Can modern systems be Paranormal...?

[Mojo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can modern systems be Paranormal...?

Can't you imagine that we are interacted/exposed with minimal(somewhat equal to homeopathic quantities) quantity of everything in nature by natural/EM mechanisms?

If this is the case, what would be the point in taking homeopathic remedies if we are already being exposed to them all the time? What additional effect could they possibly have?

In any case, the small quantities of substances we are exposed to in nature have not gone through your magic "potentization" process, so cannot, by your logic, be considered to be the same as homeopathic remedies.

 

[Jocce]

So bascially, rigorous testing of conventional treatments but when it comes to homeopathy and the likes then hearsay is enough? Sounds like you guys are taking this seriously.

Understand this Kumar. If, I repeat..IF, homeopathic preparations would have a directly physical effect on the body then they have the potential to be harmful.

In conventional medicine there is a very elaborate reporting system for side effects and responses. That is not the case in homeopathy. You only "report" your "cured" cases. There is NO common reporting system in use where you note when remedies did not have effect, or unexpected effects.

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can modern systems be Paranormal...?

If this is the case, what would be the point in taking homeopathic remedies if we are already being exposed to them all the time? What additional effect could they possibly have?

In any case, the small quantities of substances we are exposed to in nature have not gone through your magic "potentization" process, so cannot, by your logic, be considered to be the same as homeopathic remedies.

When you go to jungle/some other natural environment alfter long time of living in big modern unnatural city, do you feel something natural--even if you never had been there previously.

Imbalanced/deficient natural exposures/interactions/effects created in you makes/need you to take these remedies to balance. We may be habituated/adapted since our evolution--all the substances in some minimal quantity and we can naturally recognize/decode naturally, but these can be imbalanced currently in us--so we need something to balance these.

 

[Kumar]

So bascially, rigorous testing of conventional treatments but when it comes to homeopathy and the likes then hearsay is enough? Sounds like you guys are taking this seriously.

Understand this Kumar. If, I repeat..IF, homeopathic preparations would have a directly physical effect on the body then they have the potential to be harmful.

In conventional medicine there is a very elaborate reporting system for side effects and responses. That is not the case in homeopathy. You only "report" your "cured" cases. There is NO common reporting system in use where you note when remedies did not have effect, or unexpected effects.

Jocee, Substance may not matter much, but its quantity can matter much. We may be exposed to all substance available in nature & which are directly exposed to us, but its quantity & makeup/pattern can be important. If we take in minimal/right quantity there can be healing effects without adverse/toxic effects. However some least side effects as aggravation as uneasiness can be there esp. in higher potencies. However lower potencies, MT etc. should be/are checked for their crude type effects.

Being become conventional, popular & most means & attentions are given to MS, it has become systematic/diciplined which is opposite with other systems. So these are not comparable in this sense. Probably, it may happen at some later & suitable date.

 

[Gr8wight]

In short other than sCAM, pro-most people here systems. More clear:modern system or read this thought provoking link;
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/modern_man

Kumar,
According to the links you provided, modern means of the present or recent past; contemporary, and system means a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole. The engine in my car is a modern system. The series of pipes and pumping stations that bring water to my home are a modern system. The new, chemical free, pet safe, yard care program that costs me too much money every year is a modern system. My computer is a modern system. The new, concrete as opposed to asphalt highway I drive upon is a modern system. Were you referring to any of these, or some other modern system? I do not understand your terms. Also, what the hell did that third link have to do with anything under discussion here?

 

[Gr8wight]

Let me mention some definition of "natural" & "unnatural":

Natural: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong

This is an imaginary concept. Your sense of right and wrong is not inherent, it was learned. Your sense of right and wrong may differ from that of someone else.

"What is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?"

 

[Kumar]

This is an imaginary concept. Your sense of right and wrong is not inherent, it was learned. Your sense of right and wrong may differ from that of someone else.

"What is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?"

Unless inherent or unless one follow inherited things/aspects, it may not be natural--eg; cloning. We may not be able to declare anything natural unless it is long time tested for its right & wrong. I just have a faint idea that our older people were mentioning creditabilty of different things on 3, 7 or 21 generations based. Anyway, different things can be natural to all but still more/specific natural to some as father, mother, brothers, friends, colours, foods, girls/boys etc. If two fathers or mothers of two person are different--it does not mean that father/mother is not a natral concept. Asprological indications/Constitutional/miasmatic prescribings--some what tells diferent naturals suited to different person. Two fathers/mothers are our truth/natural, but still can be different of yours & mine.

All can fit in modern systems as per my links. But, for the mean time, you can take it modern/conventional medicines & physics which are considered as normal, natural & scientific in science but not yet made "absolute".

