Scientific Proof that ‘Our thoughts create our reality'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown

Big Nose!:p

---

Old hairy-hands!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn

Old hairy-hands!

---

Who you calling OLD.........you young whipper snapper......


Whyyyyyyyyyyy IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OUGHTA.............:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown

Who you calling OLD.........you young whipper snapper......


Whyyyyyyyyyyy IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OUGHTA.............:p

---

http://www.asterix.com/encyclopedie/...perso/g03b.gif

With you on all of the above, Sal. Dancing a debate with science-is-my-god-and-if-you-don't-believe is usually frustrating and pointless in these areas. But I guess it can be fun sometimes. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northwind

With you on all of the above, Sal. Dancing a debate with science-is-my-god-and-if-you-don't-believe is usually frustrating and pointless in these areas. But I guess it can be fun sometimes. :P

---

I'm not sure where you are getting a "science-is-god" subtext from any of this (notwithstanding that it was Sal himself who started this thread as an example of "scientific proof" relating to thoughts constructing reality); first off, "science" as such - what is it? what do you mean? "science" covers a large array of things; if you mean "scientific method", then what you are talking about is a RELATIVELY objective approach to quantifying / qualifying empirical observations; meaning that it is impossible to ever be 100% objective, but that an attempt to do so is made, in order to control for undesired variables that may effect a given outcome; this forms the basis of evidence-based research methodology, which seeks to minimize subjectivity, in order to maximize generalizability; now, this sort of thing is very useful in certain instances, less useful in others - it allows one to "get into the neighborhood", and even possibly get into the right house, so-to-speak; however, it does not account for the degree of variability that one often sees in clinical practice, especially where the individual operator effect is a consideration; meaning that, whereas I can use a double-blind RCT to assess the effectiveness of a given medication, when I start getting into something like manual therapy, TCM, it gets more difficult to control for factors such as placebo, entrainment, regression to the mean, etc., because the nature of many of those modalities is to actively engage the innate homeostatic mechanism as a therapeutic variable; as such, some people, like Sal, for example, are intrinsically "better" than other people at engaging this response - in Sal's case, he gets his effect using "qigong"; someone else may get similar effects using "reiki", or "faith healing" (Benny Hinn notwithstanding, of course), or "polarity", "craniosacral", etc.; these things can be difficult to assess using DB RCT's, because there is moment-to-moment variability that can impact the "protocol" used, meaning that if one sticks to the research protocol, one may get less effective outcomes across a range of patients than if one deviates from it - but of course, that renders the protocol / research study invalid;
the bottom line is that while on the one hand, one needs must have a very active mechanism of discernment when employing certain types of approaches (meaning that, IMPO, the whole "I don't care why it works as long as it does" is an inappropriate default), but at the same time, to base everything on EBM approach ignores the inherent 'non-linearity" of the human organism in certain situations (for example: one person with chronic headaches might need direct manipulation to the head; another may need it in the thorax; another might need it in the pelvis and still another may need it in the ankle, and the rationale for each will be different, although they will still be in function of the anatomical / physiological interrelationships that govern / are governed by our intrinsic nature);
it's not "either / or", but rather a clear understanding of when the relatively objective or the relatively subjective are required, and acting out of that;

Keep in mind that I also said I find this type of thing usually frustrating & pointless, so I'm not sure how long I will stay in this, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn

I'm not sure where you are getting a "science-is-god" subtext from any of this (notwithstanding that it was Sal himself who started this thread as an example of "scientific proof" relating to thoughts constructing reality)

---

Not directed at any particular individual, but rather the broad base that I was referring to. This type of "discussion" is far from uncommon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn

first off, "science" as such - what is it? what do you mean?

---

I mean "the science" behind the James Randi thought process of put-up-or-shut-up to any and all things that are odd to day-to-day life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn

"science" covers a large array of things; if you mean "scientific method", then what you are talking about is a RELATIVELY objective approach to quantifying / qualifying empirical observations; meaning that it is impossible to ever be 100% objective, but that an attempt to do so is made, in order to control for undesired variables that may effect a given outcome; this forms the basis of evidence-based research methodology, which seeks to minimize subjectivity, in order to maximize generalizability;

