Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS This has been both a fascinating and lengthy discussion thread. ... A rock, imo, is conscious of the Earth but it is not self-conscious. It is knows to fall to the earth, but it doesn't worry about hurting itself. It solves many problems if we grant consciousness to so called dead matter, and instead ask how uncousciousness and self- consciousness arose. Harry Self-Consciousness may be over rated. Do I detect a note of sarcasm? ;-) I use consciousness and self-consciousness as synonyms for awareness and self-awareness. I don't, and I don't agree with Jed on a number of points, but unfortunately I ran out of energy on debating this one so I am going to let it slide (and anyhow it is kind of off topic). I'm actually happier with an assertion that rocks are conscious than I am with an assertion that behavioral psychology has already provided an answer to the question what is consciousness? but whatever... It's been a busy and somewhat stressful week here, as our newly acquired (and obviously conscious!) family member, who had previously been living under our porch (and whose picture I have attempted to attach -- we'll see if it goes through) has been throwing up regularly since she got back from her checkup at the vet a few hours after her arrival. It's apparently a bad reaction to the antibiotic which was supposed to keep her from getting sick. Feedings once every hour, and every third feeding, she barfs ... oy. One of these days I may post the parts of Cattic which I've deciphered -- a half dozen words (mostly non-visual) and a few sentences, a bit more complex than one might have expected, but probably all innate rather than learned... inline: IMG_5461.small.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
This has been both a fascinating and lengthy discussion thread. ... A rock, imo, is conscious of the Earth but it is not self-conscious. It is knows to fall to the earth, but it doesn't worry about hurting itself. It solves many problems if we grant consciousness to so called dead matter, and instead ask how uncousciousness and self-consciousness arose. Harry Self-Consciousness may be over rated. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS This has been both a fascinating and lengthy discussion thread. ... A rock, imo, is conscious of the Earth but it is not self-conscious. It is knows to fall to the earth, but it doesn't worry about hurting itself. It solves many problems if we grant consciousness to so called dead matter, and instead ask how uncousciousness and self- consciousness arose. Harry Self-Consciousness may be over rated. Do I detect a note of sarcasm? ;-) I use consciousness and self-consciousness as synonyms for awareness and self-awareness. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
As the Petunia said, Oh no, not again. Terry On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:39 AM, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This has been both a fascinating and lengthy discussion thread. ... A rock, imo, is conscious of the Earth but it is not self-conscious. It is knows to fall to the earth, but it doesn't worry about hurting itself. It solves many problems if we grant consciousness to so called dead matter, and instead ask how uncousciousness and self-consciousness arose. Harry Self-Consciousness may be over rated. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: As the Petunia said, Oh no, not again. Terry Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
To Doctor Hume, I presume, O' wise and enchanted wizard, please tell us why we are to discard the laws of human nature in favor of some new learned science. We have religiously applied the old laws and never had a problem . Our old book of miracles worked. Perhaps you can inquire of the masters of political science, that know everything, but are unapproachable except by those holding the magical powers of creating money out of thin air. Are we to assume the new broom will sweep the gloom, or we to resume using the old laws ? At present we have the theory that pond scum can be used for something besides running the nation on hot air. Before we resume , please close the flume. Bloom
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: For example, Dr. Irvin S. Y. Chen, director of the AIDS Institute at U.C.L.A. , is working on using RNA hairpin scissors to cut out the bits of genetic material in blood stem cells that code for the receptors. . . . This strikes me as a very promising approach to a cure. Right. Yes. The Chen approach may be promising, and based on this other result with bone marrow transplant, we now have good reason to think it will work. (There was reason to thinks so before, but this bolsters it.) What I meant was that the procedures used with the particular patient cannot be duplicated on a large scale. The lessons learned from this case may contribute to a more practical cure. A marrow transplant cure, especially using gene therapy on the patient's own cells to obtain the new marrow, is well within the reach of US medical capabilities, both technically and financially. This kind of cure, gene therapy, is already being used for cancer, at least experimentally. It may or may not be affordable on a world wide basis, and certainly not at this moment of financial crisis. I agree that a vaccine or other cheaper approach is clearly much needed. Still, I think it has been undeniable that marrow transplant can provide a cure for AIDS since we knew that some people have immune systems that are immune to AIDS. Gene therapy simply provides a safer cheaper way to accomplish the transplant, and it took a long time to identify the gene. Along the same lines, I do not think that bulk Pd-D electrochemical cold fusion will ever become a practical source of energy. It takes too long to turn on, it uses too much rare Pd, it is inherently difficult to control, and so on. However, it may teach us something about the reaction that can be applied to other materials, or that points to a theory. For that reason, I think we should continue work on this approach. It may be that high temperature operation combined with a Mo-Fe nano- mix might be involved, due to the high tunneling rate of hydrogen in these metals. The above argument is a marvelous demonstration that logic applied to false premises can result in false conclusions. Hume's argument assumes the laws of nature apply to everything in nature. This is an unproven assumption. Well, not perfectly proven, but Hume (and I) are of the opinion Yes, your empiricism is a mater of faith, a premise, not a proved or provable assertion. that nothing can be proven beyond doubt, and all proof is based on repetitive observations with no solid observations to the contrary. One of a kind events may be such that they have no observations to the contrary or which are contrary to all other related events. This is practically a definition of a one of a kind event. We are empiricists. Thus, for example, the fact that special relativity predicts time dilation and that nothing can go at the speed of light does not prove those assertions as much as the fact that people have measured time dilation; and they have never observed any physical object reach the speed of light, or any variation in the speed of light, although they have looked carefully. Here you yet again show your extreme bias. You can not accept that any event can violate the laws by which the universe typically operates, especially an event which represents an intelligent intervention. The second law of thermodynamics is still entirely empirical as far as I know, but I believe it as much as I believe laws that are backed by gobs of theory. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems. Nothing in the universe is a fully closed system, so there is necessarily the possibility of exceptions. Closed systems are imaginary things. I am well aware of the fact that the MM experiments were not fully convincing, and some smart people still think there may be variations in the speed of light from ether, but from an empiricist point of view, it is true for now, true as anything, and true enough to act upon -- and there is no better or more solid definition of truth. Such a limited view of things! It is as limited as the notion that man will never fly. The laws of nature are determined by science, and the domain of science is only those things in nature which are repeatable. That is incorrect. Science deals with countless non-repeatable, uncontrollable, one-off phonomena, such as the emergence of life on earth, the emergence of individual species (which are never duplicated) the creation and death of the universe (cosmology), super-nova, and of course experiments that are uncontrolled and difficult to repeat such as cold fusion and semiconductors in the 1930s Here again you show your inability to conceive that one of a kind events can operate outside the laws of physics. You *assume*
