wow. Ok. Seriously man. If you want to come off as reasonable, you'd be advised to attribute a "romanticism' to Liptons thinking, instead of attributing malevolent motives to him.

What you're claiming isn't so "incontrovertibly" obvious to most biologists. I know plenty of biologists, and neuroscientists, who appreciate Liptons work. They may not go to the same lengths as he does, or might be willing to exercise more caution than he does, but they at least reserve judgement.

Perhaps, that is the hubris of the position that you, as well as Lipton, take. You make categorical conclusions. You've decided that its impossible - even though evidence could end up supporting Liptons argument - especially given the overwhelming placebo effect.

I actually think Lipton absolutely BELIEVES what he writes. Think about it, if you can, as a clinical psychologist would. Liptons thesis is: belief shapes our mental and biological reality. If that is the case, then Lipton will be extra considerate and mindful not to consider skeptical arguments too deeply, lest they penetrate his unconscious and 'bias' his belief in a skeptical manner.

It's ironic, yes. His writings really do not conduce to the scientific method, insomuch as he is outside the ball park, waiting the "ball to drop".



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path




That's a gross misrepresentation of the process and ignores that a gene regulates the protein to begin with and has production of the protein ensues it triggers other genes .


There is growing evidence that the mind does exercise power over gene processes. How else do you explain intervention programs like Son-Rise and the arrowsmith school, among many others, which essentially reverse learning disorders, autistic spectrum disorders, and affect regulatory disorders? Disorders often assumed to have specific "genetic" aetiology? You can be skeptical all you want, but the fact remains, the mind can regulate the brain - which means the mind influences biochemical processes which in turn induce deactivation or activation of genes.

This of course is different from what Lipton argues. Lipton believes this applies not only with mental-developmental disorders, but also with physical ailments outside central nervous control. In Liptons epistemology, events in the nervous system are of a higher order and thus regulate what happens in subsystems.

I personally don't know. I am inclined to agree with his intuition, but I am satisfied with what science is so far revealing about how much control human beings have in a) mindfully relating with our own experiences in a non-judgemental way b) influencing our environments. Lipton may be wrong, You may be wrong. I choose not to take too strong a position either way.
edit on 29-4-2014 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

I agree with you . . .

I have no problem with the concept or even discussing the idea. As I stated before, the issue is that he presents no evidence for his ideas outside of assertion and anecdotes, yet presents them as true.

I too know many biologists . . . as well as, microbiologists, biochemists, physicists, etc. from my years of teaching and my current involvement (though not teaching) at my local university. I myself have a degree in Developmental Psychology. And, you and I definitely run in different circles, as I never have heard any biologists or biochemists claim or give weight to any ideas that resemble Lipton's. Not out of bias, but a simple need for evidence. The closest I've heard is from Dr. Paul Davies (ASU), while presenting or over a beer, will discuss the possibility of God and speculate on the "whys, not just the hows". However, Davies is sure to point out that while theoretically plausible . . . there is no evidence to support.

Maybe Lipton should concentrate less on YouTube videos, get in the lab, and show some data?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: Astrocyte

I agree with you . . .

I have no problem with the concept or even discussing the idea. As I stated before, the issue is that he presents no evidence for his ideas outside of assertion and anecdotes, yet presents them as true.

I too know many biologists . . . as well as, microbiologists, biochemists, physicists, etc. from my years of teaching and my current involvement (though not teaching) at my local university. I myself have a degree in Developmental Psychology. And, you and I definitely run in different circles, as I never have heard any biologists or biochemists claim or give weight to any ideas that resemble Lipton's. Not out of bias, but a simple need for evidence. The closest I've heard is from Dr. Paul Davies (ASU), while presenting or over a beer, will discuss the possibility of God and speculate on the "whys, not just the hows". However, Davies is sure to point out that while theoretically plausible . . . there is no evidence to support.

Maybe Lipton should concentrate less on YouTube videos, get in the lab, and show some data?



These are lectures...that someone else posted on you tube. If you have never heard of something, or never heard another biologist talk about it in your circle does not rule out the possibility of it existing.

GS



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: solomons path




That's a gross misrepresentation of the process and ignores that a gene regulates the protein to begin with and has production of the protein ensues it triggers other genes .


There is growing evidence that the mind does exercise power over gene processes. How else do you explain intervention programs like Son-Rise and the arrowsmith school, among many others, which essentially reverse learning disorders, autistic spectrum disorders, and affect regulatory disorders? Disorders often assumed to have specific "genetic" aetiology? You can be skeptical all you want, but the fact remains, the mind can regulate the brain - which means the mind influences biochemical processes which in turn induce deactivation or activation of genes.

This of course is different from what Lipton argues. Lipton believes this applies not only with mental-developmental disorders, but also with physical ailments outside central nervous control. In Liptons epistemology, events in the nervous system are of a higher order and thus regulate what happens in subsystems.

