I know I'm beating this horse to torturous death, but I've never asked the question itself. I just started reading What The Bleep Do We Know, which is in the mold of the other stuff I've been reading lately about modern science, quantum physics, religion, and the metaphysical...and how they could (and should) all come together to fulfill their similar purpose. Well, if there's one thing that the movie and book do, it's inspire you to ask questions. Big questions. Like "What do we not know we not know?" Well, I can tell you the answer is far more expansive than "What do we know we know" and "What do we know we don't know" multiplied.
The question I have is: why are thoughts and emotions discounted in modern science? Particularly the detrimental ones?
The answer may seem obvious to you. They're floofy, they can't be controlled, they don't matter much to physiology, they belong to the realm of religion etc. The reasons are many, but it may interest us to realize that some of the greatest scientists that ever walked the earth (Newton, Max Planck, not to mention most of the quantum physicists) openly denounced scientific materialism as an end-all. Max Planck said something like...there is a force that guides any and all matter. Newton, who officially brought in the mechanical proof in the pudding that solidified Descartes separation of mind and body, was a very religious man who, at the end of the day, still believed a conscious force or intelligence was above all the mechanicals laws of nature he proved. Despite the fact that quantum physics just about officially dispelled the notion that what we see is actually what it is (Deepak Chopra: "Quantum physics is not only stranger than you think it is, it's stranger than you can think.), scientists still operate squarely in the paradigm of 3rd-person scientific method or bust. Scientific materialism at its best and at its worst.
To think, the Sumerians all the way to the Native Americans used science to better understand nature. Now we use it to control nature. "Knowledge is power" really has a different ring to it now huh?
So what does this have to do with emotion? Maybe it's because with pure science being the dictator of "what is real" and "what is not" these days, emotion doesn't stand a chance. Some of you may say, "Well serotonin, and thus good mood, has been shown to boost your immune system and depression to do the reverse," but that is all science will allow. Science will go so far as to say something that can be measured can be true. Therefore there is an established correlation between
physiological markers of emotionand physical symptoms, but to make any statements about the actual emotion? Hogwash. That's because not only is science deeply entreched in materialism, it is at the moment stuck in a chemical paradigm. Everything can be treated with chemicals, they say, despite the fact that non-medical scientists have already reduced chemistry to biophysics and quantum physics. Now do you see the deceptive power of scientific paradigm?
The truth is...emotion itself will never be measured. Imagine the most powerful MRI x ECG x EEG x SPECT combined. It will never be able to scan someone's head and tell you "He sees the color red and his seeing the color feels like ____" No machine can tell you what anything feels like. It can only show the downstream neurotransmitters at work, or the electrical activity of localized areas of the brain.
But at the least, we can come much closer than we currently are to measuring emotions. I've already gone from true skeptic to withholder of disbelief at my doctor's office, where she uses energetic testing to determine if the vibrational frequencies of an emotion are creating a disturbance in my body. I've now heard that these frequencies have begun to be inputted into energetic diagnostics such as electrodermal testing. This is truly a revolutionary breakthrough in the alternative medical world. The treatment is of course more complicated than taking a pill or even a homeopathic, but not so complicated as to be "stranger than we can think." In the end, emotion seems to be information, and biophoton seem to communicate cellular information. But you really don't need a fancy machine: you can do something as simple as MFT, one of Dr. Klinghardt's techniques for treating subconscious conflict. You tap certain points on your body, similar to accupuncture points, and you verbalize affirmations that counter the emotional disturbance. In essence you are supplying your body with the desired information and opening up your body regulation to facilitate communication of this information to the body.
There is truly no profession like that of a scientist. He or she is the only person that the public today puts their absolute trust in to find and tell the truth. No matter how much flak we give the FDA, CDC, academic medicine, we say the individual scientists do not know any better. That they are doing what they think is right. But I agree with the Dalai Lama that what is needed for ethics and science to integrate is nothing less than a paradigm shift from a 3rd-person to a combo 3rd-person 1st-person practice of science. Not only do scientists need to be accountable for the weaknesses in the paradigms that they knowingly or unknowingly operate under, but we civilians need to take part in the dialogue as well, whether through forums, protests against abuse of genetic medicine, voicing our opinions at patient-doctor conferences, blogs etc. I'm sure we can all agree there is a cause and effect to every incredible discovery (penicillin, relativity, stem cells) and every tragic setback (Chernobyl, Tuskagee, cloning of humans for spare parts), so it's much easier to manufacture the desired outcome when the public partakes at the cause rather than protest the effect. When all we do is the latter, we're just as responsible as the creators themselves.