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Horace Heffner wrote: A marrow transplant cure, especially using gene therapy on the patient's own cells to obtain the new marrow, is well within the reach of US medical capabilities, both technically and financially. I do not think so. A bone marrow transplant costs ~$250,000 and there are 1.1 million people suffering from AIDS in the U.S. I do not think we can afford $275 billion to cure them. I do not think you could find ~1.1 million donors, or the hospital space, or enough doctors. Also, hundreds of thousands of the patients would die, whereas people may soon live indefinitely with conventional AIDS treatments. Well, not perfectly proven, but Hume (and I) are of the opinion Yes, your empiricism is a matter of faith, a premise, not a proved or provable assertion. It is not based on faith but rather experiment and observation of nature. That does not prove it is true, but it is at least objective and not based on faith or imagination. You can not accept that any event can violate the laws by which the universe typically operates . . . Laws of physics are absolute, not typical. If you ever confirm an exception, that proves you do not understand the laws, not that they have been violated. In biology behavior is typical and there are many exceptions to every rule (which are actually only 'rules of thumb' or approximations). . . . especially an event which represents an intelligent intervention. Obviously intelligent intervention can prevent the laws of nature from operating! Here again you show your inability to conceive that one of a kind events can operate outside the laws of physics. I can conceive of such events easily! Anyone can. But as far as I know, they never occur. There is no evidence for them, and no reason to think they exist. You *assume* all such events operate under these laws. No, I know of no solid, objective evidence for events that do not operate under these laws. That's quite a different assertion. As time goes by we see how silly some of the conceptual frameworks of science are. Some are, but others are not. Often such descriptions of one of a kind events are nothing more than hypotheses which can never be proven empirically or otherwise. A hypothesis that can never be proven (tested -- proved or falsified) has no meaning in the real world. It is not a scientific hypothesis, but only speculation. Your belief in your faith of science of course has no relevance to those who have experienced miracles. No one has ever experienced a miracle. All reported experiences are myths, misunderstandings, experiences of natural events misunderstood, and so on. There are no credible, objectively measured reports of miracles. Your belief that laws of science apply to all events in the universe without exception, that yours is the one true religion, is as closed minded as any other form of fundamentalism. That is true. We lack imagination, and we refuse to believe any assertion about the physical world that is not measured with instruments or other objective means (usually repeatable means -- but not always). This is indeed very limiting, and it takes away much of the magic of life, and large chunks of human culture and history. But in my opinion, this is a virtue, not a fault. I think that people who believe in miracles suffer from having too much imagination. They are too open-minded. (There are also many people in the over-unity energy field who suffer from these problems.) Overactive imagination has held back the progress of the human race almost as much as not having enough imagination. There are many reasons for this. First, as Artemous Ward put it: it ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so. Imagining things which are not there can get you into as much trouble as being blind to real things. Many pre-modern medical treatments were based on imaginary medical theory such as the balance of humours and they used to kill more patients than they saved. Imaginary weapons of mass destruction have caused a lot of grief lately. Another reason is that having an imaginary solution to a problem may prevent you from looking for a real solution. For example, if you think that living species were created by an intelligent being (either all at once, or gradually), or that they came from another planet, you may not see any point to looking for naturalistic, evolutionary mechanisms. This will prevent progress in biology, medicine, and self-knowledge. It will reinforce other harmful, imaginary and nonsensical notions such as racial superiority. As Francis Bacon pointed out, it is better to reject lots dubious knowledge and be left with few beliefs than it is to accept too much, too uncritically, without applying objective standards and methods of testing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Horace Heffner wrote: On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I am well aware of the fact that the MM experiments were not fully convincing, and some smart people still think there may be variations in the speed of light from ether, but from an empiricist point of view, it is true for now, true as anything, and true enough to act upon -- and there is no better or more solid definition of truth. Such a limited view of things! It is as limited as the notion that man will never fly. The MM experiment was designed to test a prediction made by a particular aether theory which was widely accepted at that time. The prediction was contradicted by the results of the experiment. The predicted behavior was well within the domain of applicability of the aether theory from which the prediction was made, and the result was different from the prediction by much more than the size of the error bars. Consequently that particular aether theory may be said to have been disproved, and may be safely considered to be a false theory. The MM experiment showed nothing about any other (different) aether theory which might be conceived with behavior which happens to match the results (nor did it say anything about the possibility of occasional miraculous results caused by intervention by the hyper-scientist who is running the simulation which we perceive as Our Universe). If we assume for the moment that classical relativity is Absolutely True and the intrinsic curvature of spacetime is the One True Cause of stuff like gravity, then we can add that neither the MM experiment nor any other experiment done to date has any bearing on the question of whether the universe has *extrinsic* curvature, such as the curvature of the surface of a cylinder, or the curvature of a piece of pleated fabric. If spacetime is embedded in some higher space, and if it has *extrinsic* curvature in that space, then that extrinsic curvature could provide shortcuts which would allow objects and information to get from one place to another faster than C, with no contradictions and no conflict with relativity theory.
