--- Begin Message ---
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--- End Message ---
