RE: Asgard and Archaea

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

The most recent post of Anton's I have watched discusses a group of Archaea known as Asgardia that are some of the most ancient forms of life on Earth, and their interactions with other bacteria as mediated by viruses. He cites the recent (June, 2022) Nature article linked below, and points out that ~7% of our genome is derived from viruses, which hints at how features of eukaryotes like chloroplasts and mitochondria, likely once separate species, became incorporated into complex multicellular life.

Dear @valued-customer!
That theory doesn't seem to get the attention of East Asians yet.
Scientists in Japan and China are currently focused on catching up with the military and aerospace fields in general among American advanced technologies.

Perhaps they, like you, are not interested in defining modern science through Plato's philosophical perspective.
They are only interested in catching up with American science, military, and industrial technology.

Thank you for article!😃



0
0
0.000
27 comments
avatar

The most devastating weapons have yet to be devised, and they are all going to be biological, rather than electromechanical devices. I await weaponized wasps, ground crickets, and ants. Nightmare fuel.

Thanks!

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Dear my honorable senior @valued-customer!
Perhaps they will have a hard time understanding your profound prophecies!

From your point of view, a genius, East Asian scientists would be seen as technologists imitating American technology.
They do not know the way of thinking to understand the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle as the thought of science.
Perhaps, They will only study science and technology at the command of the state and overlords.
Because the overlords promised to give them enormous wealth, power, honor, and beauty in return.

East Asian scientists are an elite aristocratic group that obeys the orders of overlords.

If they knew that low-class people like me have these kinds of conversations with foreigners like you, I'd probably be jailed.😅

0
0
0.000
avatar

Best keep our discussions on the down low, then. I am a simple carpenter. I work with my hands, sweating in the sun and cursing the rain when it pours. I hardly prophecy genius, but you are very kind to praise me so.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Aw, you've been reading the same zombie novels as I am! Those ideas are in there, seriously! Good to see you still on this platform, my old friend. Been a long while!

No doubt the scientist wizards are attempting to weaponize everything. Their most potent weapon is and likely will continue to be FEAR.

Rule #9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing, itself.

— Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

As for viruses, my favourite source is still Dr Stephan Lanka, one of the pioneers in the field of virology. Read all you can on this guy, if you haven't already. I promise you it is mindblowing material!
https://abruptearthchanges.com/2017/11/17/dr-stefan-lanka-the-history-of-the-infection-theory/

Dr Tom Cowan and Dr Andrew Kaufman are top notch, also. Amazingly insightful and surprisingly very hopeful and positive stuff!
https://truthcomestolight.com/a-follow-up-to-the-virus-challenge-dr-tom-cowan-with-dr-andrew-kaufman-mike-stone-mike-donio/

0
0
0.000
avatar

I certainly agree regarding fear, and nothing has proved to me what you say about it more than my own experiences.

I do not agree that viruses aren't real and actual.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/settling-the-virus-debate-challenge

But, my reasons have nothing to do with the above challenge, exosomes, or terrain theory, nor even the fraudulent and egregious criminal imposition of medical tyranny since the Covid psyop started in China with outrageous videos of hapless victims gushing blood from their various orifices and falling dead in the street.

Biology is simply so complex that it is impossible viruses have not arisen.

Life is an act of war. Every blade of grass is striving with every one of it's neighbors for it's very life. Every leaf, root, and stem in the beautiful, fractal forest is strategically placed to take light, and that taking blocks something else. In the PNW rainforest the climax forest is almost exclusively hemlock, because as a seedling it can endure light deprivation at the bottom of the well of shadows. Doug Fir grows faster, straighter, and far taller than Hemlock. Sitka Spruce is more shade tolerant than Doug Fir, but cannot match Hemlock. When it's seemingly greater brethren finally fall to the forest floor, the lowly Hemlock that has been waiting, draped in moss, wretched and wracked, barely alive, perhaps for centuries in their shadow, is far ahead of any new seedlings that may sprout in the suddenly sunny soil.

It has husbanded it's resources, carefully spending it's hoarded nutrients and scant sugar on a hopeful twig here, a few needles there, patient as death itself while awaiting the opportunity only death can provide. No other tree can survive that deprivation and denial for decades as can Hemlock. In the deep old growth where the canopy stretches across the sky, no other seedlings lurk in it's shadow. The only woody stems you can find are Hemlock seedlings in a full canopied old growth forest.