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
The realm of science is the observable, testable, measurable universe, the physical universe. There may be things that exists entirely outside of this physical universe, or which can occasionally be part of the physical universe, or occasionally affect it. Perhaps higher dimensional things, the existence of which here are merely lower dimensional projections, shadows so to speak, can on occasion be observed. We can not reliably observe or control things while they exist entirely outside our dimensions, certainly not if such things have free will. It seems to me that to be an open minded scientist it is necessary to accept the possibility there are some things which are not knowable, which are outside the domain of science and yet which might from time to time be part of everyday life. There may exist both spiritual and physical realms, with some intersection. It certainly is true that science applies to almost all experience. By definition miracles are not commonplace. Many people can these days go through life comfortably thinking everything can be explained by science. There were times when everything in life appeared to be up to fate, to choices of fate, deities, or the one God. Until the discovery of probability theory, most everything happening in nature appeared to be purely arbitrary, outside the control or even predictive powers of mere mortals. Philosophers controlled truth only in their ideal conceptual worlds, with little to say about near truth, probable truth. For predictions one needed to consult oracles or shamans, etc. There is a beautiful book on the history of this subject: Against the Gods, the Remarkable Story of Risk, by Peter L. Berenstein. Understanding probability theory has played a huge roll in the development of science and commerce, and has played a large role in the diminishing of the daily need of religion or the occult to provide some framework within which to live life with some degree of comfort or understanding about the future. Things have progressed so much with such regularity it is tempting to think the process can be taken to complete knowledge, to think science is completely in conflict with religion and vice versa, that science can now or eventually can be used to understand everything. However, this is not true if science has hard limits to its domain. As long as the possibility of a non-physical part of the universe exists, science is limited in its domain. Similarly some might think religion has all the answers one needs. When religious faith contradicts well established scientific evidence, as in Galileo's case, it usually is religion that is ultimately embarrassed. Yet religion has much to say about the ethics of science, and science has no certain say about the miracles of religion despite the confidence of the scientists that might confabulate regarding them. It seems to me not hypocritical for a scientist to be religious, nor for the religious to study science, and that the ethical thing to do is respect the rights of others to hold their views and express them while the world struggles to find a consensus, or determine if a consensus is even possible. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Horace, science and religion play by different rules. Science uses objective, testable reality and religion uses faith, i.e. the arbitrary belief based on tradition. Of course the two can never agree. Science does not give anyone the right to believe any anything that evidence shows is wrong. Religion, on the other hand, rejects any belief that is not part of the particular tradition. Mankind only made progress when this faith-based approach was changed, at least with respect to the physical world. If the rules of science were applied to a study of the spirit reality, then progress in understanding the spirit could be made and agreement could be reached. Science is now exploring this approach, but religion never will. As a result, religion is slowly becoming irrelevant and, I predict, will someday become as pointless as some of the strong beliefs mankind held about the physical world in the past. Ed On Nov 19, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Yet religion has much to say about the ethics of science, and science has no certain say about the miracles of religion despite the confidence of the scientists that might confabulate regarding them. It seems to me not hypocritical for a scientist to be religious, nor for the religious to study science, and that the ethical thing to do is respect the rights of others to hold their views and express them while the world struggles to find a consensus, or determine if a consensus is even possible. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Horace Heffner wrote: The realm of science is the observable, testable, measurable universe, the physical universe. There may be things that exists entirely outside of this physical universe, or which can occasionally be part of the physical universe, or occasionally affect it. Perhaps higher dimensional things, the existence of which here are merely lower dimensional projections, shadows so to speak, can on occasion be observed. We can not reliably observe or control things while they exist entirely outside our dimensions, certainly not if such things have free will. It seems to me that to be an open minded scientist it is necessary to accept the possibility there are some things which are not knowable, which are outside the domain of science and yet which might from time to time be part of everyday life. There may exist both spiritual and physical realms, with some intersection. It certainly is true that science applies to almost all experience. By definition miracles are not commonplace. Many people can these days go through life comfortably thinking everything can be explained by science. Only if they don't think too far, or they simply deny the validity of any question which is difficult to frame. (The latter is a common strategy among hard-headed realists.) In fact an awful lot of this issue of everything is understood comes right back to the central question which can't be addressed, or even properly framed, at this time, in the current state of our knowledge, which is what is consciousness? I'm conscious; I'm certain of that, by direct experience. Are you, Horace? I would assume so, but I can't prove it, because I have no test for consciousness, nor even a particularly good definition. And as I think I've observed before on this list, the lack of a test can be demonstrated trivially with a reductio ad absurdum: I will assume you are conscious, and you may assume I'm conscious. How about a chimpanzee? Is it conscious? Presumably so! How about a gorilla? Lots like a chimp, but not quite, eh? How about a dolphin? How about a sea otter? How about a dog? How about an octopus (they're highly intelligent, even if highly alien)? How about a giant squid? How about a mouse? How about a turtle? How about a snake? How about a worm? How about a cockroach? How about an apid? How about a corn plant? How about an amoeba? How about a rock? There's a line there somewhere between things that are conscious and things that are not, but there's no way to determine with any certainty *where* to draw it, because the concept of consciousness is entirely outside the ken of modern science. I would claim that this is a rather important hole in our current knowledge base.
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:24 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: A marrow transplant cure, especially using gene therapy on the patient's own cells to obtain the new marrow, is well within the reach of US medical capabilities, both technically and financially. I do not think so. A bone marrow transplant costs ~$250,000 and there are 1.1 million people suffering from AIDS in the U.S. I do not think we can afford $275 billion to cure them. I do not think you could find ~1.1 million donors, or the hospital space, or enough doctors. Also, hundreds of thousands of the patients would die, whereas people may soon live indefinitely with conventional AIDS treatments. I don't have any idea what you are talking about. The source of the transplant can be the patient himself. It is not even necessary to wipe out the patent's immune system because AIDS will do that for him. When the genetically modified marrow is injected it will grow to take over the system. The patient is never without immunity. This can be an outpatient procedure. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote on 11-18-08: The Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to test a prediction made by a particular aether theory which was widely accepted at that time. The prediction was contradicted by the results of the experiment. Hi All, Lorentz explained the null result of the MM experiment by inventing length contraction. Apparently he believed that length contraction saved the ether theory of that time. Jack Smith Stephen A. Lawrence also wrote: According to the Kiplinger Letter, dated Nov 14 [2008], they had the following comment to make concerning our nation's natural gas reserves: ``A U.S. natural gas boom? Better believe it, and it'll begin in just a year. Look for rapid development of monumental-size natural gas deposits trapped in mile-deep shale formations that zigzag beneath N.Y., Pa., Ohio and W.Va. The Marcellus Play contains as much as 1000 trillion cubic feet of gas. If there is that much and it can all be mined, it will meet U.S. needs for 40 years, at current usage. New drilling techniques make it more feasible and profitable. Among the firms involved: MarkWest Energy Resources and Atlas Energy Partners. That should slow the rise in prices. They've soared 400% since 2000. But relief may be tempered. Demand for gas will grow sharply when Congress imposes emission limits on carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming. That will mean a greater reliance on gas-powered plants.'' Jack writes: I think T. Boone Pickens has the right idea here: Generate 400,000 mega-watts of electricity, half the U. S. current electrical capacity, with windmills in the Texas to Canada wind corridor. Shut down the U. S. power plants currently using methane (about 20% of U. S. capacity), and use that methane as compressed natural gas to fuel most U. S. trucks. That would reduce U. S. oil consumption by 30%, according to Pickens.
