Science Gains a Soul

Originally Posted by Seawolf

Seriously? Man flying in the air was a miracle, flying into space, landing on the moon. etc.

No, those weren't miracles. They were incredible technological advances.

For me, a "miracle" is a breach of the "laws" of probability - an event which while physically possible, is so improbable (and meaningful) that we feel we have to describe it as miraculous (and rightly so.)

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Science as we know it is very good at what it does, but it doesn't trade in miracles. Those are for mystics.

It's this artificial separation/assumption that's been it's curse. It fails to recognize energy and intent as being intimately involved in the process of
creation and environmental interaction. Even each cell has intent.. and we as a body are a community of trillions of these cells... while science has
been treating these cells like unconscious particles of organic concrete.

Our bodies have been studying itself for millions of years, and the components within our body have been studying for very much longer! We
come along and mentally apply simplistic thinking and then give ourselves credit for discovering certain aspects of components that have long been
understood by our organic process for historically forever... we wouldn't be here otherwise... trillions of cells cooperating seamlessly to make up this
body.. beats the snot out of anything we mentally could come up with.. and yet we try and dictate to it chemically as though we're driving this
ship... that's hubris on steroids... we're needing to approach this from an energetic appreciation.. in which case the mystics are uniquely-relevant since
that's been their primary study....

[Seawolf]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

For me, a "miracle" is a breach of the "laws" of probability - an event which while physically possible, is so improbable (and meaningful) that we feel we have to describe it as miraculous (and rightly so.)

I've come to understand that I don't really know what's impossible anymore like I used to. There's always more to the world than I previously imagine.

I don't really like the word miracle because it's so relative. People a long time ago would see our technology as a miracle. We see things today that we call miracles that may be mundane in the future.

I think we'll get to that point if we can stop thinking of them as miracles in the first place and start looking at them scientifically. The way scientists used to engage in taboo research that went against the beliefs of the Church, we need to defy the new religion's beliefs. To stop passing things off as unknowable or untestable, making the excuse that they're in the realm of the mystical, miracles or gods. That's always been man's excuse not to learn. It's probably based in fear and insecurity.

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

That is not true. DNA is the driver of all of the biochemical processes going on in our bodies until the day we die. It's not just a template for producing a human body from a single cell. It is also the template for the production of all of the enzymes which actually keep our biochemisty going. It's like the conductor of an orchestra.

Eh? The human genome project is finished because its job was finished. We know the complete human genome. It wasn't a "bust." It provided an enormous wealth of information which will take decades to properly understand.

Wrong and wrong... DNA is a template.. it's a place where all the codes are stored...it's where the cell goes to read information when it's needing to
create proteins... I'm telling you, you're needing to listen to Bruce.. he's saying that all this is now known by the inner-circle of researcher's, only it
hasn't been broadly publicized.

And the genome project failed for this very reason... they thought they would discover some 180,000 separate genes... the people who invested in
the project (corporate, and the use of public money) where hoping to then use the info to create as many as 180,000 drugs... only it didn't turn out
that way... they only found roughly 24,000 genes... some of the simplistic organisms out there has as many as 25,000 genes, mice around 23,000 and
so on...

If it took one gene to make one protein then the 180,000 target was a likely possibility... turns out that each gene holds the template for
numerous proteins, and the cell only draws on the needed information when a particular protein is needed. DNA is inert... DNA actively does
nothing... it's only there to provide information for specific reproduction and that's at the request of specific need...

So it's the proteins that exist in large numbers.. only the proteins are created based on customized need, and is subject to a highly complex
real-time set of variables, and is specific to the moment it's called on...

The Genome project addresses none of this... they now have to go after the proteins.. only, in order to do so effectively they need to know what
each cell needs, in real-time, and then adjust those variables accordingly... the triggers to do so is not a chemical process... it's based on energy
communications and harmonics... it's based a great deal on the environmental challenges... and is heavily influenced by what we're
individually feeding into it...

He connects a clear set of dots between "what we believe" and how our body responds at a cellular level... if you don't listen to the workshop that
I posted you're robbing yourself of some pretty solid insight... Bruce comes in under the radar with info that's simply not getting "out there"... :^)

The failure of the genome


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/17/human-genome-genetics-twin-studies

<snip>

Edited by SF Staff

I don't get it all; especially when you look at epigenetics (genes mutate according to environment) - & brain plasticity - Both now old areas of research.

Also biomorphic energy fields.