Life is extremely competitive. In time every niche is filled. There are plants like the Indian Pipe, white, pink, and purple, never green, because they don't bother with photosynthesis in the shadows of giants. They are strictly parasitic on the roots of those that can reach the light. There are Redwoods and Doug Firs as white as snow, completely parasitic, all the sugars they need donated by their community through their interconnected roots, but they are a rare sport, and not separate species breeding true, and so cannot compete with the shaggy Hemlocks once they comprise the whole of the forest.

Certainly life is predatory, and the lower on the food chain you go the more hideous the methods of killing and eating you find. Vertebrates rarely eat their prey alive, and never just by dissolving them in acid and absorbing the nutrients. So I am confident in germ theory and there is certainly ample evidence for pestilential creatures at the microscopic scale. I am also familiar with parasitism, having myself often experienced vermin sucking my blood.

And these are relatively massive and mind-bogglingly complex creatures compared to viruses. Where there is a gap in defenses, some living thing will slip through to feed, to wage life, and where the gaps are too small for even microscopic vermin a variety of parasitic genes, prions, and viruses must insert themselves and reproduce, even if they can't feed in some horrific tortuous way.

Life is very reliable, even when it's not alive. You can count on it making you suffer somehow.

Because of that I am sure viruses exist in plethora, even disregarding mountains of evidence, such as our own DNA replete with more remnants of viruses than our sexy Neanderthal lover-cousins have left traces of in us.

I am glad we are here, and I hope you are well and hale, my friend.

0
0
0.000
avatar

sounds like more philosophy

still doesnt make viruses alive or even existential at all

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

No, my belief doesn't make anything. However, what everything is sources my beliefs, so the incomprehensible complexity of life shows that opportunities, such as for parasitic mechanisms like viruses to hijack cellular machinery to reproduce, which is what viruses do, are eventually taken advantage of. Life is incredibly ancient, shown to have begun before ~4bya. In that time it is not credible to state that such mechanisms haven't arisen to take advantage of the available niche.

It's comparable to stating that if the government issues EBT cards no one will claim them. The nature of biological mechanisms, their literally inconceivable complexity, makes such parasitic mechanisms inevitable in time, and there's been far more time for such mechanisms to arise than is necessary to make such event certain.

In favorable conditions bacteria can reproduce asexually every ~20 minutes. Each reproductive event has a small chance of going slightly awry, which occasionally produces mutations. You can do the math regarding how many mutations that generates in 4B years, but with any plausible degree of error in replication that is more mutations than there are possible species on Earth. That many opportunities for relatively short chunks of RNA or DNA that happen to encode instructions to replicate statistically guarantees they have arisen.

It's not a list of genetic code of viruses, or the tiny subset that cause disease in people. It's not much of a philosophy, and certainly not nihilism. It's just acknowledging that things happen when opportunities to happen arise, and the extraordinary complexity of biology has created so many opportunities for self-replicating parasitic mechanisms to arise it's just inconceivable they have not. Taking that statistical certainty in view of the easily reproducible evidence in our own DNA of relic fossil viral DNA that is stated to exist by entire industries of specialists that have specific expertise in the field and agree on that evidence - even without the voluminous other evidence of viruses that exists - is enough to convince me viruses are real.

YMMV

Edit: I want to emphasize the word 'industries'. I'm not talking about AN industry, but a plethora of them, many of which depend on completely different kinds of products based on using the viral form to create economic returns. From vaccines to CRISPR, from bioweapons to food additives, mechanisms found in viruses are used to produce products that make money. I don't know what you call a philosophy that simply looks at what exists and acknowledges that it exists, but that's the philosophy I ascribe to.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

If bacteria, viruses, parasites were really as threatening as I interpret them to be on the basis of your statements, how could the many species have existed at all in the course of their existence on this earth? Why don't people die in immense numbers all the time? How can it be that people grow old?

From my point of view, the assumption that humans are capable of biological warfare is due to the belief in the total feasibility and specific targeting of what is intended.

But it is also said that each organism's biome is distinctly different from every other organism's, according to another theory. What some researchers seek to identify as "hostile", "parasitic", "killing", others want to find out as "beneficial", "interacting" and "making healthy".

Some years ago I read a scientific paper on the subject of tapeworms in the organism, which until then had always been considered enemies of the organism and which were now considered to have their benefits. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I found it. The organism is far more than its DNA, the so-called building blocks of life, if you take it as the ultimate realisation that all life is the same, is in strong conflict with what is happening at the higher levels of the organism.

