Wormwood

Thanks man seriously...I need to get back to work, but please check this thread later today because I have a few follow up questions. (sorry I just like to have a really good understanding of things before I debate them). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSorry, it took me longer than i thought to get back to this... I guess my initial issue has been addressed. I will try to start a new thread about the chemical imbalance theory in the next few days. Thanks again for your help.

What do you think about these videos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWE3UGl7KFk&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzDv6Cublaw&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw0PxgTIT4k&mode=related&search= or this: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392%20&ct=1&SESSID=01a8d18d5e942b67aa69430aae3aa279 ?

Perfect....thanks again. Supposedly there were only two cases in all of medical history...I guess one has a blog I'm sure my friend will denounce the blog as hearsay, but if I can get the pubmed one to work from the library or something, that should do it. After a little more research while waiting on a response, it seems like most of the argument was pulled verbatum from this site: http://www.visionandpsychosis.net/ Usual nonsense, or is there something to this? I can concede that the whole "chemical imbalance" approach to mental illness is highly suspect, but this solution seems too simplistic to me. This site lists Qi Gong (thinking you have powers), "Indigo children", Latah, and Jumping Frenchman of Maine disorder as all parts of the same continuum of psychosis.

Thanks In the first link I didn't see any text or any indication that this meets the criteria. In the second one, how do you know the person was blind from birth? Does it say that somewhere? I need to cite my claims. Thanks again.

HI I was wondering if anyone here knew of any cases of someone being blind from birth and schizophrenic, or blind from birth with panic attacks. I can't find a single example of either, but I know some people here have access to better resources than I do. I'm trying to test the hypothesis that these mental disorders are caused by a visual phenomenon (thus blind people should be immune). Thanks in advance for any help.

Well this is a semantic issue. The questions wasn't can omnipotent being X lift anything, but rather can he create something that he can't lift. The negative is the affirmative here which is convoluted I know. But the being would be attempting to create something he can not lift, so failure is victory in this instance. The arbitrary frame of reference helps accomplish this. I think we are saying the same thing now... it would always be possible to move the object, but at some point "lifting" becomes impossible because of the frame of reference. Like I said, I was only looking for a cheap semantic victory over this supposed paradox to silence it

That's how I was thinking. It isn't really "lifting" beyond a certain point. I really just wanted to show that the "paradox" was stunted because of the terms being used. I think some of you have come to the same conclusion but for different surface reasons. Trying to explain the unlimited using limited terms seems futile. Anyway, thanks to everyone for your responses. ---------------------------------------------------------

Har harI meant for discussions sake...it's a hypothetical...does it really matter who the person is? ------------------------------------------------ It isn't god that is limited in this instance, but the laws of physics and our terminology. Forget the being...think about the object...once it reaches a certain mass, "lift" no longer applies.

What's the difference?

Well obviously it is a hypothetical physics question; sort of a semantic question as well I guess. This was the question that sparked the idea and was a supposed paradox...you don't have to give it any consideration beyond that. My question isn't about the nature of God, but the nature of lifting and gravity. Does that make more sense now?

Ah but the question wasn't "can god create an object so big that he can not push it down, or move it" Besides, if you exert an equal force down, and the object you are lifting is heavier and more massive than the earth, then the earth would move before the object. Anyway, what I am talking about is more like standing on the rock and trying to lift the earth. As mass increases, at some point the gravity of the starting point becomes negligable and the task becomes impossible just because of the nature of gravity and lifting. Anyway, I know this is just some stupid thought exercise, but I was just curious if there was a cheap semantic win hidden in there

Sisyphus: But when you "lift" a rock, you aren't lifting the earth. Also, "Lift" denotes upward and away from the source of gravity...how do you determine up when the object being lifted is exerting more gravitational force? I think the important word here is "lift". Well, the question wasn't can God lift anything, but rather can he create something that he himself can not lift. In a semantic sense I would say yes due to the limitations of words and concepts like "lift" and gravity. At some point you aren't really lifting anymore. To the others: I realize that the mere mention of god or religion is worthy of derision and sarcasm, but my question is actually about the nature of gravity, so please try to resist your knee jerk reaction to make a mockery of the whole thread and still not answer my questions.

I was having a discussion with someone about religion; I'm not particularly religious, that is to say I do not subscribe to any specific mythos, but I don't completely discount those ideas either. I like to defend the religious side because it is usually the tougher position to defend. Anyway, the age old paradox about an omnipotent god creating an object so big that he himself can not lift it came up and I think I answered it, but I want to make sure my reasoning is sound. I said that yes an omnipotent being could create an object so big that he could not lift it, and still be omnipotent. My reasoning was that once an object reaches a certain mass, it can no longer be lifted because it is generating the gravity that you are attempting to lift against. An object can not be lifted against it's own gravity, thus it is a semantic impossibility. All religious implications aside, is my reasoning correct about mass and gravity? Say God was standing on an object with a mass of M, and created an object with a mass of M^10, the gravity of the second object would over take the gravity of the first item making the action of "lifting" the second item impossible in purely semantic terms right?

I am no expert on the subject, but it seems to me that Swansont had it right when he said : If you think about time outside of our measurement of it, it has always existed. How else would we know how old the universe is? Because of measured decay. The fact that we describe this decay in "years" that are relative to us is irrelevant. Even if time is cyclical, there is still a process of decay, entropy, etc that can be measured when starting from an arbitrary point. This is indication of time outside of our measurement of it; the physical decay of a system will use time as a factor. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

Thanks for the link. So which dimension do strings exist in then if not time?

But if time is an actual dimension, wouldn't that make these objects 2d instead? Also, wouldn't that strengthen the idea that time is the only dimension that can stand alone? I'm not trying to be difficult; I just want to understand this concept. That sounds interesting; do you know what that version of string theory is called?