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Horace Heffner wrote: The realm of science is the observable, testable, measurable universe, the physical universe. There may be things that exists entirely outside of this physical universe, or which can occasionally be part of the physical universe, or occasionally affect it. Well, there may be, but I have never seen any credible evidence for this. All kinds of things might be true, but aren't -- or are not known. It seems to me that to be an open minded scientist it is necessary to accept the possibility there are some things which are not knowable, which are outside the domain of science and yet which might from time to time be part of everyday life. There is a big difference between accepting the possibility and believing something to be true. A scientist will only believe that which we have credible evidence for. I accept the possibility that life on earth may be seeded from some other planet. That is at least plausible, and it does not break any natural laws as far as I know. But until I see evidence for it I will not believe it. There may exist both spiritual and physical realms, with some intersection. Spiritual phenomena are entirely meta-phenomena of the mind. That is, they exist only in brain tissue, just as programs exist only in computers. Spiritual phenomena and things like love, hate, jealousy, justice and beauty have no meaning or existence outside of the brain. That does not mean they are nonexistent! The intrinsic meaning of animal behavior also exists only in the brain. That is to say, when a bird, wolf or human exhibits courtship behavior, anger, fear or joy, those behaviors have meaning to another creature with DNA similar to ours. They mean a lot to us, and they are instantly recognizable, because we know what it feels like to be angry or in love. It certainly is true that science applies to almost all experience. Not almost all. As far as anyone can tell so far it applies to all experience. No one has found a phenomenon that does not appear to be explicable by science, although of course there are countless unexplained phenomena. One of them might turn out to be inexplicable. If that happens you will have a point. Until it happens you have nothing. By definition miracles are not commonplace. Many people can these days go through life comfortably thinking everything can be explained by science. Everything can be explained? Or has been explained? The first assertion is likely but unproven. There is no counter evidence indicating that something inexplicable might exist -- but you never know when such evidence might emerge. The second is preposterous. In the remaining life of the stars (6 billion years?) our species cannot possibly explain more than an infinitesimally small fraction of all remaining open questions. As I wrote in the book: Progress may not continue infinitely, but as Jefferson said it will continue indefinitely, and to a term which no one can fix and foresee. We are nowhere near the limits yet. Were the empire of the unknown as large as North America, we have established a few settlements on the coast; we have some notion how large the continent may be, and we are still debating whether California is an island or a peninsula. There are 3,000 miles of unexplored wilderness to the west. Even this analogy is an understatement. The unknown and unexplored facets of nature will never decrease in number. Each new answer reveals dozens or scores of new mysteries. We will, someday, run out of gumption and stop seeking answers, but we can never run out of questions. Things have progressed so much with such regularity it is tempting to think the process can be taken to complete knowledge . . . Mr. Jefferson I disagree, as I said. I doubt anyone could even define complete knowledge, and I am sure we will never achieve it. I expect we could concentrate most human effort on understanding the biology of E. coli for the next 6 billion years and never completely understand it, down to the string theory level. But we will eventually answer all useful questions about E. coli, and Homo sapiens to for that matter. That leaves maybe . . . 10E100 other species in the universe to understand. And some equal number of materials that can be constructed from common elements such as carbon, many of them -- such as palladium deuteride -- having unique and startling qualities we have never dreamed of. . . . to think science is completely in conflict with religion and vice versa, that science can now or eventually can be used to understand everything. These are non sequiturs. Conflict with religion has nothing to do with understanding everything. Science does conflict with religion. Most scientists are unable to believe in religion, or have no interest in believing it. Societies where religion is widespread are resistant to science. (I did not make that up. There are many sociological studies of
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Stephen, why do you postulate there must be a line? Like intelligence, consciousness could be non-discrete, simply increasing mechanically with the complexity of the organized system. Can't you imagine elaborate robots in the future thinking I'm conscious; I'm certain of that, by direct experience.? A line would definitely have to be drawn for the concept of soul (either you have it or not), but not for consciousness I don't think. Michel 2008/11/19 Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Horace Heffner wrote: The realm of science is the observable, testable, measurable universe, the physical universe. There may be things that exists entirely outside of this physical universe, or which can occasionally be part of the physical universe, or occasionally affect it. Perhaps higher dimensional things, the existence of which here are merely lower dimensional projections, shadows so to speak, can on occasion be observed. We can not reliably observe or control things while they exist entirely outside our dimensions, certainly not if such things have free will. It seems to me that to be an open minded scientist it is necessary to accept the possibility there are some things which are not knowable, which are outside the domain of science and yet which might from time to time be part of everyday life. There may exist both spiritual and physical realms, with some intersection. It certainly is true that science applies to almost all experience. By definition miracles are not commonplace. Many people can these days go through life comfortably thinking everything can be explained by science. Only if they don't think too far, or they simply deny the validity of any question which is difficult to frame. (The latter is a common strategy among hard-headed realists.) In fact an awful lot of this issue of everything is understood comes right back to the central question which can't be addressed, or even properly framed, at this time, in the current state of our knowledge, which is what is consciousness? I'm conscious; I'm certain of that, by direct experience. Are you, Horace? I would assume so, but I can't prove it, because I have no test for consciousness, nor even a particularly good definition. And as I think I've observed before on this list, the lack of a test can be demonstrated trivially with a reductio ad absurdum: I will assume you are conscious, and you may assume I'm conscious. How about a chimpanzee? Is it conscious? Presumably so! How about a gorilla? Lots like a chimp, but not quite, eh? How about a dolphin? How about a sea otter? How about a dog? How about an octopus (they're highly intelligent, even if highly alien)? How about a giant squid? How about a mouse? How about a turtle? How about a snake? How about a worm? How about a cockroach? How about an apid? How about a corn plant? How about an amoeba? How about a rock? There's a line there somewhere between things that are conscious and things that are not, but there's no way to determine with any certainty *where* to draw it, because the concept of consciousness is entirely outside the ken of modern science. I would claim that this is a rather important hole in our current knowledge base.