Similar to physics, where there have been or are efforts to establish an all unifying theory, I see this in biology, where the all unifying theory is genetics.

Ultimately, this leads to the long-standing dispute between pure materialism, according to which all living things can be explained and manipulated on the basis of their individual parts, and what people call consciousness or spirituality, according to which there is an intelligence at work that opposes materialism.

The "truth" will have to be assumed somewhere in the middle, I think, without being able to pin it down.

Placebo research and how one's mind influences one's body and vice versa are the great unknowns that materialistically attuned minds are reluctant to engage with because it offers them too much fuzziness and uncertainty.
For example, it is still not really known why anaesthesia works the way it does and there has been research into this where patients have been operated on by surgeons in hospital using only hypnosis and felt no pain at all during the operation. This raises the interesting question of how much the body/mind does its own to become insensitive to pain and how much is externally supplied and ultimately you can't really tell the two apart.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Let me respond by stating I strongly agree that life isn't mechanical, merely the sum of it's parts. I personally consider humanity to be sacred.

Neither do I consider genes to be some kind of ultimate blueprint, particularly in view of epigenetics and the glimpses researchers are beginning to get of gene expression. Further, I also expect that numerous genes have more than one mode of action. In other words just because it can be shown that a gene affects some particular thing, that does not mean it doesn't also affect others.

Generally, I do not consider the sciences mature at all, but that we are merely beginning to grasp some potential in scientific understanding.

I don't consider viruses and bacteria as generally threatening either. Pathogens are subject to the fact of evolution, and one aspect of that is that any organism that degrades it's environment reduces it's prospects for survival. A virus that is immediately utterly lethal almost completely eliminates it's ability to spread by killing it's hosts before much opportunity to be transmitted can be taken. The more lethal a pathogen, the less virulent it can be (the less it can spread).

The vast majority of viruses and bacteria aren't pathogens, at least not human pathogens, and some, such as I discuss in the OP here, are beneficial. It is not commonly understood that bifidobacteria in our guts is critical to human health, for example, and without our gut fauna we'd just die, unable to digest food or prevent infections.

However, there are pathogens, and that is why we have immune systems. Evolution creates a tension between host immunity and pathogen virulence and lethality that has been ongoing since life arose.

I do not only consider material, mechanistic factors real, but reason is the basis for understanding. Rationality is not materialism. Regarding cognition, consciousness, or how persons relate to bodies, I have strongly criticized the view that we even have a word to describe it. We are at a laughably rudimentary state of understanding what it is, and it is provable that consciousness continues when we are unconscious, such as when we sleep. This exemplifies the absolutely inadequate understanding presently attained by scientists studying it.

It is very, very hard for most people to honestly state they do not know, and the more educated and specialized they are, the more difficult it is to overcome hubris and not overstate confidence in their understanding. People allow insuperable speculation to overcome superable reason. For this reason I consider humility to be the foundation of wisdom, and try to carefully differentiate between my speculations regarding what I believe or think, and what I consider factual and have confidence is real.

It is useful to keep in mind that science is based on falsification of what can be disproved, not proving some theory is true. Every scientific theory will be found to be false in some way, and science will progress in that field when that happens. That's how science progresses. Therefore I try to be open minded regarding my beliefs, and prepared to change my mind when something I believe is fact is falsified. If I do not do that I will believe what is not factual, and that will cause me to act contrary to what is right. I do not want to wrong people, so I strive to correct my understanding as reason allows. This is why I find criticism so valuable, because that is what best falsifies things I erroneously believe.

0
0
0.000
avatar

For the most part, I can agree with what I find as overriding statements in your comment.

Therefore I try to be open minded regarding my beliefs, and prepared to change my mind when something I believe is fact is falsified.

I think it is a paradox, in a way. As I noted in the other comment, "facts" are a word that comes from the origin "to do ", they are therefore always open to attack.
The moment you accept a fact as disprovable, you are following a logic given by others (which coincides with your logic, otherwise you would not be able to follow it. However, all inner logic ultimately follows conscience and what one subjectively deems significant).

