2 ms·

> Please point to the scientific research that states that psychedelics definitely do not affect your rectum. Proving a negative isn't typically the best scien

> Please point to the scientific research that states that psychedelics definitely do not affect your rectum. Proving a negative isn't typically the best scientific approach. It'd be on the person making the dramatic claims to offer evidence. There's a lot of evidence about how cancer cells work and little (if any) gives reason to suspect some sort of conscious connection would affect it. Though I think there is some data that people are more likely to recover if they feel more confident or at least not hopeless, but can't remember where I read about that. There was also something recently about an unexpected immune 'tube' to the brain or something and I think there's a positive correlation with being happy and getting sick less often. All this is still a pretty far cry from claiming that psychedelics are likely to cure cancer. Stating that the negative can't be proven either does not make both arguments equivalent.

WorldWideWayne 11y ago
Stating an unproven negative holds the same value to me as stating an unproven positive. That's a fact and that's exactly what I said. Stating an unproven negative as if it were a fact is also not the best scientific approach. (Also, saying something like "the mind has no affect on the body" is a positive statement of fact. Quibbling about the word "no" or "not" is just semantics IMO.)
jsprogrammer 11y ago
It's not hard to make a somewhat reasonable hypothesis. Cancer is not a binary category. In the natural course of a human life it can be observed that some "cancerous" cells cease to exist / be problems, not from some external intervention, but merely through other signals and interactions within the body. Maybe some process detected something was wrong and set in motion another process that corrected it. What controls these processes? Likely complex electro-chemical reactions that can only occur in certain environments. If a suitable environment does not exist, the reaction does not occur (how can it?). Now, consider that the human consciousness can be observed to seemingly create complex changes throughout the body, including numerous electro-chemical reactions, and even changes of local environments (e.g. release of neurotransmitters and more general hormones). If the appropriate environment is created for the appropriate reactions in the appropriate places to "resolve a cancer", then it will happen. Yes, you can argue about how much fine control a consciousness can have over it's body. You can also argue about what reactions happen in which environments. >There's a lot of evidence about how cancer cells work and little (if any) gives reason to suspect some sort of conscious connection would affect it. Such as? You can only find something if you look for it. You would never expect to suspect a consciousness at work if you weren't looking for it.

WorldWideWayne 11y ago

Stating an unproven negative holds the same value to me as stating an unproven positive. That's a fact and that's exactly what I said. Stating an unproven negative as if it were a fact is also not the best scientific approach. (Also, saying something like "the mind has no affect on the body" is a positive statement of fact. Quibbling about the word "no" or "not" is just semantics IMO.)

jsprogrammer 11y ago

It's not hard to make a somewhat reasonable hypothesis. Cancer is not a binary category. In the natural course of a human life it can be observed that some "cancerous" cells cease to exist / be problems, not from some external intervention, but merely through other signals and interactions within the body. Maybe some process detected something was wrong and set in motion another process that corrected it. What controls these processes? Likely complex electro-chemical reactions that can only occur in certain environments. If a suitable environment does not exist, the reaction does not occur (how can it?). Now, consider that the human consciousness can be observed to seemingly create complex changes throughout the body, including numerous electro-chemical reactions, and even changes of local environments (e.g. release of neurotransmitters and more general hormones). If the appropriate environment is created for the appropriate reactions in the appropriate places to "resolve a cancer", then it will happen. Yes, you can argue about how much fine control a consciousness can have over it's body. You can also argue about what reactions happen in which environments. >There's a lot of evidence about how cancer cells work and little (if any) gives reason to suspect some sort of conscious connection would affect it. Such as? You can only find something if you look for it. You would never expect to suspect a consciousness at work if you weren't looking for it.