Intelligent Design Medicine Mind Neuroscience

Times a-changin’ New Scientist now hails mind over matter

Spread the love

No, really. Here’s what they say in 2018 about the placebo effect (you start to get better when you think you are getting better):

“OUR minds aren’t passive observers simply observing reality as it is; our minds actually change reality. The reality we experience tomorrow is partly the product of the mindsets we hold today.” That’s what Alia Crum told global movers and shakers at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. It may sound like New Age nonsense, but Crum, who heads the Mind & Body lab at Stanford University in California, can back up her claims with hard evidence showing the mysterious influence the mind has over our health and well-being.David Robson, “How a positive mind really can create a healthier body” at New Scientist

“Mysterious influence”? Isn’t the mind just an evolved illusion, as Darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett insists?

New Scientist types didn’t always think about the placebo effect this way: In 2005, New Scientist listed the placebo effect as Number 1 among 13 things that do not make sense, things that need to be explained away

They started turning around in 2015: They wanted to try to “harness” what didn’t make sense.

Well, good. But given the trends we see among non-religious people today, someone, please stop them before they get to ghosts and magic and stuff.

The fact that the mind is real but not a material entity does not lend credibility to just anything that people who have known that all along have, at times, believed. 😉

See also: Parkinson’s patients learn to use placebos?

Human mind: Knowingly taking fake pills actually eases pain

The brain is not a “meat computer” Dramatic recoveries from brain injury highlight the difference

and

Boy loses large hunk of brain. And is “doing just fine.” When pundits talk glibly of creating artificial minds or claim that consciousness is an illusion, it might help to remember that few predicted cases like this could exist or thought that high tech diagnostics would lead to their discovery.

6 Replies to “Times a-changin’ New Scientist now hails mind over matter

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “OUR minds aren’t passive observers simply observing reality as it is; our minds actually change reality. The reality we experience tomorrow is partly the product of the mindsets we hold today.”,,,

    And although she was talking about physical health,,

    “Crum and others have discovered that your mindset affects everything from your weight and fitness to the physical toll of insomnia and stress – even how well you age. The upshot is that two people could have identical genes and lifestyles but one can end up healthier than the other, thanks solely to their different thoughts.”

    And although she was talking about our physical health, it is uncanny how her, “OUR minds aren’t passive observers simply observing reality as it is; our minds actually change reality”, exactly mirrors what Quantum Physicist Anton Zeilinger stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    – Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video 7:17 minute mark
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    Moreover, as Weinberg, an atheist, points out in the following article, having free will figure so centrally in quantum mechanics at such a deep level, undermines the Darwinian worldview from within in that instead of humans being the result of impersonal physical laws (as Darwinists hold), “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.” Specifically Weinberg states, “the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://www.nybooks.com/article.....mechanics/

    And although Alia Crum’s insight into our mind’s ability to positively affect our physical well being is very important to note, it is also important to note that there is also well known “religious correlation” to our physical and mental well being as well:

    Study: Religiously affiliated people lived religiously affiliated lived “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…”
    July 1, 2018
    Excerpt: Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/study-religiously-affiliated-people-lived-religiously-affiliated-lived-9-45-and-5-64-years-longer/

    Can Religion Extend Your Life? – By Chuck Dinerstein — June 16, 2018
    Excerpt: The researcher’s regression analysis suggested that the effect of volunteering and participation accounted for 20% or 1 year of the impact, while religious affiliation accounted for the remaining four years or 80%.
    https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/16/can-religion-extend-your-life-13092

    “I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion.
    The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – preface
    “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100
    https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Indeed, this ‘religious correlation’ to our physical and mental well being is found to go far deeper than just our temporary “material” lives here on earth.

    In regards to free will, it is important to point out that although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a theistic view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options. Eternal life, (infinity if you will), with God, or Eternal life, (infinity again if you will), without God. C.S. Lewis states the situation as such:

    “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.”
    – C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

    And exactly as would be expected on the Christian view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality. An ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and a extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Verses and Music:

    John 8:23-24
    But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

    Luke 16:19
    And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

    Jewel Who will save your soul – music video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LukEq643Mk

    John 3:16
    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

  2. 2
    goodusername says:

    News,

    New Scientist types didn’t always think about the placebo effect this way: In 2005, New Scientist listed the placebo effect as Number 1 among 13 things that do not make sense, things that need to be explained away

    What is “this way”?

    Every time you mention the 2005 article, it seems that you have some problem with it, but it’s never clear what. What issue do you have with the article?

    They started turning around in 2015: They wanted to try to “harness” what didn’t make sense.

    How is the 2015 article different from the 2005 article? It’s certainly not in the “harnessing” of the placebo effect; as the 2005 article mentions, it had been harnessed for decades.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 1

    And although she was talking about our physical health, it is uncanny how her, “OUR minds aren’t passive observers simply observing reality as it is; our minds actually change reality”, exactly mirrors what Quantum Physicist Anton Zeilinger stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    Human beings have had the capability to observe/measure events at the quantum level for perhaps the last fifty years. So who was configuring reality for the rest of the 13.75bn years before that?

    Moreover, as Weinberg, an atheist, points out in the following article, having free will figure so centrally in quantum mechanics at such a deep level, undermines the Darwinian worldview from within in that instead of humans being the result of impersonal physical laws (as Darwinists hold), “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.” Specifically Weinberg states, “the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    Modern humans have been around for perhaps 300,000 years, the Universe for about 13.75bn years. Unless Weinberg is a YEC, just how are “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.”?

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev ask,

    “Human beings have had the capability to observe/measure events at the quantum level for perhaps the last fifty years. So who was configuring reality for the rest of the 13.75bn years before that?”

    Ever read a book called the Bible?

    John 1:1-4 will give you a hint as to “Whom”.

    as to:

    “Modern humans have been around for perhaps 300,000 years, the Universe for about 13.75bn years. Unless Weinberg is a YEC, just how are “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.”?”

    Weinberg is an Atheist like you. Unlike you, he is honest (and smart).

    Free will is “how” “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.”

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev as to this claim of yours:

    ““Human beings have had the capability to observe/measure events at the quantum level for perhaps the last fifty years.”

    You are implying that the human eye does not operate on the quantum level. You are mistaken. The human eye can detect a single photon and the human eye, minus any instruments that “measure/observe”, is also now being used to to probe the foundations of quantum mechanics:

    Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016
    Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons.,,,
    it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,,
    The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.
    “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?
    http://phys.org/news/2016-07-humans-smallest.html

    The Human Eye Could Help Test Quantum Mechanics
    Experiments to confirm we can see single photons offer new ways to probe our understanding of quantum reality
    By Anil Ananthaswamy on July 10, 2018
    Excerpt: Now, “there’s absolutely no doubt that individual photoreceptors respond to single photons,”,,,
    In 2016 a team led by biophysicist Alipasha Vaziri, then at the University of Vienna, reported using single-photon sources to show “humans can detect a single-photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.”
    Kwiat’s team,,, wants to improve the statistics by doing a much larger number of trials with many more subjects.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-help-test-quantum-mechanics/

    Of related note:

    Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y

  6. 6

    It’s always interesting to see how even those that accept the primary nature of mind do so while fundamentally characterizing it as secondary to some theoretical model of an external reality they hold … in their mind.

Leave a Reply