I personally don't know. I am inclined to agree with his intuition, but I am satisfied with what science is so far revealing about how much control human beings have in a) mindfully relating with our own experiences in a non-judgemental way b) influencing our environments. Lipton may be wrong, You may be wrong. I choose not to take too strong a position either way.


Yes . . . again, I agree with you. The topic is Lipton and his views on biological development, not neurochemistry. As far his medical claims (physical), all he has to do is introduce all of the data he's collected over time showing how many people cure themselves . . . which are not related to remission, misdiagnosis, etc.

Again, I have no problem with proposing the notion . . . it's the assertive nature of his claims, lack of evidence, and his making money off of the new age movement.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: solomons path

Wow. Ok. Seriously man. If you want to come off as reasonable, you'd be advised to attribute a "romanticism' to Liptons thinking, instead of attributing malevolent motives to him.

What you're claiming isn't so "incontrovertibly" obvious to most biologists. I know plenty of biologists, and neuroscientists, who appreciate Liptons work. They may not go to the same lengths as he does, or might be willing to exercise more caution than he does, but they at least reserve judgement.

Perhaps, that is the hubris of the position that you, as well as Lipton, take. You make categorical conclusions. You've decided that its impossible - even though evidence could end up supporting Liptons argument - especially given the overwhelming placebo effect.

I actually think Lipton absolutely BELIEVES what he writes. Think about it, if you can, as a clinical psychologist would. Liptons thesis is: belief shapes our mental and biological reality. If that is the case, then Lipton will be extra considerate and mindful not to consider skeptical arguments too deeply, lest they penetrate his unconscious and 'bias' his belief in a skeptical manner.

It's ironic, yes. His writings really do not conduce to the scientific method, insomuch as he is outside the ball park, waiting the "ball to drop".


Yes I agree with your post 100%...While Lipton may be a little "out there" you cannot off the bat say that its malevolent or that hes a con mad or a fraud. Some people are so quick to scream hoax! fraud! even if in the end they are wrong..

GS



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: GeminiSky

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I'm not saying he doesn't give lectures . . . he clearly does at new age and spiritual conferences. He also does actual work at Universities. He doesn't give them at academic conferences attended by biologists or submit his findings for review . . . because you cannot submit work with no testable hypothesis and an absence of any data plot.

Also, my comment about biologist talking about was in reference to astrocyte's claim that he knows biologists that are open to his ideas . . . not that because I haven't heard biologists talk about them they don't exist.

BTW - when did the revolution or evolution that Lipton says in coming within a year (2012), in the second lecture, happen . . . it's been 2 years? Or was he wrong?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: GeminiSky

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I'm not saying he doesn't give lectures . . . he clearly does at new age and spiritual conferences. He also does actual work at Universities. He doesn't give them at academic conferences attended by biologists or submit his findings for review . . . because you cannot submit work with no testable hypothesis and an absence of any data plot.

Also, my comment about biologist talking about was in reference to astrocyte's claim that he knows biologists that are open to his ideas . . . not that because I haven't heard biologists talk about them they don't exist.

BTW - when did the revolution or evolution that Lipton says in coming within a year (2012), in the second lecture, happen . . . it's been 2 years? Or was he wrong?


Its coming...be patient dear..

GS



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: GeminiSky

No I haven't watched the video.

A youtube video is not scientific evidence nor is a platform where legitimate scientists present their findings. At best it would be used as a platform for a scientists to give talks.

I've checked google scholar and it does appear that Doctor Lipton is a real scientist, but none of his actual scientific publications involve the absurd idea that we can use thoughts to control our bodies with consciousness. If this guy wants to change minds he can take Randi's million dollar challenge, or preferably he can submit his findings for publication and peer review and overturn the current understanding. Going around giving talks and trying to sell a book (that's what The Biology of Belief is, a book) is all well and good but its going to convince the scientifically literate of anything.

What power our minds have over our bodies is extremely limited, as I said, mainly to psychosomatic reactions, the perception of pain, etc.
edit on 30-4-2014 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: GeminiSky

No I haven't watched the video.

A youtube video is not scientific evidence nor is a platform where legitimate scientists present their findings. At best it would be used as a platform for a scientists to give talks.

I've checked google scholar and it does appear that Doctor Lipton is a real scientist, but none of his actual scientific publications involve the absurd idea that we can use thoughts to control our bodies with consciousness. If this guy wants to change minds he can take Randi's million dollar challenge, or preferably he can submit his findings for publication and peer review and overturn the current understanding. Going around giving talks and trying to sell a book (that's what The Biology of Belief is, a book) is all well and good but its going to convince the scientifically literate of anything.

What power our minds have over our bodies is extremely limited, as I said, mainly to psychosomatic reactions, the perception of pain, etc.


Oh alright...because you see my thread is about the information presented in the video, which is in my OP.. Perhaps if you watch it you can offer valuable input. I will be here waiting.

GS



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join