jack_straw2208 said:

tl dr

---

It isn't 'that' long



plus, If I'd just write 1 short point out I'd be flooded with arguments that I'd have to answer to, so we'd still have to write before we'd agree on what the hell we're talking about.

Why do that when I can just cover all aspects immediately so we can get onto more interesting aspects of a possible discussion?

tl;dr my ass

666 Sun said:

I gave all my energy to Lillith when I did a low dose of DOB one night. Stupid fuck

---

Take it back then!

crkhd said:

Brilliant thread, some novel material for this forum.

I agree with your sentiments. Placebo is made out to be the "fake effect" by self-proclaimed skeptic superheroes. If you look at it simply from a materialist POV then placebo is the brain preparing itself to experience something by sensitising the appropriate receptors in advance. Ironically this very sensitisation creates the desired response.


Why? Because the very desired stimulus itself does nothing BUT trigger those very same receptors. All drugs do not create their own neurons in the brain with which to work. They use the old circuits and create specific firing responses in those circuits. But why would you need a drug to do this? When we dream every night, our firing patterns are in a state of total plasticity that is controllable by the executive decision making centre of the brain (i.e. the will/ego). Anyone with experience in lucid dreaming is well acquainted with this fact.


So you can see that if you can provide a stimulus that generates a certain neural response then you can equally remove the stimulus altogether and substitute it for an alternative response which produces the same effect. Now, we are very input-centric when we look at the brain: we think "LSD causes this, mushrooms cause that". But our focus is on the wrong aspect: the process, and the output are what create the actual experience and it is the actual experience which is 'reality' let alone everything else. Suppose cancer tumours disappeared due to the placebo effect? Then the placebo effect is a suitable cure for cancer, plain and simple.


If we apply the 'Chinese wall/clean room reverse engineering' technique to the brain then this would be readily apparent. Find the output space for a given input space and find out which inputs produce the same output; for all of these cases the very idea of a placebo effect totally drops out of the picture as it ceases to be meaningful.

---

Indeed. I believe it is crucial to study this topic further in order to transcend the current perception of spiritualism. Taking it beyond a matter of faith could lead to tangible scientific breakthrough on understanding the various functions and possibilities that arise when stimulating the mind through emotion.

Look at it this way. Maybe the mystics from ancient times came to practise this system without even being fully aware of it.

Now, that we have science, everything needs to be re-evaluated, it is a healthy policy we have adopted as to minimize errors. So far it would have seemed science and mysticism are impossible to merge. But if we look deeper, it woud appear we can "transcribe" the mystic experience into a scientific method, effectively weeding out all the overly-zealous forms of mysticism including completely pseudo-mysticism, which claims possibilities those outside of the jurisdiction of brain chemistry variation.

So far it has seemed as if science knows not what to do with emotions at all. As if they are just a part-redundant part of human nature and have no place in the scientific approach to the universe (therefore they are set aside). We have only mastered rationality, the newer part of our well developed neo-cortex. Currently, when observing the clash between "skeptics" and "believers" (even right here on shroomery) it seems as if it is a battle between these two aspects of our mind. From what I understand, rationality is a prodigious (therefore dangerous) and relatively new aspect in the human psyche. When something new develops in any medium, it either changes everything by dominating the older aspects or changes everything even more through the act symbiosis

Science is merely a different form of mysticism/magic, imo. Remember Pythagorus and the pentagram? Science has currently dealt with very advanced manipulations concerning the external world aka 'matter' (mode of rationality), that which is beyond our ability to directly affect with brain chemistry (mode of emotion). But if science was to find a place for emotions, like one I have suggested, we might learn to manipulate our internal affairs to incredible extents just as we do externally today!

Screw the fight between science and spiritualism- I call for a merging, where none overshadows the other! A place for either.

The way to do so is to take a scientific approach to what we currently know about spiritualism and only approve the aspects that resonate. If we want spiritualism to be accepted as a science (many mystics say "this is a science!" about their practise) and have a place in the mind of modern man (which is crucial for a healthy development of our mind, imo)- then it is about time we did so.

666 Sun said:

Magic is simply the very precise science of natural law.

---

I agree with that form of phrasing

crkhd said:

The problem is not with science but with scientists. The scientific method is impeccable, it is flawless, a gem and not only that but essentially the natural order of all discovery. It is as Tao as Tao gets.

Scientists on the other hand? Just as dogmatic as every other creature with two arms and two legs.

---

SO true. I believe the greatest flaw of all of "science" is arrogance/pride, the dark side of rationality. Whilst the dark side of emotionality, which mystics often display, is foolishness.

Arrogance and foolishness are the enemy of symbiosis.

Btw, great to see another aquatinted with the path of Tao

So awesome that I could just...well, rate you!

Quote:

Suppose cancer tumours disappeared due to the placebo effect? Then the placebo effect is a suitable cure for cancer, plain and simple.

---

HeartAndMind said:

Quote:

Suppose cancer tumours disappeared due to the placebo effect? Then the placebo effect is a suitable cure for cancer, plain and simple.

---

I was visiting psychiatrist recently and we talked on one of sessions about cancer curing. He told me how he used to cure cancer patients via placebo method - Every day they imagined with patient how cancer melts under warmth of their attention like ice under sun and many other things. He made patient to draw things and do physical practices and just made them to believe that it is possible to cure cancer. He said that 9 out of 10 patients were cured.
That was really wonderful imo and made me realize how powerful our minds really are. You just have to believe in the change you want to make.

---

I'm sure no one 'cured' cancer with that method. Made it regress- yes, I can see that as being possible. But outright cure? Who the fuck is this genius?

I would like to note that I don't think everything can be influenced via this method.  Only things that are affected by brain chemistry can be influenced via placebo. Cancer sounds like a bit of both to me. Once the cells are formed they are, after all, not completely, but almost independent from your organism. But influencing doesn't sound plausible as it is still connected to your organism.