Our entire modernity prides itself on being fact-oriented when it comes to research and experimentation, but it shies away like the devil shies away from holy water from naming the role of the scientific experimenter (as observer and evaluator of his work) as a decisive influencer on the success and failure of his research and experiments. The objective observer does not exist. Objectivity is completely excluded in human social interaction. You would otherwise have to have someone observing the observer, who in turn is observed by an observer, and so on. (I assume you will name blind and double blind studies, but they are not saving from many other experiments where nothing is done blindly).

I am not negating your statement, I am merely mentioning its weakness, but also accepting its strengths. But I differ little in my own attitude from yours, I would say.

0
0
0.000
avatar

"Objectivity is completely excluded in human social interaction."

While we all have biases, these biases do not completely exclude objectivity. Objectivity should not be considered only an absolute, but is a range. We are all more or less objective regarding the variety of things there are, depending on our beliefs.

Some of us strive to be utterly objective, and some of us strive to be utterly faithful to a given dogma. I strive to eschew the latter because I believe we are incapable of ascertaining understanding of the reality we are part of due to our limitations. I may be accused of taking objectivity as dogma I am faithful to, just as I note that Atheism is as insuperable and dogmatic is every other religion. Every argument that faith in God is insuperable factually also can be turned around and apply to belief there is no God.

You are right there are weaknesses in my rationality.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

While we all have biases, these biases do not completely exclude objectivity. Objectivity should not be considered only an absolute, but is a range.

But that is exactly what prejudices do, they preclude objectivity, because otherwise they were not prejudices, i.e. preconceived views, but an open result. A result remains open as long as you leave it open. If one "closes" it, then one has subjectively agreed, nothing more. There is nothing wrong with that, one should just be aware that it is so.

I state that objectivity is not needed to move in relationships. It is, radically speaking, even irrelevant, to want to establish objectivity within human relationships and to even try is the horse's mouth here. I must first completely destroy my belief in objectivity in human interaction so that, relieved of this burden, I can talk to each other on a reasonable basis. One cannot "be a bit objective", objectivity is understood as absolute and is also applied in this way, trying to beat another's arguments to death by bringing his or her "false" subjectivity into the field against one's own "correct" subjectivity (backed up by "objectivity").

I consider it a misapprehension to give objectivity this relevance.

Atheism is as insuperable and dogmatic is every other religion

HaHa! Yes, I must always laugh at the claim to be an atheist. :D chuckle.

0
0
0.000
avatar

"I state that objectivity is not needed to move in relationships. It is, radically speaking, even irrelevant, to want to establish objectivity within human relationships..."

Nothing could be less true, IME. A lot of things have almost killed me. Only one thing has ever made me want to die, that most dangerous of things, a relationship. The utter lack of objectivity produces behaviours that are obviously crazy. Those people are pretty easy to avoid. What's far more dangerous is people that claim to be objective and aren't. If I believe their claims and trust them to view their skills and work objectively, and instead they're arrogant and conceited, they can ignore dangers that put me at risk, cost me money, or do harm to people I am trying to do good for.

Objectivity is born of humility, and part of the foundation of wisdom. Bias is always a negative, and extreme bias is obviously irrational. Many scientific papers are not reproducible, and bias is a terrible problem that degrades the quality of research, clouds our understanding, and reduces the prosperity and felicity of humanity.

Pretty hard to overestimate it's cost, or of the benefits of objectivity.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Heinz von Förster once put it this way- I guess, it is mostly him who influenced my stance on the topic of objectivity (I watched all what is available about him and some books as well as texts and interviews with him):

"I consider the whole idea of objectivity to be a stumbling-block, a foot-trap, a semantic trick to confuse the speakers and the listeners and the whole discussion, right from the start. For objectivity, after all, as far as I understand Helmholtz's formulation, requires the locus observandi. There the observer must strip off all his personal characteristics and must see quite objectively - locus observandi! - see it as it is.

And this assumption already contains fearful errors. For when the ¨observer strips off all his characteristics, namely language - Greek, Latin, Turkic, whatever - when he puts away his cultural glasses and is thus blind and mute, then he cannot be an observer, and he cannot narrate anything at all. The preconditions of his narration are taken away. To ascend to the locus observandi means: put aside all your personal qualities, including seeing, including speaking, including culture, including nursery, and now report something to us. Well, what is he supposed to report? He can't do that."

What you say about "objectivity" actually is more telling about you as a person than about objectivity :) Same counts for me, of course.