 

[Francois Tremblay]

There is no such thing as "unnatural". It's a word invented to deal with people's fantasies. It has nothing to do with the serious discussions of this message board.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Thanks for understanding my homeopathically potentised language....in isolation.

Goonie goo goo?

 

[Kumar]

There is no such thing as "unnatural". It's a word invented to deal with people's fantasies. It has nothing to do with the serious discussions of this message board.

Are modernizations (cars, factories etc.) "natural"? If nothing can be "unnatural" then how anything can be thought as "paranormal" or "supernatural"?

Since, nothing is considered as "absolute" or "final" or "complete" in MS and are subject to change, it can be considered as 'normal, scientific or "natural" in MS's dictonary, but not in common/true dictonary where it can be listed, otherwise. Cars can be natural in MS's language but not in natural/real language.

 

[Gr8wight]

Unless inherent or unless one follow inherited things/aspects, it may not be natural--eg; cloning. We may not be able to declare anything natural unless it is long time tested for its right & wrong. I just have a faint idea that our older people were mentioning creditabilty of different things on 3, 7 or 21 generations based. Anyway, different things can be natural to all but still more/specific natural to some as father, mother, brothers, friends, colours, foods, girls/boys etc. If two fathers or mothers of two person are different--it does not mean that father/mother is not a natral concept. Asprological indications/Constitutional/miasmatic prescribings--some what tells diferent naturals suited to different person. Two fathers/mothers are our truth/natural, but still can be different of yours & mine.

All can fit in modern systems as per my links. But, for the mean time, you can take it modern/conventional medicines & physics which are considered as normal, natural & scientific in science but not yet made "absolute".

I'm sorry. I give up. I tried to understand what you are saying. I honestly read this post three times. It doesn't make any sense. When you go into a restaurant, do you ever get the exact thing you ordered?

 

[Kumar]

I'm sorry. I give up. I tried to understand what you are saying. I honestly read this post three times. It doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, but try to read it in my language/understanding, you will understand it.

When you go into a restaurant, do you ever get the exact thing you ordered?

Why not?

 

[Donks]

Kumar, let me preface my post by sayind this: If someone can't read one of your posts, it's not their fault, it's yours. People have told you how to make your posts easy to read: Use simple sentences.

Unless inherent or unless one follow inherited things/aspects, it may not be natural--eg; cloning.

Cloning is perfectly natural. Many (most?) of the world's creatures procreate by cloning.

We may not be able to declare anything natural unless it is long time tested for its right & wrong.

That presuposes your definition of natural (inherent sense of right and wrong). If you want to apply a different definition (existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world, ant. supernatural), then everything known is natural.

I just have a faint idea that our older people were mentioning creditabilty of different things on 3, 7 or 21 generations based.

It does not matter what faint ideas you have regarding how credibility used to be mesured. We now have better ways of finding out what works, and what doesn't.

Anyway, different things can be natural to all but still more/specific natural to some as father, mother, brothers, friends, colours, foods, girls/boys etc.

Perhaps you want to use "familiar" or "common" instead of "natural" here.

If two fathers or mothers of two person are different--it does not mean that father/mother is not a natral concept.

No, it does not.

Asprological indications/Constitutional/miasmatic prescribings--some what tells diferent naturals suited to different person.

The problem with these are that they are based on supernatural explanations. They do not match the observable world.

Two fathers/mothers are our truth/natural, but still can be different of yours & mine.

Yes, but it's not relevant to whether a testable hypothesis works or not.

All can fit in modern systems as per my links. But, for the mean time, you can take it modern/conventional medicines & physics which are considered as normal, natural & scientific in science but not yet made "absolute".

I chose to use systems that can show their effectiveness and safety over those who can't, and don't even try. I don't care which pretends to be "absolute," yet you can hardly find 2 proponents with the same definitions.

 

[arthwollipot]

Unless inherent or unless one follow inherited things/aspects, it may not be natural--eg; cloning. We may not be able to declare anything natural unless it is long time tested for its right & wrong. I just have a faint idea that our older people were mentioning creditabilty of different things on 3, 7 or 21 generations based. Anyway, different things can be natural to all but still more/specific natural to some as father, mother, brothers, friends, colours, foods, girls/boys etc. If two fathers or mothers of two person are different--it does not mean that father/mother is not a natral concept. Asprological indications/Constitutional/miasmatic prescribings--some what tells diferent naturals suited to different person. Two fathers/mothers are our truth/natural, but still can be different of yours & mine.

All can fit in modern systems as per my links. But, for the mean time, you can take it modern/conventional medicines & physics which are considered as normal, natural & scientific in science but not yet made "absolute".