For all you patients out there that are constantly asking for clinical trials on the proof of this or that, or scoffing at energetic medicine because it didn't work once or there's just no visible proof, look beyond the boundaries of your 5 senses. Don't discount your innate qualities just because they can't be measured objectively. Think outside of the box and ask yourself, why is 3rd-person more accurate than 1st-person? Because the latter is subjective? The results of subjectivity in a small sample size may be riskily applied to population without controlling for honesty, but what about just to you? Or do you not trust yourself?
The question I have is: why are thoughts and emotions discounted in modern science? Particularly the detrimental ones?
The answer may seem obvious to you. They're floofy, they can't be controlled, they don't matter much to physiology, they belong to the realm of religion etc. The reasons are many, but it may interest us to realize that some of the greatest scientists that ever walked the earth (Newton, Max Planck, not to mention most of the quantum physicists) openly denounced scientific materialism as an end-all. Max Planck said something like...there is a force that guides any and all matter. Newton, who officially brought in the mechanical proof in the pudding that solidified Descartes separation of mind and body, was a very religious man who, at the end of the day, still believed a conscious force or intelligence was above all the mechanicals laws of nature he proved. Despite the fact that quantum physics just about officially dispelled the notion that what we see is actually what it is (Deepak Chopra: "Quantum physics is not only stranger than you think it is, it's stranger than you can think.), scientists still operate squarely in the paradigm of 3rd-person scientific method or bust. Scientific materialism at its best and at its worst.
To think, the Sumerians all the way to the Native Americans used science to better understand nature. Now we use it to control nature. "Knowledge is power" really has a different ring to it now huh?
So what does this have to do with emotion? Maybe it's because with pure science being the dictator of "what is real" and "what is not" these days, emotion doesn't stand a chance. Some of you may say, "Well serotonin, and thus good mood, has been shown to boost your immune system and depression to do the reverse," but that is all science will allow. Science will go so far as to say something that can be measured can be true. Therefore there is an established correlation between physiological markers of emotionand physical symptoms, but to make any statements about the actual emotion? Hogwash. That's because not only is science deeply entreched in materialism, it is at the moment stuck in a chemical paradigm. Everything can be treated with chemicals, they say, despite the fact that non-medical scientists have already reduced chemistry to biophysics and quantum physics. Now do you see the deceptive power of scientific paradigm?
The truth is...emotion itself will never be measured. Imagine the most powerful MRI x ECG x EEG x SPECT combined. It will never be able to scan someone's head and tell you "He sees the color red and his seeing the color feels like ____" No machine can tell you what anything feels like. It can only show the downstream neurotransmitters at work, or the electrical activity of localized areas of the brain.
But at the least, we can come much closer than we currently are to measuring emotions. I've already gone from true skeptic to withholder of disbelief at my doctor's office, where she uses energetic testing to determine if the vibrational frequencies of an emotion are creating a disturbance in my body. I've now heard that these frequencies have begun to be inputted into energetic diagnostics such as electrodermal testing. This is truly a revolutionary breakthrough in the alternative medical world. The treatment is of course more complicated than taking a pill or even a homeopathic, but not so complicated as to be "stranger than we can think." In the end, emotion seems to be information, and biophoton seem to communicate cellular information. But you really don't need a fancy machine: you can do something as simple as MFT, one of Dr. Klinghardt's techniques for treating subconscious conflict. You tap certain points on your body, similar to accupuncture points, and you verbalize affirmations that counter the emotional disturbance. In essence you are supplying your body with the desired information and opening up your body regulation to facilitate communication of this information to the body.
There is truly no profession like that of a scientist. He or she is the only person that the public today puts their absolute trust in to find and tell the truth. No matter how much flak we give the FDA, CDC, academic medicine, we say the individual scientists do not know any better. That they are doing what they think is right. But I agree with the Dalai Lama that what is needed for ethics and science to integrate is nothing less than a paradigm shift from a 3rd-person to a combo 3rd-person 1st-person practice of science. Not only do scientists need to be accountable for the weaknesses in the paradigms that they knowingly or unknowingly operate under, but we civilians need to take part in the dialogue as well, whether through forums, protests against abuse of genetic medicine, voicing our opinions at patient-doctor conferences, blogs etc. I'm sure we can all agree there is a cause and effect to every incredible discovery (penicillin, relativity, stem cells) and every tragic setback (Chernobyl, Tuskagee, cloning of humans for spare parts), so it's much easier to manufacture the desired outcome when the public partakes at the cause rather than protest the effect. When all we do is the latter, we're just as responsible as the creators themselves.
For all you patients out there that are constantly asking for clinical trials on the proof of this or that, or scoffing at energetic medicine because it didn't work once or there's just no visible proof, look beyond the boundaries of your 5 senses. Don't discount your innate qualities just because they can't be measured objectively. Think outside of the box and ask yourself, why is 3rd-person more accurate than 1st-person? Because the latter is subjective? The results of subjectivity in a small sample size may be riskily applied to population without controlling for honesty, but what about just to you? Or do you not trust yourself?