Philosophy Now Forum

In the lab, Takeo couldn't stand it anymore. The itching was driving him crazy. He watched his right arm turn red and wondered why he had decided to take part in this experiment. He knew he was allergic to poison ivy (Rhus radicans). So what was the point of re-exposing himself?

An hour later, Takeo refused to believe what Yujiro Ikemi, founder of the institute of Psychosomatic Medicine at Kyshu University in Fukuoka, Japan, was telling him. The Rghus radicans extract hadn't been applied to his right arm (which, nevertheless had continued to swell) but his left, which was showing no symptoms.

What had made his right arm swell so much wasn't poison ivy at all, but a harmless leaf. Takeo, like half the participants in this experiment was reacting to the idea of the allergy, not the physical reality

And the ethical considerations are?

That it may be unkind to sneer at shamans

What is the placebo effect
it represents everything science does not know about the powers of the human psyche
and the effect consciousness has on the physical body
and if it is true for human nature
so too can it be for the whole of Nature

The shaman intuitively knows that Nature is conscious
and taps into its powers

the ethical consideration
is that science
should be far more inquisitive and respectful of psychic healing than it currently is

"We don't know about the capacity of the brain to heal the body"
reports David Sevan-Schreiber, the French psychiatry professor who originally wrote this OP.
He goes on to say
"Therein undoubtedly lies the secret of the shamans and other psychic healers. Their rituals, chants and restorative acts address the most archaic parts of the brain, those that regulate our organism and participate in its healing."

It's no surprise that our brain is able to affect our physical bodies. But why apply that human attribute to all of nature? Do you have any logical argument that would support that application?

Is it only human attributes that can be extended to nature? E.g, a rock is just as much a part of nature as we are. And a rock cannot affect itself in any way, why not extend that to nature and come up with the conclusion that nature is unable to affect itself?

It seems arbitrary to me. But I'm interested in why you think it is valid.

The brain is part of the physical body
it is consciousness that affects matter



If the following combination of chemical elements
are affected by consciousness

1. Oxygen (65%)
2. Carbon (18%)
3. Hydrogen (10%)
4. Nitrogen (3%)
5. Calcium (1.5%)
6. Phosphorus (1.0%)
7. Potassium (0.35%)
8. Sulfur (0.25%)
9. Sodium (0.15%)
10. Magnesium (0.05%)
11. Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
12. Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

why should not any and every other chemical combination
also be affected by consciousness?

the valid questions should really be
what and where is consciousness?
why and when does it affect matter?

It is my argument
that the seed of consciousness is present in every atom
and that the association of atoms into different elements
constitute different frequencies of conscious energy
therefore
simply because we cannot tune into the frequency of granite
does not mean it is not radiating conscious energy
This also leads me to believe
that when human consciousness
mixes elements in order to manufacture
a human creation
ie a motor car
motorcar consciousness comes into existence
its engine heart pumps live fluid through its system
the alternator generates electric energy
and the wheels carry its human creator safely down the highway
and those who truly love their cars
or boats
or houses
or plants
or animal pets
or whatever
intuitively sense this
and engage in a mutual exchange of conscious appreciation

a crystal glass
tells me
"I am fragile.Treat me carefully"
and if I drop her on concrete
she screams in agony
and my heart misses a beat.

others can argue that I am crazy all they want
but for me
it is an intellectual form of Divine-madness
it makes sense to me
to continue to develop my critical evolution
while remaining ethically in contact with my intuitive animism

instead of arguing about unquestioning religious faith
atheistic cynicism
or middle of the road agnosticism
this personal attitude towards consciousness in general
allows me to define the common denominator
in all the myriad forms of atomic radiations
as Loving kindness.

I live with a reasonable sense of how Universal Consciousness operates
and who the Godhead might be
which allows my life to be far more vital and interesting
and caring

In essence
as this relates to the collective human consciousness
and how we affect the rest of Nature
this is a summation of my thesis on Psyche-Genetics
dealing with the Soul of the Atom
and the past/present/future metaphysical potentials of human evolution

As I understand it, atoms are elements. The simplest atom is the hydrogen atom, which is an element. Do you think a hydrogen atom is conscious? Or a hellium atom? Do you have anything (facts, compelling logic) that supports this idea?

Hydrogen is the base
from which all else is created

If consciousness was not present at the moment of BB creation
when and how did self awareness arise?
More mysteriously
Why?

We can argue and war forever
about how and when consciousness evolved
randomly or by design
our focus should be on why it did and what it is

That will answer everything

This cannot be accomplished via empirical inquiry alone
there has to be a melding between analytical and intuitive modes of perception

Physics and Metaphysics
have to operate from the same base agreement
Consciousness exists
Why it does
and What it is
that must be the central focus of our attention

Does the Atom have Soul?
What does matter
matter
if it has no reason to exist
other than randomly fucking and eating
and treating Nature as an unconscious garbage pit

Who knows what
was compressed into the latest singularity?

from which side of consciousness comes inspiration?

what arrived first in human consciousness
the idea of self-awareness
or the analysis of self-awareness?

On what was human culture founded
and disciplined?
on jungle laws of survival?
or on our soaring dreams of Gods and demi-Gods
and mythical heroes

was it not the profound questions in religious Scriptures
inquiring into the meaning of life
that gave science its birth?

did a random set of equations
eventually reveal that E=MC2?
or did an intuitive inspiration precede the math?

what point analytical consciousness
if there is nothing novel to analyze?

what is more idolized
the intuitive artist
or the analytical scientist

in deep depression
say at the loss of a child
to whom do we turn for comfort?
science?
or religion?

which side of consciousness
is unimaginatively limited to the speed of light
leaving us trapped by gravity on the edge of a galaxy?
and which side will allow us to imagine the idea of unlimited trans-location
for cosmic exploration
and perhaps give us a seat
at the Center of Galactic Command?

Should i I look forward to your predictable analysis on all this
or hope for some intuitive insight that might amaze me
and all who read this
and inspire all of us to revisit the universe
and reassess its values in a more unique manner

Yes you can
you have a right brain
exercise it

Which ones? The original cultures or the new-age western ones?
By "science" I assume you mean medicine? Is it not clinical trials that identify the placebo effect? I and medicine I think, agree that such an effect does show a relationship between the 'mind' and body, personally I think it shows the effects beliefs can have upon the body systems.
Why it's not much use is that its not currently predictable in the way that the actual medicines from the same trials are. I.e. its not easy to bottle it but Grinder & Bandler did propose Placebo I as an attempt to address this

No idea why you think this can apply to 'Nature'?
If anything it would a show that the shaman was an astute observer of humans and had an understanding of his(generally) culture. What do you mean by "conscious"? As I cannot understand the idea of 'Nature' with an 'I', if this is what you mean?
Why? What it should do, and is, is pay more attention to the substances the healing shaman uses. As to any 'psychic' healing I'd have thought the psychologists, therapists, counsellors cover such things now-a-days.
The 'secret' of the shamans was that ritual can aid belief which appears to sometimes aid recovery, whether it triggers something I'll leave to the neurologists, and chemists not the 'shrinks'.

With us I thought? And it appears to be tied to Language and the kinds of Body one has. Do you equate "consciousness" and "self awareness"(self consciousness?)
Why not?