---

Uh-huh. I'm familiar with the phrase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn

now, this sort of thing is very useful in certain instances, less useful in others - it allows one to "get into the neighborhood", and even possibly get into the right house, so-to-speak; however, it does not account for the degree of variability that one often sees in clinical practice, especially where the individual operator effect is a consideration; meaning that, whereas I can use a double-blind RCT to assess the effectiveness of a given medication, when I start getting into something like manual therapy, TCM, it gets more difficult to control for factors such as placebo, entrainment, regression to the mean, etc., because the nature of many of those modalities is to actively engage the innate homeostatic mechanism as a therapeutic variable; as such, some people, like Sal, for example, are intrinsically "better" than other people at engaging this response - in Sal's case, he gets his effect using "qigong"; someone else may get similar effects using "reiki", or "faith healing" (Benny Hinn notwithstanding, of course), or "polarity", "craniosacral", etc.; these things can be difficult to assess using DB RCT's, because there is moment-to-moment variability that can impact the "protocol" used, meaning that if one sticks to the research protocol, one may get less effective outcomes across a range of patients than if one deviates from it - but of course, that renders the protocol / research study invalid;
the bottom line is that while on the one hand, one needs must have a very active mechanism of discernment when employing certain types of approaches (meaning that, IMPO, the whole "I don't care why it works as long as it does" is an inappropriate default), but at the same time, to base everything on EBM approach ignores the inherent 'non-linearity" of the human organism in certain situations (for example: one person with chronic headaches might need direct manipulation to the head; another may need it in the thorax; another might need it in the pelvis and still another may need it in the ankle, and the rationale for each will be different, although they will still be in function of the anatomical / physiological interrelationships that govern / are governed by our intrinsic nature);

---

Completely agreed.

It seems that most here are annoyed by the title being "Scientific proof" and yet it is not. I can understand that, however, my agreements with Sal are twofold:

1) I'm into that stuff
2) I get the "if I make my headline controversial, more folks will actually read the article". It's a bit of content marketing and not too shabby.

Anyway, it looks like we don't really disagree on too much here other than his use of the title.

I see this posit as a no brainer. :p

Of course our reality is shaped by mind. I would think that is obvious.

Example: What do these things have in common?

1. a chair made of wood
2. an airplane
3. the large hadron collider
4. a diaper
5. canned food
6. nuclear reactor
7. iron fireplace
8. a spear
9. a stone pyramid

The first thing they have in common is that each of them was an IDEA first. They each only existed in some fashion in someone's mind before being made manifest.

Such is the way of all things with humans. This world we live on, while subject to our minds, is not from it. It precedes us and therefore serves as the foundation of our reality. The rest we make ourselves.

Think about that naked at night thing. Where would we be if we stayed that way?
We would be mindless and therefore without form as beings that we ourselves could perceive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Jamieson

I see this posit as a no brainer. :p

Of course our reality is shaped by mind. I would think that is obvious.

Example: What do these things have in common?

1. a chair made of wood
2. an airplane
3. the large hadron collider
4. a diaper
5. canned food
6. nuclear reactor
7. iron fireplace
8. a spear
9. a stone pyramid

The first thing they have in common is that each of them was an IDEA first. They each only existed in some fashion in someone's mind before being made manifest.

Such is the way of all things with humans. This world we live on, while subject to our minds, is not from it. It precedes us and therefore serves as the foundation of our reality. The rest we make ourselves.

Think about that naked at night thing. Where would we be if we stayed that way?
We would be mindless and therefore without form as beings that we ourselves could perceive.

---

somehow I doubt that "David Jamieson" was anyone's idea before there was a "David Jamieson", because if they HAD had any idea, then there would not ever have been a "David Jamieson"...
:p:p:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown

A lot of people wet their pants...

---

It's an excellent skill to have in combat. When you face your opponent, you try to:

- look down to avoid eyes contack.
- make your body shaking a bit.
- wet your pants if you can.

You suddently jump in and eat your opponent alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northwind

Keep in mind that I also said I find this type of thing usually frustrating & pointless, so I'm not sure how long I will stay in this, but...



Not directed at any particular individual, but rather the broad base that I was referring to. This type of "discussion" is far from uncommon.



I mean "the science" behind the James Randi thought process of put-up-or-shut-up to any and all things that are odd to day-to-day life.



Uh-huh. I'm familiar with the phrase.



Completely agreed.

It seems that most here are annoyed by the title being "Scientific proof" and yet it is not. I can understand that, however, my agreements with Sal are twofold:

1) I'm into that stuff
2) I get the "if I make my headline controversial, more folks will actually read the article". It's a bit of content marketing and not too shabby.

Anyway, it looks like we don't really disagree on too much here other than his use of the title.

---

Well, yeah, it was to get people to read it, for one, and two the research is from a serious scientist. I mean, there actually is brain chemicals created when we have thoughts, that's pretty much been proven by this person's and other's research.

Of course, RATIONALLY, I understand, and as a research scientist for 30 years at Bell Labs put into effect, that one has to ground what one does in this field in real concrete measurable things.
At the same time, at some point you have to move on and do the practice, you can't only keep analyzing.