We know enough now to not be farting around with scientific materialism; as if that explains everything; it's flogging a dead horse - 'we' need to drop Victorian notions of a mechanical/reductionistic Universe - it's ridiculous; it's 2012 for Gods sake.

Originally Posted by StephenK

The failure of the genome


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/17/human-genome-genetics-twin-studies

Since the human genome was sequenced, over 10 years ago, hardly a week has gone by without some new genetic "breakthrough" being reported. Last
week five new "genes for Alzheimer's disease" generated sometimes front-page coverage across the globe. But take a closer look and the
reality is very different.

Among all the genetic findings for common illnesses, such as heart disease, cancer and mental illnesses, only a handful are of genuine significance for
human health. Faulty genes rarely cause, or even mildly predispose us, to disease, and as a consequence the science of human genetics is in deep
crisis.

<....>

In 2009, one of the few remaining scientifically active leaders of the original genome project, Francis Collins, published a review paper in the scientific
journal Nature, along with 26 other prominent geneticists. It was titled Finding the Missing Heritability of Complex Diseases. In it, the authors
acknowledged that, despite more than 700 genome-scanning publications and nearly $100bn spent, geneticists still had not found more than a
fractional genetic basis for human disease.

Since the Collins paper was published nothing has happened to change that conclusion. It now seems that the original twin-study critics were more
right than they imagined. The most likely explanation for why genes for common diseases have not been found is that, with few exceptions, they
do not exist.

The failure to find meaningful inherited genetic predispositions is likely to become the most profound crisis that science has faced. Not only has the
most expensive scientific project ever conceived failed to reach a goal it assured the world it would achieve, but there is also the ticklish problem of
why the headlines have been so consistently discrepant with reality. As the failures to find significant genes have accumulated, geneticists have
remained silent.

There are still important decisions to be made. The Collins paper proposed a no doubt expensive and open-ended search among hitherto disregarded
genetic locations. We should be under no illusions, however. The likelihood that further searching might rescue the day appears slim. A much better
use of that money would be to ask: if inherited genes are not to blame for our commonest illnesses, can we find out what is?

Anyone would think from reading the above that the purpose of the HGP was primarily medical, especially for the purpose of making money for the drug industry. For me, it was a purely scientific project. It was just the logical conclusion of the scientific voyage of discovery which started when Crick and Watson decoded the structure of DNA. It has revealed a great deal of information about the origins of the human species, and how we spread around this planet. I don't think you can put a value in money for information of this sort.

Some of our illnesses are genetic, some aren't. That's not the fault of the HGP.

Originally Posted by spiritualized

I don't get it all; especially when you look at epigenetics (genes mutate according to environment) - & brain plasticity - Both now old areas of research.

Also biomorphic energy fields.

We know enough now to not be farting around with scientific materialism; as if that explains everything; it's flogging a dead horse - 'we' need to drop Victorian notions of a mechanical/reductionistic Universe - it's ridiculous; it's 2012 for Gods sake.

That horse isn't dead. Materialistic science is still doing a great job at providing us with information about how the physical world works.

If we are specifically talking about medicine then the situation is more complex. Human beings aren't just physical entities. Our mental and physical states are closely inter-twined.

I am no expert on "alternative" or "holistic" medicine. But I do know that if somebody gets the first symptoms of a cold then their mental attitude influences the progression of the infection. If they think "oh no, I'm coming down with flu" then they tend to get ill. If they think "This cold isn't going to get me, I'll be fine in a couple of days" then they are less likely to get ill. I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining this, but it is difficult for materialistic science to understand what is going on.

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

it is difficult for materialistic science to understand what is going on.

Because it's framework & assumptions are so limited.

What concerns me primarily is the area of mental health -

Anatomy of an Epidemic

http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20an%20Epidemic.html

Towards the first Revolution in Mind Sciences -

http://youtu.be/AhntEOGslbs

The implications of where we are collectively headed; because of materialism; is serious.

Originally Posted by spiritualized

Because it's framework & assumptions are so limited.

What concerns me primarily is the area of mental health -

Anatomy of an Epidemic

http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20an%20Epidemic.html

Towards the first Revolution in Mind Sciences -

http://youtu.be/AhntEOGslbs

The implications of where we are collectively headed; because of materialism; is serious.

The mental health epidemic may be being exacerbated by materialistic medicine, the root causes are much deeper and older than that. Human beings are psychologically predisposed to live in small hunter-gatherer tribes, embedded in the natural world. The reason there is an epidemic of mental illness is the same reason why a polar bear will go insane if you keep it in a zoo. We are not supposed to live like this.