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Horace Heffner wrote: I don't have any idea what you are talking about. The source of the transplant can be the patient himself. The method used on the patient in Germany required a transplant from someone else, who happened to have the correct genetic makeup. The patient required a transplant anyway to cure his cancer, so they threw in the AIDS-defeating DNA transplant. The method you are describing would be far better. As far as I have heard, gene therapy of this nature has not progressed to the point of being practical yet. Last I heard it killed several patients, and they put it on hold. That was years ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
On Nov 19, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: [snip interesting argument] There's a line there somewhere between things that are conscious and things that are not, but there's no way to determine with any certainty *where* to draw it, because the concept of consciousness is entirely outside the ken of modern science. I would claim that this is a rather important hole in our current knowledge base. Interesting you should chose to point this out. I used the term confabulation in my prior posts in the not well known artificial intelligence context. When deterministic computer programs obtain a result from a given set of inputs it is fairly easy to determine why. When self training neural networks produce an output determining why is not possible because the complexity is unfathomable and because the network changes in response to its environment. In the early days of neural networks I recall the word confabulate was chosen to describe what AI researchers did in explaining in anthropomorphic terms, after the fact, why a neural network took some particular action or produced some particular set of output. Such explanations inherently depend on the context of the assumptions, experiences, and linguistic limitations of the observer, which are all entirely irrelevant to the actual performance of neural networks of such limited size. I think behavioral neural networks, i.e. brains, include as inputs random variables, so confabulation has even less meaning in the context of describing why or how a brain produces a given output. I think the word confabulate really tells us much about how we observe nature. We engage in cogent confabulation, describing things in a manner most consistent with what we already believe, and this is a demonstration of our sometimes very limited ability to see things as they are. I attended a lecture in the 1960's by a psychologist who was developing his assumpto-therapy. He developed his theraputic technique to handle the many behavioral problems he saw which didn't have clearly prescribed therapies and which typically resulted in extended psychoanalysis many patients could not tolerate or afford. He based his work on the premise that many ordinary behavioral problems are caused by the patient having ingrained a false premise at some early age. The objective of his therapy then was, through dialog, to identify the false assumptions causing the problems as quickly as possible and re-condition the patient. This technique is also adaptable to self-therapy. This was apparently in many cases very effective and took much less time than full conventional psychoanalysis. I don't think his approach was accepted, but probably wouldn't know if it were. I suppose it is a branch of transactional analysis. I can see why some therapists would reject it in that it substantially reduces fees. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Taylor J. Smith wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote on 11-18-08: The Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to test a prediction made by a particular aether theory which was widely accepted at that time. The prediction was contradicted by the results of the experiment. Hi All, Lorentz explained the null result of the MM experiment by inventing length contraction. Apparently he believed that length contraction saved the ether theory of that time. Yup, Lorentz did indeed fix up aether theory, but then it wasn't the classical aether theory the MM experiment was designed to test: it made different predictions from classical aether theory. In fact that was kind of my point -- MM invalidated one particular theory, but didn't close the door on all aether theories, and *certainly* didn't prove special relativity was the only possible correct theory. By the way, in fact in the final version, as I understand it, Lorentz's aether theory produced predictions which were indistinguishable from those of special relativity. I haven't read any papers of his on this subject, but the implication is presumably that he also pulled time dilation into the theory, one way or another. Jack Smith Stephen A. Lawrence also wrote: No, I didn't write any of this following stuff. Misattribution. According to the Kiplinger Letter, dated Nov 14 [2008], they had the following comment to make concerning our nation's natural gas reserves: ``A U.S. natural gas boom? Better believe it, and it'll begin in just a year. Look for rapid development of monumental-size natural gas deposits trapped in mile-deep shale formations that zigzag beneath N.Y., Pa., Ohio and W.Va. The Marcellus Play contains as much as 1000 trillion cubic feet of gas. If there is that much and it can all be mined, it will meet U.S. needs for 40 years, at current usage. New drilling techniques make it more feasible and profitable. Among the firms involved: MarkWest Energy Resources and Atlas Energy Partners. That should slow the rise in prices. They've soared 400% since 2000. But relief may be tempered. Demand for gas will grow sharply when Congress imposes emission limits on carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming. That will mean a greater reliance on gas-powered plants.'' Jack writes: I think T. Boone Pickens has the right idea here: Generate 400,000 mega-watts of electricity, half the U. S. current electrical capacity, with windmills in the Texas to Canada wind corridor. Shut down the U. S. power plants currently using methane (about 20% of U. S. capacity), and use that methane as compressed natural gas to fuel most U. S. trucks. That would reduce U. S. oil consumption by 30%, according to Pickens.