By the way, indeed, sometimes I indeed have to rub a sore spot or use my hands to move things in such a way that a little "pop" makes all their physical pain go away (which my anatomy studies surely helps with).
That even seems to release emotional issues, as people will burst into tears with a sudden memory that came out at the same time that was bottled up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri

By the way, indeed, sometimes I indeed have to rub a sore spot or use my hands to move things in such a way that a little "pop" makes all their physical pain go away (which my anatomy studies surely helps with).

---

awesome; just don't call it manipulation / mobilization or you an end up in lewgal trouble, and I would be VERY careful what you pop, especially if it's upper cervical and you haven't tested for vertebral artery insufficiency or ligamentous laxity...(and yes, joints can spntaneously re-articulate even w very little pressure - all the manips I do use almost no force, as opposed to what I've seen some people do...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri

That even seems to release emotional issues, as people will burst into tears with a sudden memory that came out at the same time that was bottled up.

---

yeah; although probably you facilitate that - for example, I used to do a lot of full body unwinding leading to various types of somato-emotional releases - after a while I decided that it was outside my scope of practice / training to work that way, I changed my own "intention", and people stopped doing it w me (I still work w "emotional" stuff, just a lot more "cleanly" by talking about it a certain way; w undwinding, where it's easy to mix your "stuff" in w the other person's; also, if you do that to 6-8 people / day, you are eventually going to get toasted); and when I made that change, I got much more effective using other things, people still had pretty much the same % of good results...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn

awesome; just don't call it manipulation / mobilization or you an end up in legal trouble, and I would be VERY careful what you pop, especially if it's upper cervical and you haven't tested for vertebral artery insufficiency or ligamentous laxity...(and yes, joints can spontaneously re-articulate even w very little pressure - all the manips I do use almost no force, as opposed to what I've seen some people do...)


yeah; although probably you facilitate that - for example, I used to do a lot of full body unwinding leading to various types of somato-emotional releases - after a while I decided that it was outside my scope of practice / training to work that way, I changed my own "intention", and people stopped doing it w me (I still work w "emotional" stuff, just a lot more "cleanly" by talking about it a certain way; w unwinding, where it's easy to mix your "stuff" in w the other person's; also, if you do that to 6-8 people / day, you are eventually going to get toasted); and when I made that change, I got much more effective using other things, people still had pretty much the same % of good results...

---

Oh yes, very gently, and I don't pop anything do with the neck, just shoulders that are slightly dislocated. Seems that a lot of people have joints that just need a little loosening and everything eases after that. Any neck issues, I do release of pain with no hands on, are just laying on of hands with gentle touch. They can feel the release of heat from their inflammation.
I have people that come to me AFTER they had a massage or a manipulation and wound up in great pain. At the trigger points, I do drumming with my finger tips are various amounts of pressure and speeds, this releases the secondary pain that they were feeling. For some I do full drumming with my fists, which is not beating on someone but rather moving energy through like clearing out a stopped up toilet.

About the emotional release, I have a Behavioral Science degree and early on worked in counseling, so I am okay with their crying. I find that they get better so much faster (people come to me for this more than anything else). The physical pain was a small issue with them, it was more the feeling that they were out of sorts with life and depressed, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri

Oh yes, very gently, and I don't pop anything do with the neck, just shoulders that are slightly dislocated. Seems that a lot of people have joints that just need a little loosening and everything eases after that.

---

yeah, you're pretty much on base - to wit, that typically what takes the "average" PT a ridculous amount of time w their silly machines and useless exercises, can get cleaned up very quickly w good hands-on;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri

Any neck issues, I do release of pain with no hands on, are just laying on of hands with gentle touch. .

---

honestly, most neck "stuff" in the absence of direct trauma, comes as compensation for things stuck elsewhere, especially thorax / ribs; "popping' thoracics isn't that big of a deal, as long as you don't force it (for me, certain constitutional "types" are better suited for manips than others - some people it's mostly what I do, others never in a million years), same w ribs;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri

They can feel the release of heat from their inflammation

---

luv those autonomics...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri

I have people that come to me AFTER they had a massage or a manipulation and wound up in great pain.

---

not surprising - probably they get decompensated, meaning that many (most?) LMT's / DC / PT treat the readily apparent compensation - like the spot where it hurst, and not the root restriction (that is - the stuff that's stuck doesn't hurt, cause it ain't moving; the stuff that hurts is because it's moving too much to make up for lack of mobiity elsewhere - so if you treat that, you can just totally irritate the he1l out of the organism); doing "costitutional" treatment like what you describe you do, basically letting the body fix itself w a little outside encouragement, and does a lot more good than the wrong "analytical" specific treatments people think are helping;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri

At the trigger points, I do drumming with my finger tips are various amounts of pressure and speeds, this releases the secondary pain that they were feeling. For some I do full drumming with my fists, which is not beating on someone but rather moving energy through like clearing out a stopped up toilet.