0
0
0.000
avatar

While none of us can be perfectly objective, as von Forster notes, that does not preclude us from making observations that can usefully contribute. Bias is a terrible problem, stemming largely from hubris in science today, that does all too often produce irreproducible research. But it does not necessarily render us incapable of producing reproducible work. Not being 100% objective does not prevent us from contributing to understanding by creating falsifiable hypotheses.

Good science isn't necessarily right. Being provably wrong is really useful too, because it enables us to eliminate false hypotheses. We only need to be objective enough to be reproducible to be scientifically productive. Supposing that because we cannot be perfectly objective we cannot produce useful science is an impossible standard that demonstrably cannot apply to human endeavor. All we need to do is be reproducible, and that can be possible even if we are biased, as long as we are not so biased that we proceed to make assumptions that prevent testing our hypotheses.

0
0
0.000
avatar

... and that can be possible even if we are biased, as long as we are not so biased that we proceed to make assumptions that prevent testing our hypotheses.

A very significant point. What scientist or scientific assistant would openly admit to being biased?
This is why many say that today's science has acquired a sacrosanct status, according to which the concept of fact is used like sliced bread, and compare this with previous dogmatic views such as those of ecclesiastical sovereignties.

That being said, science alone, based on empirical data, is not the holy grail it is stylised to be. Analysis is not everything in life. Knowledge has limits and someone who does not want to humbly acknowledge this is not a good scientist in my eyes.

Apart from measurable fields, rays, frequencies, etc., etc., there are tangible experiences in the human context, such as those I described, which are based on singing, movement and music and about which you have said nothing so far. The arts (anything in the realm of spiritual consciousness) are, in my view, relegated to their own corner from school and university life and are not really considered (or their work published or funded) by natural scientists as influencers of health and disease (or more generally, "consciousness").

To put it bluntly and in terms of a stylistic exaggeration: art students go to an MRI and have themselves examined, they undergo surgical procedures, get on aeroplanes and use modern technologies. But do science students also go to a séance, have a phenomenological family constellation done, try the effects of LSD, hypnosis, are curious about metaphysics, philosophy?

0
0
0.000
avatar

"What scientist or scientific assistant would openly admit to being biased?"

All of them. Honest people should acknowledge they have bias. I follow Dark Horse on Odysee, the Weinstein's. I distinctly recall them noting that researchers need to ensure their research is reproducible, because that enables bias to be overcome. Different researchers have different biases in many respects, and these biases can be compensated for through undertaking the same specific actions to conduct experiments - or are universal and shared between all that conduct the experiment.

There are certain biases that are universal to humanity, and are therefore difficult to overcome experimentally, which limits the ability of the scientific method to advance in ways such biases preclude.

"The arts (anything in the realm of spiritual consciousness) are, in my view, relegated to their own corner from school and university life and are not really considered (or their work published or funded) by natural scientists as influencers of health and disease (or more generally, "consciousness")."

There are scientific means of measuring the health benefits of the arts. Both prayer and music (and probably more) have been shown to be beneficial to health through experiments that quantify health outcomes and contrast control groups with groups that use prayer or listen to music. However, this does not mean that artists' feelings about their art, nor religious dogmas, are verified. Experiments that differentiate and can falsify specific predictions have not been able to be designed for those purposes, AFAIK.

I doubt you would be able to conduct experiments that seek to falsify such dogma today in any academic environment. People get stabby over such things. Ask Salman Rushdie.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for that awesome reply, @valued-customer. I wrote several paragraphs in response last night and then left to research - to double check my info, lol - and closed the damn Hive window and lost everything!

Anyhoo, I think viruses have been hijacked by mainstream acedemia/science/pharma/media cartels, and added to their collective fear arsenal. In fact on land sea and air, viruses are necessary and prolific - and good!!

Viruses are part of what keeps us operating effectively, working in harmony with the essential parasites and good bacteria, which somehow all got the rap of alien intruders, instead of part of our essential infrastructure.

Inside our bodies is an ecosystem, not unlike that found in the unadulterated version of nature. Sure, we're out of balance, but that's down to our horrible diet, poison in our food, water, chemtrails in the air, the plastics in our food packaging, etc.

Did you know ocean going vessels are allowed to dump billions of tons of garbage in the ocean - every year? Who is the worst of the filthy offenders? Executives at the highest echelons of the world's most powerful biz, the good ole USA Inc, and affiliated corporations, get off looking squeaky clean, while ensuring the masses are kept sufficiently misinformed, only by virtue of massive PR budgets!

https://abetterfootprint.com/does-the-us-dump-garbage-in-the-ocean/
"Recent studies show that the US dumps the highest number of water bottles in the ocean. In fact, studies show that the US contributes as much as 242 million tons of trash in the ocean every year."

