Thread: Indian man 'survives without food or water for decades'

Originally Posted by juroara

All new science is the work of a small group, even sometimes one person. Breakthroughs aren't always popular, not when they challenge the dogma. Bruce however is not the only biologist arguing that universities are teaching an outdated form of biology based on a Newtonian view of the universe. That we need to start applying the newest breakthroughs in physics, which is the most fundamental, to biology.

That isn't true and it still doesn't change the fact that this study is unscientific. Usually a scientist, if he is smart and cares about his career, will make damn sure he can prove beyond any question of a doubt the validity of his theory before he pubishes any papers on it, much less a whole book. The fact that he already wrote a book geared towards the public is very suspect considering the fact that he should first convince the scientific community before he publicly disgraces his own name. To me that says he is trying to gain a cult following from all of the people who are naive enough to give him their money. The majority of New York Times best sellers can be chalked down to that phenomenon. The fact that you call science dogma is further evidence of your scientific ignorance. I am really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but you are making it hard on me. Have you not been taught anything on the scientific process? How exactly do the newest breakthroughs in physics relate to this pseudo-biology?

Originally Posted by juroara

Exactly what bias and prejudice is inherent in this new science?

The fact that you use your intuition to guess at the cause of certain phenomenon when there is no means to perform an objective test. But the meaning of my post was to inform you of the purpose of the scientific method, something you erroneously likened to a religious belief system.

Originally Posted by juroara

In the book there is appendix showing the original source of the different experiments that are talked about. So that, if you are in disbelief or feel the experiment was misrepresented you can find the source and read/learn about it yourself and decide. Yes, its work finding the original source, but at least it's listed so that you can.

That's your job. You're crazy if you think I am going to hunt down this book and check the appendix for the sake of this argument. But you should be able to back your facts up if you are going to present them as an argument.

Originally Posted by juroara

Isn't that a bias?

No. Wanting to verify the validity of a study is biased?

Originally Posted by juroara

Who says it hasn't been repeated? The real question is why aren't these experiments getting more attention? That's something that Bruce struggled with for years. Much of what he talks about are based on experiments (not only his) that have been going on for the past decade if not longer. Why don't more people know about it?

Money is power. And in this day and age truth is getting harder to get out there. Look at FDA. The top dogs in the FDA are also the top dogs in the very same companies they are supposed to be regulating! There are plenty of tests showing how aspartame is crap, and it's taken YEARS for that message to reach the public. Why is it a battle to get the message out there? Because the top dogs in FDA make serious money from aspartame.

This new science directly challanges Big Pharma. It's a battle getting the information out there. Big Pharma slanders, it out right lies about holistic medicine and practices. Eating abundant fruit helps prevent cancer. And this practice of eating abundant fruit, if you can call it a practice, gets slandered as new-age mumbo jumbo, when really it just makes logical sense! Cancer is on the rise, and people are eating crap. You can drink fruit juices, nourish your body's defenses, strengthen it, or poison it with radiation. I dunno, what's more logical to you? When was the last time Big Pharma helped to spread the word that a raw fruit and vegetable diet has healed people from cancer?

So now it's turning into a giant conspiracy. What is with this site and conspiracy theories? Juroara, your argument just turned from the unscientific to the ridiculous.

-- "The real question is why aren't these experiments getting more attention? That's something that Bruce struggled with for years. Much of what he talks about are based on experiments (not only his) that have been going on for the past decade if not longer. Why don't more people know about it?"

There is a very simple answer to this question juroara. Science is not usually prone to conspiracies, bribary, deceit, or what have you. The sheer size and integrity of the scientific community as a whole ensures that any frauds are eventually exposed. If anybody outside of Bruces circle saw any validity or even any promise in these studies, they would be getting the attention they deserve. (I chose to flat out ignore your comment about the connection between vegetables and cancer on account of it is so ridiculous it doesn't even deserve the light of day.)

Originally Posted by juroara

I thought this question would come up. There was a mind involved in your ivy experience, the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind is taking in thousands of times more information a second than our tiny puny conscious mind. The image I was given to see just how great the subconscious mind is....is a dot on a page. The dot is the consciousness, everything else is the subconscious. And as dreamers we get a first hand look of just how incredible the subconscious is, able to reproduce every minute detail we consciously couldn't.

It's our subconscious that stores the beliefs. And it activates them like a program. Babies and children are developing belief-programs, given to them by their parents. Take water for example. All human beings are born knowing how to swim. And were good swimmers at that. So why do we lose our ability to swim, when its INSTINCTUAL? Why do most of us have to re-learn it at a later age?

Babies aren't biased. Their brains are simply wired to take in what their parents give them. Babies are extremely perceptive of how their parents react to things. Babies lose their ability to swim when mom flips out when baby gets too close to water. The subconscious mind of the baby just created a new belief......"deep water is bad". This belief now overrides the instinctual knowledge of swimming. Now the baby is in danger of drowning because this belief is the program that's on auto-run.

Yes, thats all well and good, but it doesn't answer my question. My unconscious mind can't know things that I don't first filter throw my consciouness or experience through my senses. If I don't see or feel myself touch the poison ivy, my unconscious mind, in its infinite wisdom, can't know either. You are trying to play off all kinds of unrelated anecdotes as scientific evidence, again hinting at your lack of reasoning capacity. Poison ivy secretes an oily substance that irritates skin and forms a rash on contact. There is no evidence that our minds play any part in this chain of events. It is a chemical reaction that happens between two different substances, nothing more. You literally have no ground to stand on with your arguement, not a shred of evidence. The fact that you devote yourself so fully to a concept that so horrible disregards the need for evidence shows me you are in no state to argue about science.

Originally Posted by juroara

So unless you've heard about it, it isn't valid? You know it doesn't work that way. What if someone you admired told you about these experiments? Would your perception be different?

If my own mother told me, it would make no difference. But if a real scientist told me, of course my perception would be different. That fact that I have never heard of any scientist with a notable career advocate any study of this nature tells me there is something fishy. You should get the same feeling. The fact that so little is known about what constitutes a "thought" is evidence that no real scientific study of this nature could be done at the present moment without a great deal of subjective bias. As of right now, you can't hook anybody up to a machine and prove that their thoughts are what caused or prevented the poison ivy from forming a rash.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That isn't true and it still doesn't change the fact that this study is unscientific.

There isn't anything else left to say except that you MADE THIS UP. You have no evidence what so ever that this study is unscientific. This study took place in a real laboratory with other - for the record- materialistic atheist scientists.

I'm not going to paraphrase the book, nor is it my job to. It's there if you want to know. If you don't, then you don't.