Brain Functioning: NBIC, Consciousness and Cognitive, Studies, Research, Facts and Mysteries

[Obamot]

Exact ... I answered a little in the same direction, to those who prepared the program on the placebo. They asked us: "Do you believe in the influence of the spirit on the body"? I gave them the example of Henry Laborit (often cited by Sen-No-Sen) by mentioning that these were not "beliefs" but established facts. And when I was looking for "cases" to illustrate my answer, I noticed that it would be more difficult to find situations where there were no such influences ...

Only here, very hypocritically, the world of science, only admits all related interactions recently ... (it must be said that on the industrial side, they earn a lot of money with all this ... as well in the food industry, as in the medical world ...) The recognition of these interactions will undoubtedly have repercussions in everyday life! And this well before the legislative framework is forced to change, (because it will be necessary - fortunately - to get there one day ...)

[sen-no-sen]

Exact ... I answered a little in the same direction, to those who prepared the program on the placebo. They asked us: "Do you believe in the influence of the spirit on the body"?

This question has been answered for millennia already.
In Hinduism, Buddhism etc ... there is no longer any doubt that the spirit can have a powerful effect on the body.

Science has been (and still is, but more openly) quite hostile to this notion because of the possible loss of contact with rationality that often resurfaces (new age, sectarian movement).

The question to ask: what are the limits of such a power?

[Obamot]

There only seems to be one: probably from life to death!

But just like the placebo effect: there is nothing systematic about it! Just like hypnosis: we can (to a certain extent) avoid it! Although ... in society there are cases (and dodging is less common, for cultural reasons) but I think you have already explained it to us very well!

What is coincidental is that it ties in with studies by other researchers (such as Doctor Kousmine, who even insisted on a sort of "spiritual" dimension of the patient, with regard to the respect he might have for "Life") and unexpectedly, especially for the reasons you point out! Because indeed - outside the "scientific" framework - we find links even in the most ancient animism, and on the contrary in a way (in some respects) evil in voodoo, even $ cientology ... Hence the warning above when going up this thread ..!

[sen-no-sen]

It would have been interesting (as long as it was to be in Switzerland) to look into the question of "secret makers".
In fact, it is by no means taboo in Switzerland for doctors to call on people with such gifts (burns, pain).
Once again, is it a super-placebo?

[Obamot]

Well, well ... I don't know where you're coming from, but I'll try to sketch an attempt to answer. My apologies if my thinking seems messy ... What you suggest would be almost "a textbook case"(If we imagined that we lived in a system where these approaches were accepted and generalized ...)

In the preamble, I did not understand the allusion to "secret makers», Yet this is what I intend to develop ... (I seem to have vaguely seen a program on the subject) ... It must be said that everything I do goes well beyond the" national "framework ( ) Which means that I do not have big taboos that scare me, among which I can say that I fought for a long time against "secrets", which often have for sole and only purpose to scare or act without the knowledge of others. So interesting note besides that yours, because being a kind of “secret effect” (kept or revealed), you make us approach an unexpected angle ... You point in fact indirectly the potential iatrogenesis of all this by including the “voluntary” aspect in what is called “the intention to harm” (the penalists know that, and the maintenance of a secret is necessarily a voluntary act, still it would be necessary to know if it is done for a "harmful" purpose, in some cases yes, it can ... in others no, it would be rather saving ...) but we are moving away for the neophyths ... although on a personal basis I can affirm that - under certain conditions - the maintenance of a secret (or not) could be iatrogenic ... (or not ... besides, everything depends .. I myself made it experience at my expense). The secret is also the whole problem of the medical world in general and psychiatry in particular (when it comes to hiding from the patient what he suffers "for his own good" ... the latter have at their disposal a "market" of "captive" patients and they use it ... make a big mistake!)

More on the background of your remark: I confirm that quite officially, for many years already, The CHUV as well as the HUG have called on "healers", "hypnotists" and other bonesetters practicing the laying on of hands, persuasion and dozens more technical (they are of course handpicked, and in relation to the results they obtain).

As the Cantonal and University Hospital of Geneva (HUG) is at the forefront in the medical field, it is not wrong to say that science now implements "the irrational" in the therapeutic arsenal ...

On the other hand, for the “placebo effect”, the answer is known, since we already know that this effect adds up / amplifies any therapeutic action: the answer is therefore YES

[sen-no-sen]

I did not understand the allusion to "secret makers» 

It seems to me the name given to people who can sometimes heal even from a distance ...
http://www.lagruyere.ch/archives/2005/05.11.08/gruyere.htm

A PDF on the subject which summarizes the subject:

http://www.medecine.unige.ch/enseignement/apprentissage/module4/immersion/archives/2007_2008/travaux/08_p_secret.pdf

There is a subject already above:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/le-secret-soins-de-sante-t8324.html

[Obamot]

Ok, so I answered straight, that's it ..

Thanks for the links ;)

I note the main characteristics (in any case that I consider as such) around the "secret maker(Ie the healer):

— il is not paid
— il should not of stigma around these techniques (beware of sectarian practices)

Any "dependence on care" will therefore be considered as potentially harmful. Improving the condition of patients comes first and foremost by creating the conditions for their autonomy, as early as possible.

(PS: big hats off to Christophe, who has reclassified subjects from several years into new, barely created sections)

[Janic]

What is called secret has a well-known name: "faith". In all areas and not just religious or medical, without believing deeply in something, it does not work (or badly). The current rationality (understandable reaction to what is called religious superstition) which doubts anything that is not scientifically proven has ended up marginalizing what has been commonplace for centuries. Experiments not recognized as rational are obscured or are worth scarcely hidden mockery from those who recommend themselves with a scientific (often atheistic) rationality.
However, science (which only observes what exists) is always a few metros behind reality.
Another problem: the sectarian aberrations that are scary. This is a false problem insofar as the biggest sectarian aberrations are precisely those of those who are well established; whether in the fields of politics, economics, science, in fact in all fields. If what is considered sectarian is admitted in broad daylight, these abuses would be reduced to a minimum since it is often what is hidden or prohibited that attracts.

[sen-no-sen]

What is called secret has a well-known name: "faith".

The secret is not that simple.
Even if the secret makers are generally believers, the result is that the gift is often transmitted from father / mother to son / daughter or even from husband to wife and vice versa.
So there is something else ... but what?

To return to our placebo, it appears that the effectiveness is not the same depending on the pathologies, but also of the countries in which it is prescribed!

[Janic]

sen-no-sen hello

The secret is not that simple.
Even if the secret makers are generally believers, the result is that the gift is often transmitted from father / mother to son / daughter or even from husband to wife and vice versa.
So there is something else ... but what?

Belief in the religious sense is often confused with simply believing. The gifts "transmitted" in the same family emerge from the observation that it works for others and therefore that there is no reason for it not to work for oneself. So it's still faith! The reference to a religious form is only a form.