The words are all there, but they're just not connecting into coherent sentences.

The point is, Kumar, after successive dilutions of the original substance, there is nothing left of that substance - only the water. I don't have the maths handy, but I think it's been shown that after 20 dilutions there is not a single molecule of the original substance left.

I'd appreciate the numbers, if anyone's got them.

 

[clarsct]

The term 'natural' has always baffled me. How is a beaver's dam, built for beaver's purposes any different from a human dam built for human purposes?

Or maybe you mean 'unnatural' and meaning 'going against nature'. Again, how? Anyone out there broken the Law of Gravity? Any Perpetual Motion machines? These would go against nature. I have yet to see them.

Or maybe we're talking about lab-made materials as opposed to materials harvested from elsewhere. So, if I harvest aspirin from a willow tree, and then go make some in a lab, purify them similiarly, could you tell the difference? By any way you wish? I don't care if you use crystals, douse, or go use a Mass Spectrometer. This I would HAVE to see...

It just doesn't make sense to me that because a substance has been in a certain type of room (laboratory), that its basic and intrinsic qualities change. Can we really say that we can tell one carbon atom from another by where it's been? Again, I would need some evidence of this.

Or am I approaching this wrong? If so, how?

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, let me preface my post by sayind this: If someone can't read one of your posts, it's not their fault, it's yours. People have told you how to make your posts easy to read: Use simple sentences.

Ok.


Cloning is perfectly natural. Many (most?) of the world's creatures procreate by cloning.

Not in humans. Btw, I have a faint feeling. Can natural cloning in humans possible? I mean if natural blank egg possible & get own/partner's whole DNA??

That presuposes your definition of natural (inherent sense of right and wrong). If you want to apply a different definition (existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world, ant. supernatural), then everything known is natural.

Yes, but I meant in its natural form.

It does not matter what faint ideas you have regarding how credibility used to be mesured. We now have better ways of finding out what works, and what doesn't.

Don't we need time testing? How much time can be suitable to declare any healing substance as persitant, true or final?

Perhaps you want to use "familiar" or "common" instead of "natural" here.

I want to say "long term".

The problem with these are that they are based on supernatural explanations. They do not match the observable world.

Why whether people are not different in their constitutional makeups, behaviour or physiological/phychlogical makeups--individually or in groups eg; blood groups, skin colours etc.?

I chose to use systems that can show their effectiveness and safety over those who can't, and don't even try. I don't care which pretends to be "absolute," yet you can hardly find 2 proponents with the same definitions.

It can depend on personal preferances & experiances. Experiances sometimes can be better then 'heard/read theories' .

 

[Mojo]

Don't we need time testing? How much time can be suitable to declare any healing substance as persitant, true or final?

It's not a question of time, it's a question of whether properly controlled tests have been carried out, and what conclusions can be drawn from those tests. If a remedy has not been tested, we cannot draw a reliable conclusion about whether it works, no matter how long it has been used for. And, of course, if a treatment has been tested and found to work no better than placebo (once other factors have been eliminated) we can say that it doesn't work no matter how long it has been used or how many people believe in it.

 

[Kumar]

Natural: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong :being in accordance with or determined by nature:having a specified character by nature : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature:growing without human care.

Normal: occurring naturally (normal immunity)
: of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development.

The above are some dictonary definitions of Natural & Normal. My question to you is; Whether Modern Systems are in accordance with these definitions or not? If not, then why these can't be thought as "Supernatural" & "Paranormal"??

 

[Mojo]

The above are some dictonary definitions of Natural & Normal. My question to you is; Whether Modern Systems are in accordance with these definitions or not? If not, then why these can't be thought as "Supernatural" & "Paranormal"??

The systems you describe as "Modern Systems" work within established and predictable scientific laws (often referred to as "laws of nature"). They are therefore clearly neither supernatural nor paranormal.

 

[Donks]

Natural: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong :being in accordance with or determined by nature:having a specified character by nature : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature:growing without human care.

Normal: occurring naturally (normal immunity)
: of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development.

The above are some dictonary definitions of Natural & Normal. My question to you is; Whether Modern Systems are in accordance with these definitions or not? If not, then why these can't be thought as "Supernatural" & "Paranormal"??

I didn't want to get into dictionary definitions, but here we go again.

Kumar, you are getting confused. Forget about the definitions for "natural" and "normal." If you want to see if modern systems are "supernatural" and "paranormal" then look at the definitions for "supernatural" and "paranormal." From Merriam Webster:

supernatural
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

paranormal
not scientifically explainable : SUPERNATURAL

So you see, if you use the proper definitions, there is no reason to think that modern medicine is either supernatural or paranormal.