Have you ever heard of phage therapy? And, do you know what happens in germ free animals? I was shocked to see the net has been scrubbed of material I found on that subject just two years ago, which is very telling.

0
0
0.000
avatar

"Viruses are part of what keeps us operating effectively, working in harmony with the essential parasites and good bacteria, which somehow all got the rap of alien intruders, instead of part of our essential infrastructure."

I agree strongly with this, yet there are harmful parasites, predators, and viruses, and if we don't keep functioning immune systems these will eventually kill us. Something eventually kills us all, however, and I reckon the best defense is to prepare to die fighting.

Regarding corporations, I note that the actions of individual persons are their personal responsibility, and claiming to act on behalf of some legal fiction does not absolve anyone of their personal responsibility for their actions. This is why I think such institutions are the Antichrist, because they obfuscate our personal responsibility for our acts by the pretense that it is the institution acting.

Agreements cannot act, and all institutions are nothing more than agreements. In this context only people act, and regardless of their agreements they remain responsible personally for their actions. Whoever ordered ocean dumping, and whoever carried out such order, are personally responsible for ocean dumping, and that culpability is negated under color of law by other institutions that have no rightful authority to do so.

Crimes are crimes, and their committers criminals, even if they escape prosecution and penalization.

It is my fervent hope that the present evolution of technology to decentralization of the means of production will eliminate all such deception soon, and our children will inherit a better world as a result.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I would say it is a matter of interpretation and ultimately it remains unfounded how people influence their reality.

The assumption that one has to deal with hostile, parasitic, deadly influences on the biological level often coincides with the assumption that one also has to deal with or gets such influences on the social level among humans. The age-old dispute between materialism and spirituality.

In the meantime, I am not surprised that the events of the last two years have revealed two opposing camps that have been pitted against each other time and again in human history. It is also called materialism and determinism versus spirit (a non-materially tangible intelligence) and fuzziness. I assume you know about this.

Now, in turn, we see that the opposing camps are splitting within themselves again, but not really, I think. One who accepts the virus theory as infallible and set must at the same time accept that there is or can be such a thing as biological warfare.

But then how does one even come to terms with the contradiction according to which, for example, on the one hand one considers the "protective measures" taken to be suitable (distance, masks, lockdowns) and on the other rejects them? One possible answer would be that one only wants to do such things voluntarily, but does not want to see them as a national exertion.

The question arises for me that if someone who follows the virus theory and the resulting consequences believes in the superiority of what is technologically feasible and would have to assume that there can and should be effective vaccinations and treatments against viruses and is not in favour of the measures because one believes that the means and vaccinations have another purpose, such as deliberate killing.

Now, such a thing cannot be proven and certainly not when it is said so directly. You would have to accuse the person who gives you the treatment of being a killer, and how can you accuse someone who is convinced that he acted in good faith and with his best conscience? One does not argue with the government directly, one has to argue with colleagues, friends, family etc.

That is precisely the infamous argument that ordinary people on both sides oppose, that one would be a murderer without even one of these camps ever having harboured an intention to murder. That is perfidious, I think.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think I have substantively addressed most of what you say here in another response, but your division of people into only two camps.

Virus isn't a synonym for pathogen. Just because some viruses are pathogens doesn't mean that all viruses must be prevented, and I think it's reasonably likely that some viruses are extremely beneficial, perhaps even essential to human health.

I don't think there are technologically feasible protective measures available today to prevent viral transmission, and that includes the mechanism of vaccination. Certainly it is impossible for masks to work to prevent viral transmission without quite extreme protocols in addition to masks, and it isn't possible to undertake such protocols and maintain society.

No study has ever shown masks to prevent viral transmission in practice. Lots of studies have shown that masks do a lot of harm. Masks are quite hazardous, causing build up of pathogens, and causing people wearing them to breathe far higher levels of CO2. Masks are actually killing people by both of these mechanisms today, and there are other harms masks do as well.

So, I do not agree that there are only two camps regarding covid, or actually on any issue whatsoever. I consider that to far oversimplify reality. I neither think SARS2 doesn't exist or that jabs or masks are beneficial. I am in neither camp, and I am not alone.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I would like to ask you directly, because you say that you do not make this distinction, whether you think that body/mind influence each other or that what happens on the mental/psychosomatic level in a person has an effect on the organism.