---

yeah, pretty much; I don't know if you are familiar w Janet Travel's work on TP's, it's the "standard" in the field, worth looking at as a reference if you aren't; also, Kapandji's anatomy books are the best, IMPO, you'l ever see, and are very relevant to hands-on work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri

About the emotional release, I have a Behavioral Science degree and early on worked in counseling, so I am okay with their crying. I find that they get better so much faster (people come to me for this more than anything else). The physical pain was a small issue with them, it was more the feeling that they were out of sorts with life and depressed, etc.

---

yeah, you see that a lot - people come for PT when they really need something more "talking cure" related - again, while I allow space for that sort of thing to happen (I don't mind if people cry - I am well enough trained as a "supportive listener" to manage that if it happens), I don't go looking for it, unlike many other bodyworkers I know who push and push and seem to feel that unless they get an emotional release they haven't gotten anywhere...kinda creepy when they start "accusing' a client of resistance just because they aren't sobbing (this is one particular group I trained w in the past, obviously no longer)
btw, if the cause of their pain is due to an extra-dimensional demonic posession, we now have a Taoist Celestial Master posting here who sells exorcisms over the Internet! :rolleyes: (he also has re-translated the Tao Te Ching, having come to the conclusion that up until him, everyone else has gotten it all wrong...)

Oh...well.......yeah......if you are going to use logic.......

and reason..........and.......you know.......science and stuff....

well......what do you expect?:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn

yeah, you're pretty much on base - to wit, that typically what takes the "average" PT a ridculous amount of time w their silly machines and useless exercises, can get cleaned up very quickly w good hands-on;


honestly, most neck "stuff" in the absence of direct trauma, comes as compensation for things stuck elsewhere, especially thorax / ribs; "popping' thoracics isn't that big of a deal, as long as you don't force it (for me, certain constitutional "types" are better suited for manips than others - some people it's mostly what I do, others never in a million years), same w ribs;


luv those autonomics...


not surprising - probably they get decompensated, meaning that many (most?) LMT's / DC / PT treat the readily apparent compensation - like the spot where it hurst, and not the root restriction (that is - the stuff that's stuck doesn't hurt, cause it ain't moving; the stuff that hurts is because it's moving too much to make up for lack of mobiity elsewhere - so if you treat that, you can just totally irritate the he1l out of the organism); doing "costitutional" treatment like what you describe you do, basically letting the body fix itself w a little outside encouragement, and does a lot more good than the wrong "analytical" specific treatments people think are helping;



yeah, pretty much; I don't know if you are familiar w Janet Travel's work on TP's, it's the "standard" in the field, worth looking at as a reference if you aren't; also, Kapandji's anatomy books are the best, IMPO, you'l ever see, and are very relevant to hands-on work


yeah, you see that a lot - people come for PT when they really need something more "talking cure" related - again, while I allow space for that sort of thing to happen (I don't mind if people cry - I am well enough trained as a "supportive listener" to manage that if it happens), I don't go looking for it, unlike many other bodyworkers I know who push and push and seem to feel that unless they get an emotional release they haven't gotten anywhere...kinda creepy when they start "accusing' a client of resistance just because they aren't sobbing (this is one particular group I trained w in the past, obviously no longer)
btw, if the cause of their pain is due to an extra-dimensional demonic posession, we now have a Taoist Celestial Master posting here who sells exorcisms over the Internet! :rolleyes: (he also has re-translated the Tao Te Ching, having come to the conclusion that up until him, everyone else has gotten it all wrong...)

---

Most excellent description of the dynamics involved in decompensating, thanks!

Speaking of demonic things. HERE's a weird thing that I started observing after doing healing sessions, one out of 10 people seem to release a weird fog that actually looks like some kind of demon. They see it and I see it. They get better only after this weird energy comes out. Now I am used to it, in the beginning it was bizarre and I didn't want to believe it, thinking that stuff was just superstition.

But, having looked into it and now made sure I was protecting myself and so on, I see that the Qi blockages seem to congeal the Qi, which seems to take on some kind of "intelligence" for lack of a better word, being that it was composed of 'vital force' and this "thing" acts as a parasite, sucking energy from these people.
ALWAYS when this "thing" comes out, the person was once very depressed. What I can feel from them is that their energy was vibrating at a lower frequency which not only attracts negative entities to them but can form new ones as well.