Thanks. Just to clarify, there is no way that the one dimension is time right?

I thought about that, but those things are just symbolic representations used in math. In physical reality, anything with height will have at least some miniscule width. Even a point technically has measurments when expressed in reality (i.e. a dot on a page). Only 4 of which have any profound meaning for us. I can't experience dimensions that are tightly coiled on themselves. Are you saying it was one of these other dimensions being expressed in strings? No, but I will look into it thanks.

How could it? How could something have only height for example? What has height? Any sort of line representing height has at least some miniscule width. It seems like time is the only dimension that could dodge this pitfall.

I get that strings exist as an expression of one dimensional existence, but how can something exist in one dimension? From my understanding this is more of a mathematical expression than an actual object existing in one dimension, but if this is a viable theory, then that math actually does mean something. So how could something exist as a one dimensional object? Could it have only height, and no width or length for example? This seems impossible. The only dimension I could see existing on it's own, would be time (even though without matter the concept would be moot). I'm sure this is an incorrect assertion, but why? What other dimension could stand alone?

I know. That's why I then said: I don't know. Where was the evidence of CMB before there were instruments to detect it? Circumstantial evidence. I have no idea why it works, that's why I can't say how it does not work yet. Also, some things about the concepts are lost in translation. Having your "energies balanced" is nothing more than a body being homeostatic. "Fire" in you liver isn't a literal fire, and might not even be your literal liver. "Fire" is poetic language for the characteristics of fire; heat, rapid movement, inflammation. If I say your lung has a yin qi deficiency, I would also be saying that your lungs don't have enough moisture. Until you understand the terms to even know what the specific gobbledygook is, it seems short sighted to write it off as something else we have virtually no proof for. I am not defending the notion of magic energy, I am just pointing out first that the concepts don't translate very well so they sound more ridiculous to western ears, and second that we really aren't in a position yet to say why acupuncture works as well as it does. You are not the first person to draw a correlation between acupuncture and endorphins and ATP. However, there are still questions that traditional answers don't satisfy hence the continued research. Maybe qi is real, and maybe it isn't. I think I would need a PhD in acupuncture just to be able to understand the concepts well enough to make that call. I have studied qi in martial arts for about 10 years, and I still don't feel like I have the concept completely nailed down in western terms. I know you are a smart person, I am familiar with some of your postings, and if we were discussing physics or chemistry or something along those lines I would certainly concede that you are probably correct, but in this one area I feel confident that you are wrong to be so dismissive. To just dismiss this as a placebo effect or the result of minute physiological changes, seems very short sighted to me. I will say one thing that acupuncturists have over most doctors, and that is non invasive diagnostics that are pretty darn accurate. Some practitioners are so good they can tell you all about your health from just looking at you and checking various pulse points. I mean detailed and specific things about your health. I was a little creeped out You're right; and if people's poetic language referred to headaches and fever as "demons", then they would be correct too right? This just raises another interesting point. Chinese herbalism. It is based on the same intuitive poetic philosophy, and it has proven also quite effective. For example, if part of the plant resembles a heart, it is thought to benefit the heart in some way. Through this poetic view, they discovered numerous medicines that we use in the west. From things that are traditionally thought of as herbal, like ginko, to pharmaceuticals that are simply concentrates of the active ingredient from herbal meds like ephedrine. Oddly ephedrine the medicinal concentrate can be lethal, while in it's natural form ephedra is virtually harmless. Maybe there is something to their methods, and maybe there isn't, but they certainly figured an inordinate amount of coincidental knowledge if they were just going on thousands of years of placebo effects. Well not really. The combination of pharmaceuticals and some herbal medicines is counter indicated and can be dangerous or even fatal. You would need to talk to a licensed herbalist, or preferably a western doctor that is trained in chinese medicine, if you are mixing actual herbal teas. If you are just taking a capsule there isn't really enough of the herb in there to really matter.

^^^In case you didn't notice, the first link I posted compared their results to a placebo (which in these studies is usually 3-5mm away from the actual point). The patients didn't know which point was the real P6. How do you rationalize that?

Many alternative therapies are unproven and as I have had limited exposure to them, I can't say if there is any redeeming quality. However, acupuncture has been demonstrated to be quite effective both in studies and in my life personally. In fact, in California, acupuncturists, and chiropracters are called complimentary practitioners, instead of alternative. Acupuncture is billed as a primary health care giver for insurance purposes. I don't know how much faith I would put into a source that takes only a cursory glance at something, gives a poor over view, then defines it as "gobbledygook". All of the studies I have seen, say that not only is point placement important, but that the minute physiological changes like a slight increase in WBC production and ATP, do not account for the drastic changes in health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10434821&dopt=Citation http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=1456 In medicine it is ok in some cicumstances to say that something works even if you don't know why yet (look at penicilin for example...it took 15 years I believe before they figured that one out, but it didn't stop people from administering it). Do not confuse the poetic language and concepts of the Chinese with the arbitrary semantics of the new agers. 50% of American doctors believe in acupuncture, and 40% recommend it to their patients. That is a pretty high % for a bunch of gobbledygook don't you think?

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_060518_camo,,00.html

I am not an oncologist, but I do study medicine and I know what this is in reference to. Curcumin is an angiogenesis inhibitor, and it is a primary ingredient in cury. Countries that have high levels of curcumin in their diet have lower instances of certain types of cancer ( I want to say prostate and breast cancer off the top of my head). Also, Asian soy is full of angiogensis inhibitors, and the same is true of diets that contain high concentrations of Asian soy. I believe the American lima bean also has these inhibitors to a lesser degree. There is plenty of peer reviewed research on angiogenesis inhibitors, though most medical research is going to center around medications that contain the inhibitors, like celebrex or vioxx. I hope this helps.