It can be stated that the view called e.g. materialism is opposed to the view called e.g. spiritual.

I did not invent this conflict, it is not my assertion, but it is based on a millennia-old dispute that has philosophical backgrounds. Countless people observed this split and called it by different terms.

For example, the cosmic bodies existing in the universe as a dull programme running according to the laws of nature, without any intelligence. This is also called the Newtonian view or the Decartian view of the world, as well as a purely mechanistic view.
This is contrasted with another view that works with the concepts of consciousness and intelligence, according to which life, and the consciousness of livingness that arises from it, cannot be attributed solely to observable and investigable phenomena whose ultimate explanation is not possible, but nevertheless exerts an influence on everything that is alive or connected with living things within their dynamics.

To these two main currents - a universe running according to a strict programme, events underlying physical principles, contrary to that of a spiritually intelligent, inspired divinely assumed one, for instance. Beyond that, there are other views, but I don't think they outrank the main currents, or not yet.

One could also say "fate" and " coincidence", two equally opposing concepts. According to the former, everything is predetermined (determined), the latter is a purely coincidental sequence of events, sometimes proceeding in one way or another.

Personally, I am undecided, but tend to emphasise the mental/spiritual influence, as it seems to me that my fellow world is determined to treat health & illness more like physics and mathematics by machine medicine and looking at the smallest particles.

I left the following as a comment somewhere else and just copy it here:


Behind every scientist there is also a will. If this will is such that it tends towards making something repeatable, which is considered a significant step in any scientific experiment, it will want reproducibility to be feasible because it rejects the fact that something cannot be reproduced.
The word "fact" comes from the Latin "facere", from "to do". Therefore, all "information" appearing as facts is open to dispute. Only fiction is indisputable.

Apparently, people equate biology with astrology or other physical phenomena, which they mathematically calculate via indirect factors influencing the as yet unidentified object. For example, the movement of cosmic bodies, through the observation of which one can discover a previously unrecognised or invisible other cosmic body. I think this is called "extrapolating"?

I looked it up:

"Extrapolation is the estimation of a value. The estimate is based on an extension of a known sequence of values or facts and goes beyond the known range. In general, extrapolate means to infer something that is not explicit from the information available."

It goes on to say:

"Interpolation is the estimation of a value within two known values in a sequence of values. Polynomial interpolation is a method of estimating values between multiple known data points. For example, if graphical data has a gap, but the data is available on both sides of the gap, or even at some specific points within the gap, interpolation can be used to estimate the values between the gap."

Source

I spontaneously saw the similarity to genetics here. Since you have genetic bases as a model, it is apparently much easier to use them for further calculation than the subject itself. So you have an abstraction of the subject to be studied, but not the subject. From here, from this abstract subject you can endlessly reproduce experiments.


Yet there, you have other terms referring to the dualism "abstract" versus "concrete".

I would say the divisive camps regarding virus theory and disease in general are falling back on their worldviews. Every worldview is a simplification of dynamics beyond our comprehension.

I don't assume you are claiming you don't have a picture of the world/cosmos/universe. Since we have already talked about it, yes.

0
0
0.000
avatar

"I would like to ask you directly, because you say that you do not make this distinction, whether you think that body/mind influence each other or that what happens on the mental/psychosomatic level in a person has an effect on the organism."

I observe that our mental state provably affects our physical body in some ways that almost everyone will agree is factual. When we are frightened we experience reflexive responses that are caused by our fear, the fight or flight hormonal response. I am utterly certain there are many more ways in which our mental state affects our physical bodies, but also certain that some believe things that are not true, such as the claim that if we believe and state we will become rich that the universe will conform to that statement, something I think is referred to as the law of attraction. I have read very strong beliefs in such mechanism and find them without factual basis and utterly irrational.

I note that the range of beliefs regarding to what extent our minds affect physical reality far exceeds what can be demonstrated experimentally, and is the reason I seek to restrain myself to discussion that can be based on evidence that enables reasonable people to agree, rather than all but compelling people to disagree on matters such that we cannot work together at all because we are focused on our disagreements instead of our agreements.

0
0
0.000
avatar

such as the claim that if we believe and state we will become rich that the universe will conform to that statement, something I think is referred to as the law of attraction. I have read very strong beliefs in such mechanism and find them without factual basis and utterly irrational.