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
I would like to inject another idea here. Of course we all suffer from delusions of one kind or another. In addition, our conscious mind is only an imperfect image of the real world. This is a realty that can't be avoided. The issue is what to do about this fact. Science has been successful in largely avoiding this problem only because it insists that certain rules be followed. This is the only thing that makes science unique. Its relationship to the seen and the unseen or to the physical or spiritual is only related to how these rules have been applied. Most of science applies the rules to the physical world. Increasingly, the rules are being applied to a study of the mind including what is seen and what is unseen. The only question I find important is when will these rules be applied to a study of what in the past has been the role of religion? Ed On Nov 19, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Nov 19, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: [snip interesting argument] There's a line there somewhere between things that are conscious and things that are not, but there's no way to determine with any certainty *where* to draw it, because the concept of consciousness is entirely outside the ken of modern science. I would claim that this is a rather important hole in our current knowledge base. Interesting you should chose to point this out. I used the term confabulation in my prior posts in the not well known artificial intelligence context. When deterministic computer programs obtain a result from a given set of inputs it is fairly easy to determine why. When self training neural networks produce an output determining why is not possible because the complexity is unfathomable and because the network changes in response to its environment. In the early days of neural networks I recall the word confabulate was chosen to describe what AI researchers did in explaining in anthropomorphic terms, after the fact, why a neural network took some particular action or produced some particular set of output. Such explanations inherently depend on the context of the assumptions, experiences, and linguistic limitations of the observer, which are all entirely irrelevant to the actual performance of neural networks of such limited size. I think behavioral neural networks, i.e. brains, include as inputs random variables, so confabulation has even less meaning in the context of describing why or how a brain produces a given output. I think the word confabulate really tells us much about how we observe nature. We engage in cogent confabulation, describing things in a manner most consistent with what we already believe, and this is a demonstration of our sometimes very limited ability to see things as they are. I attended a lecture in the 1960's by a psychologist who was developing his assumpto-therapy. He developed his theraputic technique to handle the many behavioral problems he saw which didn't have clearly prescribed therapies and which typically resulted in extended psychoanalysis many patients could not tolerate or afford. He based his work on the premise that many ordinary behavioral problems are caused by the patient having ingrained a false premise at some early age. The objective of his therapy then was, through dialog, to identify the false assumptions causing the problems as quickly as possible and re-condition the patient. This technique is also adaptable to self-therapy. This was apparently in many cases very effective and took much less time than full conventional psychoanalysis. I don't think his approach was accepted, but probably wouldn't know if it were. I suppose it is a branch of transactional analysis. I can see why some therapists would reject it in that it substantially reduces fees. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Michel Jullian wrote: Stephen, why do you postulate there must be a line? Like intelligence, consciousness could be non-discrete, simply increasing mechanically with the complexity of the organized system. Can't you imagine elaborate robots in the future thinking I'm conscious; I'm certain of that, by direct experience.? Sure can, and it sure could be a continuum. I picked the top and bottom (humans and rocks) to be unambiguous, but everything in the middle is at least somewhat unclear. The point is, we don't know, and we don't know how to find out, and we don't even have a good handle on how to properly phrase the question. Right now, faced with your hypothetical robot which *asserts* that it is experiencing consciousness, we'd have no way of testing that assertion. I can write a program which will print I am conscious but that doesn't make it true. Right now, it all boils down to opinions and gut feel, which is kind of remarkable given that it's pretty clearly a factual issue, and a rather important issue at that, at least as far as all discussions of morality go. Yesterday we rescued a stray cat which was trying to scratch out a living under our front porch (and not doing too well at it). I believe the cat is a conscious being, but I sure can't prove that it is. If it's conscious, then morally, rescuing it could be argued on utilitarian grounds to be a good thing: we made a conscious entity happier. But if it's not conscious, then the act was about as morally insignificant as rescuing a junk car, or a discarded paper clip. It seems curious to me that there's no way to prove conclusively which category the act falls into. By the way, it's also very common to confuse intelligence with consciousness. The former can be measured with some precision, of course, unlike the latter. A line would definitely have to be drawn for the concept of soul (either you have it or not), but not for consciousness I don't think. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
On Nov 19, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: I don't have any idea what you are talking about. The source of the transplant can be the patient himself. The method used on the patient in Germany required a transplant from someone else, who happened to have the correct genetic makeup. The patient required a transplant anyway to cure his cancer, so they threw in the AIDS-defeating DNA transplant. The method you are describing would be far better. As far as I have heard, gene therapy of this nature has not progressed to the point of being practical yet. Last I heard it killed several patients, and they put it on hold. That was years ago. - Jed There are clinical trials underway for various gene therapy treatments now. Google (gene therapy cancer treatment) The first successful gene therapy treatment was for melanoma in 1966. See: http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/MelanomaGeneTherapy http://tinyurl.com/5h3ol5 Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
On Nov 19, 2008, at 12:44 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I picked the top and bottom (humans and rocks) to be unambiguous, but everything in the middle is at least somewhat unclear. It is even unclear for humans. Is a sleep walking man conscious? Is someone conscious in a coma, and if so what kinds of comas? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Horace Heffner wrote: I attended a lecture in the 1960's by a psychologist who was developing his assumpto-therapy. He developed his theraputic technique to handle the many behavioral problems he saw which didn't have clearly prescribed therapies and which typically resulted in extended psychoanalysis many patients could not tolerate or afford. He based his work on the premise that many ordinary behavioral problems are caused by the patient having ingrained a false premise at some early age. The objective of his therapy then was, through dialog, to identify the false assumptions causing the problems as quickly as possible and re-condition the patient. This technique is also adaptable to self-therapy. This was apparently in many cases very effective and took much less time than full conventional psychoanalysis. I don't think his approach was accepted, but probably wouldn't know if it were. I suppose it is a branch of transactional analysis. I can see why some therapists would reject it in that it substantially reduces fees. Arrgh -- I'd like to defend shrinks here, just a bit. First of all a lot of them are under pressure to find quick fixes (all the ones who work for HMOs, in particular) and they'd be thrilled with something that worked more quickly. Second of all I just don't believe they're evil enough to reject something because it worked faster and hence raked in less money for them! Furthermore it seems to me that there's something else here: Shrinks I have known were, in a fundamental way, very non-judgmental -- and that applied to their view of truth as well. There is a common notion among clinical psychologists that what is objectively true has little to do with your state of mind, nor your mental health; what matters is what you perceive as true. The notion that an error of fact on the part of the patient could cause them a lot of trouble would seem to be diametrically opposite to this. In other words, if there's a disconnect between what you believe and what is objectively true, then for the sake of your therapy we can safely disregard the objectively true facts and just stick with what you believe. Your universe of beliefs is where you live, and that's where your problems must be worked out. It's easy to believe they're wrong in this, but it's also easy to see how telling them to totally reorient their approach isn't going to get very far without a lot of work. True and false are terms that are not much used in clinical psychology. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Horace Heffner wrote: I picked the top and bottom (humans and rocks) to be unambiguous, but everything in the middle is at least somewhat unclear. It is becoming clearer with progress in biology medical science, as I said. It is even unclear for humans. Is a sleep walking man conscious? Somewhat. Enough to navigate stairs. People in a hypnotic trance are very close to ordinary consciousness. Sometimes they are highly suggestible (that is, they will do what the hypnotist suggests), but they will never do anything they would not do fully conscious. Their morality and inhibitions are fully intact. For example, in the 19th century when hypnotism was first explored seriously, a young male hypnotist hypnotized a young woman before an audience. He suggested that she remove her clothes. She slapped him in the face. It might be possible to persuade her to remove her clothes but you would first have to persuade her that she was by herself at home, getting ready for bed. Is someone conscious in a coma, and if so what kinds of comas? There are various kinds, with different, measurable levels of consciousness. (Measurable by detecting brain waves and so on.) It has recently become clear that some people under deep anesthetic during operations can hear, understand and remember speech and also what is done to them. This is rather horrifying to the patients! Doctors are now trying to find ways to determine whether patients are aware. They have cleaned up their behavior in the operating room. nowadays, a properly trained surgeon will not say cruel, unkind, disrespectful or frightening things about patients. They used to, but the patients sometimes woke up and quoted them! There are some forms of coma and brain death which render people as dead as doornails, but leave part of the brain functioning, giving the false appearance of life or conscious behavior. This is horrifying to the observers but it does not bother the patient because he is dead. Terry Shiavo suffered from this. (Or did not suffer, thank goodness.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: The point is, we don't know, and we don't know how to find out, and we don't even have a good handle on how to properly phrase the question. Your info is out of date. We know more and more, and we have a good handle on it. Of course there is a lot of work to be done. Decades from now I expect we will know much more about consciousness, self-awareness, intelligence and other brain functions conditions, and we will define these things with as much precision as we now define brain death -- which is the one unambiguous brain condition we can now define clinically. Right now, faced with your hypothetical robot which *asserts* that it is experiencing consciousness, we'd have no way of testing that assertion. That would be challenging because it would not have the usual biological markers such as brain waves or a test for pain. (One way you test for brain death.) Plus you can program computers to mimic conscious behavior, as we do in video games for virtual robots. Dealing with the robot would be a little like trying to determine whether a completely alien species on another planet was self-aware. Unless the creature was using technology, talking, writing or playing music or what-have-you, it might be difficult to tell. If you took a photo and it came up and demanded a look, the way chimps do in the Boston Zoo (my daughter reports), then you would know for sure. If you started taking pictures and the thing stopped and arranged its tentacles in what it considers a heroic or sexy (?!?) pose, it might be difficult for you to realize that is what it is doing. It might look like the creature is getting ready to eat you, or molt. As I said, we can recognize emotions and behavior in earth mammals similar to ourselves, especially primates. You would not mistake a chimp posing for a photo for one that is about to attack you. (I wouldn't, anyway.) But it would be a challenge when dealing with octopuses, lobsters or tentacled land creatures on some other planet. I saw a lecture by Jane Goodall the other day on UCTV. She not only understands what the chimps are doing and why, she know what they are thinking. She literally speaks their language, which is a lot more complex than I realized. She began the lecture by hooting out the greeting that chimps do when they meet a friend (anther chimp or Dr. Goodall). She gave several other hoots and sounds during the lecture, which was uncanny coming from an elderly woman, but perhaps not so surprising from an elderly British woman. (There is no enthusiast like a British enthusiast). Her detailed information on chimp culture, technology, language and thought processes was unimaginable 40 years ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS Horace Heffner wrote: The realm of science is the observable, testable, measurable universe, the physical universe. There may be things that exists entirely outside of this physical universe, or which can occasionally be part of the physical universe, or occasionally affect it. Perhaps higher dimensional things, the existence of which here are merely lower dimensional projections, shadows so to speak, can on occasion be observed. We can not reliably observe or control things while they exist entirely outside our dimensions, certainly not if such things have free will. It seems to me that to be an open minded scientist it is necessary to accept the possibility there are some things which are not knowable, which are outside the domain of science and yet which might from time to time be part of everyday life. There may exist both spiritual and physical realms, with some intersection. It certainly is true that science applies to almost all experience. By definition miracles are not commonplace. Many people can these days go through life comfortably thinking everything can be explained by science. Only if they don't think too far, or they simply deny the validity of any question which is difficult to frame. (The latter is a common strategy among hard-headed realists.) In fact an awful lot of this issue of everything is understood comes right back to the central question which can't be addressed, or even properly framed, at this time, in the current state of our knowledge, which is what is consciousness? I'm conscious; I'm certain of that, by direct experience. Are you, Horace? I would assume so, but I can't prove it, because I have no test for consciousness, nor even a particularly good definition. And as I think I've observed before on this list, the lack of a test can be demonstrated trivially with a reductio ad absurdum: I will assume you are conscious, and you may assume I'm conscious. How about a chimpanzee? Is it conscious? Presumably so! How about a gorilla? Lots like a chimp, but not quite, eh? How about a dolphin? How about a sea otter? How about a dog? How about an octopus (they're highly intelligent, even if highly alien)? How about a giant squid? How about a mouse? How about a turtle? How about a snake? How about a worm? How about a cockroach? How about an apid? How about a corn plant? How about an amoeba? How about a rock? There's a line there somewhere between things that are conscious and things that are not, but there's no way to determine with any certainty*where* to draw it, because the concept of consciousness is entirely outside the ken of modern science. I would claim that this is a rather important hole in our current knowledge base. A rock, imo, is conscious of the Earth but it is not self-conscious. It is knows to fall to the earth, but it doesn't worry about hurting itself. It solves many problems if we grant consciousness to so called dead matter, and instead ask how uncousciousness and self-consciousness arose. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Actually, the NYT does not state the man was cured. By reading the report given, one is induced to become seduced by the untruth, which is what the NYT does best. At best, AIDS is simply another form of cancer virus. Everyone's body harbors what the medical profession describes as viruses. Since they have yet to define a virus, it becomes a task to understand what becomes a cure. Our bodies are somewhat akin to an electro-chem biological factory so complex that guess overwhelms understanding. The medical profession thus has become the biggest industry on earth, exceeding both military and education expenditures combined. Medicine has become a religion capturing the largest portion of wealth and revenue, all in the name of medical science. Medical science can afford a cure but the miracle of curing remains in the realm of the spiritual rather than the physical. There was a Great Healer sent to earth 2000 years ago. Read His account and discount the NYT. Richard wow. harry - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 17, 2008 1:32 am Subject: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS Some months ago we discussed here the possibility of this working. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/health/14hiv.html? blex=1226811600en=69c9c3988c55907dei=5087%0A http://tinyurl.com/5ppxyr Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ --
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
R C Macaulay wrote: Actually, the NYT does not state the man was cured. By reading the report given, one is induced to become seduced by the untruth, which is what the NYT does best. That's incorrect. The man is completely cured, as far as medical science can tell. There is probably not a single live AIDS virus in him, just as there isn't in me. It is impossible to establish that beyond all doubt, but all tests are negative, and they are very sensitive these days. The method used to cure the him could never be used on a large scale, because it cost a fortune, it nearly killed him, and it requires a special bone marrow donor who happens to have the right genetic makeup. But it proves that in principle the virus can be eliminated. Medical science can afford a cure but the miracle of curing remains in the realm of the spiritual rather than the physical. Miracles cannot exist, by definition. If something happens, that proves it is allowed by the laws of nature and therefore it is not a miracle. See David Hume: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html Quotes: A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. . . . The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish' - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Whoa ! Jed, You sorta qualified your response with a ( as far as medical science can tell). Miracles are by definition miracles and as such are not subject to tests. Ask surgeons that has performed a lifetime of operations and they will admit they never really know when their skills leave off and when miracles begin. Or as a sage once wrote.. to those that believe, they are true, to those that don't, they are not. elementary Richard R C Macaulay wrote: Actually, the NYT does not state the man was cured. By reading the report given, one is induced to become seduced by the untruth, which is what the NYT does best. That's incorrect. The man is completely cured, as far as medical science can tell. There is probably not a single live AIDS virus in him, just as there isn't in me. It is impossible to establish that beyond all doubt, but all tests are negative, and they are very sensitive these days. The method used to cure the him could never be used on a large scale, because it cost a fortune, it nearly killed him, and it requires a special bone marrow donor who happens to have the right genetic makeup. But it proves that in principle the virus can be eliminated. Medical science can afford a cure but the miracle of curing remains in the realm of the spiritual rather than the physical. Miracles cannot exist, by definition. If something happens, that proves it is allowed by the laws of nature and therefore it is not a miracle. See David Hume: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html Quotes: A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. . . . The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish' - Jed No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1794 - Release Date: 11/17/2008 8:48 AM
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
I wrote: As I said, doctors can be as wrong as anyone. The fact that they believe in miracles has no bearing on whether miracles exist or not. In fact, doctors resemble baseball players, actors and sailors in that a successful outcome in their jobs are often largely a matter of luck (random events, or events beyond their control). . . Belief is not distributed randomly. It correlates with various well-defined parameters such as education, wealth, profession and so on. And of course it depends a great deal on national origin and culture. Let me rush to add that it does not correlate with intelligence, as far as I know. Many highly intelligent people are religious or believe in miracles. In some societies, virtually all of them do -- or at least they say they do. And it really is true that people in some professions tend to believe in miracles. It should be no surprise that surgeons tend to. You might counter this by saying surgeons actually encounter miracles frequently, and those of us do not look over their shoulders should not second-guess them. As I said, the mindset of biologists blocks this argument. Biologists are even closer to the wellsprings of life, and they encounter death more often than doctors do. If miracles exist, biologists would presumably have more chances to observe them because they see life in nature, unprotected by human skill, much the way ancient people experienced human life. (I am assuming, of course, that humans and other primates are no more likely to experience miracles than snails or guppies do. From biologist's point of view, we are not privileged, and no more deserving of miracles than a cockroach or guppy would be. I spent a lot of time working with guppies in a biology lab, and in my opinion, they love life as much as we do, and they have as much fun as we do.) High intelligence, training, and lots of modern education tend to give people good judgment and a reliable grasp of reality. But sometimes, in some special circumstances, they produce the opposite effect. This is usually caused by an accident of history, or a pocketbook issue which clouds objectivity, or some deeply held traditional belief (such as religion). For example, people who are highly trained in nuclear physics and especially plasma physics tend to discount the possibility that cold fusion is real. Their reasons are all irrational and unscientific. I wrote a long boring document listing all the major reasons why the 2004 DOE review panel dismissed cold fusion. It is a 44-page catalog of nonsense. Most of their assertions are contradicted in middle-school science textbooks. For example, 5 reviewers forgot that Theoretical objections to experimentally proven facts are a violation of the scientific method (or they never learned this in the first place), and 4 of them failed to note that Data from newly discovered phenomena often seems inconsistent. The DoE panel revealed that many professional scientists have no training in basic scientific methods and logic, which is appalling. They do not know the ABCs of their trade. They resemble programmers who never learned the value of top-down, modular data structures (as opposed to spaghetti code) or carefully selected variable names. Other examples of highly irrational educated people include the top management at General Motors, and the US intelligence experts who concluded that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. - Jed
[Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
Some months ago we discussed here the possibility of this working. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/health/14hiv.html? blex=1226811600en=69c9c3988c55907dei=5087%0A http://tinyurl.com/5ppxyr Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
wow. harry - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 17, 2008 1:32 am Subject: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS Some months ago we discussed here the possibility of this working. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/health/14hiv.html? blex=1226811600en=69c9c3988c55907dei=5087%0A http://tinyurl.com/5ppxyr Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
