Thanks for the welcome, although I'm not sure why someone who has been posting 10 times a day for 2 months needs welcoming ;-]
If you think calling somebody's words "outrageous, quackery and juju", is classified as "reasonable debate", you are free to do so. Sounds a tad more like outright dismissal with a topping of spite. Molly's personal characteristics have nothing to do with my determinations about the subject. I did not agree with her because I find her "an intelligent, well rounded thinker" [ I don't even know what she looks like ;-], but because I have been practicing what she is talking about for decades. In my experience, positive thinking has affected my physical health. To clarify what I meant when I said that I was "surprised at the resistance"; I am not surprised that many do not accept her words, doubters in this area are a dime a dozen. What did surprise me was the harshness of language spoken by those who have admonished me for pointed wording that I rarely use in my posts, although typically directed at abusive types, and not someone reasonable like Molly. In fact, Molly's responses to these personal attacks have been very reserved as I am sure she would have loved to return the volley in kind. Like I said, must be something to do with the moon ;-] On Aug 4, 11:39 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Welcome to the Minds Eye, Deripsni. ;) Rigorous debate, especially in areas > of study which may be scientifically immature (as has been suggested by > some), is the norm. What would be more surprising around here would be for a > "New Age" type idea to sail by unchecked. I find Molly to be an intelligent > and well rounded thinker, who is capable and articulate when verbalizing and > defending her viewpoints, and I'm sure she's not surprised at the > resistance. Rational thought is something we value here, so any idea which > doesn't seem to sit right to any one of us according to our own rational > understanding of the available data will be fully analyzed and chewed on. > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:46 PM, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I support that analysis, and am a little surprised at the resistance. > > > On Aug 4, 6:09 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There is a link between neurochemistry and emotion, Chris, but the > > > direction of cause is in dispute. Basically happy people have a > > > balance in body chemistry that reflects that. Constantly angry people > > > have a body chemistry that reflects that. Two different body > > > chemistry balances in many ways. Are you saying that the chemistry > > > drives the emotion? Because I think it is the other way around, and > > > that we can learn to maintain emotional health just as we can learn to > > > maintain physical health. > > > > On Aug 4, 5:38 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The reason I come back to injections, Molly, is because we know that > > > > chemicals control moods, shape them. Seratonin, dopamine, oxytocin, > > > > adrenaline...these are the building blocks of our emotions. Our moods > > do not > > > > create them...they would not exist without them. Outside stimulus will > > cause > > > > response, and with conscious effort, we can indeed learn to, in some > > small > > > > way, mitigate their production, but it is not circular to recognize the > > > > causal nature of neurochemistry to mood. The injection experiment would > > be > > > > empirical proof of this; if your mood was capable of mitigating a > > > > contradictory dosage of neurochemical cocktail, it would provide > > scientific > > > > evidence to support your statement. > > > > > But then, according to your post, this isn't about scientific facts, > > this is > > > > about individual truths (read: faith). > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Again, the which came first circular argument. I am not saying that > > > > > neurochemistry does not exist, Chris, only that it is not the whole > > > > > picture. And this is not the first time you have suggested that I > > > > > inject something to prove your point (or Ian's). I guess you didn't > > > > > understand my post above when I said that is up to YOU to prove to > > > > > yourself, not me to prove to you. I have already proved it to myself. > > > > > I have learned with much contemplation and self examination, to > > > > > regulate my moods and emotional responses. You may take a pill to > > > > > regulate yours, I don't know. As I say, to each his own. > > > > > > On Aug 4, 5:15 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > It's easy enough to test your theory, Molly. I can inject you with > > the > > > > > > chemicals which WILL alter your mood, and you can attempt to combat > > them > > > > > by > > > > > > willing your mood to change the chemicals. > > > > > > > How can the mood exist outside of the chemicals? The mood IS the > > > > > chemicals. > > > > > > Neurochemistry is not some dark and unexplored science. There is > > much > > > > > > research available. Here's a good start > > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=b... > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Molly Brogan < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > While chemical balance is one part of our "health," claiming that > > it > > > > > > > the entire picture is a very narrow focus. You seem to be > > presenting > > > > > > > the premise that our chemical balance produces our mood. I > > suggest > > > > > > > that our mood effects our chemical balance. Quackery and juju > > works > > > > > > > both ways, and simply can't get away with it anymore may also > > apply to > > > > > > > an outdated medical model. The paradigm of science itself is > > > > > > > changing, although mainstream is slow to catch up. > > > > > > > > Orn, you did mean posters and not posers, I take it. Very funny. > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 4:32 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The body can heal itself; this is not a revelation, it does > > this > > > > > > > > continuously, every day, with the production of new cells. The > > > > > operating > > > > > > > > factor and scope for variability, and there is only one, is the > > > > > chemical > > > > > > > > balance of the body in question. Mood is part of this. > > > > > > > > > Why try to dress this up with quackery and juju? You simply > > can't get > > > > > > > away > > > > > > > > with it any more. > > > > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