The question is interesting, why should you find something rational against statements you perceive as irrational, if you don't want to?
How do you come to oppose this kind of irrationality, or think you have to? Where in the world of technological or machine applications do such views disturb? (And if they do, don't they do it for good reasons? Can good reasons also be irrational?)

Those who think that if they pray to God to fill their bank account bulging next month are welcome to do so if they think so - but in honesty, I don't think they literally believe in this but metaphorically.
They still have to pay their taxes, use the same accounting software or forms and use cars, mobile phones etc. I don't see much difference between talking about the law of attraction and trying to get into vibration with the universe or the request to the great Father. People pray all kinds of things.

Nevertheless, I would say that you seem to be interested after all, and if it didn't bother you, you wouldn't care, would you? I think that what perhaps "disturbs" can have a positive connotation, because there is something in one's own existence that likes to try to clarify the disturbing for oneself.

0
0
0.000
avatar

"Where in the world of technological or machine applications do such views disturb?"

I wouldn't know. You'd have to ask someone in those fields. I'm a carpenter. When people in my field act irrationally, people get hurt by dangerous equipment or failure of structures.

I've almost been killed many times. I've learned to avoid crazy as a result.

0
0
0.000
avatar

It seems you were responding to the author, though the reply turned up in my reply section. So I'll be brief. I think the intent is to cause perpetual division, exponential might be more accurate. That way how could any groups possibly ever manage to unite in challenge to the constant orchestrated chaos? One hopes that humans improve their understanding of how their own amazing, incredibly complex bodies operate.

Why do you think anatomy and basic healing and self care, real remedies, aren't taught alongside math and "science," and the basics at school? This would remedy much of the suffering we endure, not to mention the economic winfall any society that undertook this mission could expect.

But then spirituality has been essentially wiped in favour of a purely physical experience led by the sickness model. We have become increasingly weakened over the generations, intentionally so, in order to bring us in alignment with the weak specimens at the top of the pyramid scheme. Threat eliminated!

Society is now largely dependent from cradle to grave on the white lab coats, big pharma and subject to the illusory control of all the other corrupted industries and authorities that perform their assigned functions as part of the global cartel.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes, I accidentally replied to your comment :) So thank you for answering me nevertheless. I will do, too.

I see the thing as a pendulum movement, where the end of the movement before the pendulum swings back is an extreme.

At the time of the Rennaissance, the natural sciences defied the clergy, who spread throughout Europe and beyond as knowledgeable about the human soul and its well-being, and it seemed to be time that a movement was formed here that we now call the Enlightenment.

Now, it seems, the baby has been thrown out with the bath water here too and the soul, consciousness, has been eliminated from the considerations of the natural sciences. At least one pretends that this is the case.

However, I think that you cannot simply erase two thousand years of Christianity and monotheism and that what is deeply rooted in educated Christians exists very strongly and has continued to work quietly for all the centuries since the Renaissance. It's not that the clergy has been cold-cocked or crippled, the people who thought they knew what was best for humanity before just think the same now, they've just swapped the black priestly frock for the white lab coat.

The conflicts of the last two years makes this very clear. "Contact guilt", for example, is a deeply Christian concept (where it was branded as a "sin" and not out of insight that every human being is fallible). Blaming others for an illness that affects you is typical misunderstood Christianity. The concept of guilt and atonement, of shame and branding of the guilty is also found in the Creed, for example. Or the Lord's Prayer.

Extreme, for example, are atheists who stiffly claim that they do not believe in God, but do not realise that the denial of God is his affirmation. Deeply engraved in our Christian culture is the creation myth that the earth and man were "made". Those who believe in this omnipotence must necessarily assume and presume their own superpotence, that life is controllable, manageable and predictable. You only have to do it "right" and you don't know everything "yet", but you are "close".

Where people see themselves as rational and pure materialists and bring facts and objectivity into the field to ridicule the superstitious or esoteric, they are actually talking about themselves, because they do not know that the belief in total feasibility in the natural sciences is just the same thing, only in a different colour. New wine in old bottles.

My thesis is therefore that the "West" or Occident is far less enlightened than is commonly thought and that the accusation of superstition by those who do not believe in the concept of sin, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, should be referred back to such natural scientists or adherents of natural science who are convinced of the objectivity and infallibility of modern science.

0
0
0.000