(January 7, 2016 at 11:39 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 4:54 am)Little Rik Wrote: Imbecile.  
Lipton has studied all his life on the subject.
He got several degree so he is an expert in his field.
It is natural that there is always someone who criticize someone else.

So what's your point here?  That we shouldn't pay attention to criticism?  That all sources are equally credible?  They aren't.  Is it that we should ignore criticism when a person is roundly condemned by everyone in the field?  That's awfully convenient for you. ("Lipton remains on the sidelines of conventional discussions of epigenetics. Mainstream science has basically ignored him." -- Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment) The truth is that criticisms matter and some criticisms are more meaningful than others.  And the criticism that Bruce Lipton has accumulated by being a charlatan and a quack are quite relevant and meaningful.

You know yog what the masses were thinking about those guys that said for the first time that the planet earth is not the center of the universe and that the earth is not flat?
Just imagine if your brain allow.  
They said the same things that you just write in your post like........ charlatan and a quack and all the other bullshit so no yog, you just fail again by thinking that what the majority think is what is important.

Quote:Here's what Wikipedia says about the applied kinesiology which Lipton is pushing with his book:

Wikipedia Wrote:Nearly all AK tests are subjective, relying solely on practitioner assessment of muscle response. Specifically, some studies have shown test-retest reliability, inter-tester reliability, and accuracy to have no better than chance correlations. Some skeptics have argued that there is no scientific understanding of the proposed underlying theory of a viscerosomatic relationship, and the efficacy of the modality is unestablished in some cases and doubtful in others. Skeptics have also dismissed AK as "quackery," "magical thinking," and a misinterpretation of the ideomotor effect. It has also been criticized on theoretical and empirical grounds, and characterized as pseudoscience. With only anecdotal accounts claiming to provide positive evidence for the efficacy of the practice, a review of peer-reviewed studies concluded that the "evidence to date does not support the use of [AK] for the diagnosis of organic disease or pre/subclinical conditions."

In 2014, a randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to evaluate applied kinesiology results. The output of that study equated successful identification of a material via applied kinesiology techniques as statistically no better than chance. The summation of the work concluded that "The research published by the Applied Kinesiology field itself is not to be relied upon, and in the experimental studies that do meet accepted standards of science, Applied Kinesiology has not demonstrated that it is a useful or reliable diagnostic tool upon which health decisions can be based."
[emphasis mine]

That's scientific studies showing that Lipton's chosen therapy to push works no better than chance.
That's a meaningful criticism.

Without the spirit of inventiveness everything will slow down and the goal will never be reached.
To be successful in life you always got to try new ways.
Lipton is such a person.
I may not agree with everything he say but i admire him.
Many things he says make a lot of sense like his work on cells.
Conventional science on the other hand is still ages behind and still doesn't know whether cells
carry consciousness or not so is not that conventional science is correct and Lipton wrong.
It is all about the fact that as far as conventional science has not officially find out whether cells carry consciousness or not it will disprove anyone who find out what it hasn't find out yet and that is dishonesty.
No need to say that also those who follow the same logic are also dishonest.  

(January 7, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 5:29 am)Little Rik Wrote: Look mate.  
Analogies sometime make sense while other times do not ...

(January 6, 2016 at 2:03 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The nucleus doesn't perform a function even remotely like a brain.  And the same goes for the cell membrane.  Your author has overreached.  "As Hume states the relevant rule of analogy, "wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty" (Hume, Dialogues, Part II)."(http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/)  Your author has departed greatly from the similarity of the cases.  Really?  The cell membrane is like a brain?  No it is not.

(January 7, 2016 at 5:29 am)Little Rik Wrote: I believe that a body without any consciousness can not possibly exist.

Nobody gives a flying fuck what you 'believe' based on your Yoga, we care what you have evidence for.  So far the only thing you've used to support your belief is bad analogies, bare assertions, and what you believe based on Yoga.  That's not evidence.  Anybody can spin similar stories about most anything.  ("A cell is like a factory.  Factories have smoke stacks.  Therefore a cell has a smokestack, it's just nonphysical and can't be seen."  )

RationalWiki Wrote:A false analogy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone applies facts from one situation to another situation but the situations are substantially different and the same conclusions cannot logically be drawn.

Sometimes these differences are outright ignored by the person presenting the fallacy; other times, they may not be aware of the differences. The fallacy occurs, and is common, because real-world parallels are always limited; the differences between things can often overpower their similarities.

Analogies and metaphors can be very useful to explain things to people and often play an important part in learning. However, because of the prevalence of false analogies they're much less useful in making arguments.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

Wikipedia Wrote:Joseph C. Keating, Jr., PhD,[34] discusses vitalism's past and present roles in chiropractic and calls vitalism "a form of bio-theology." He further explains that:

       "Vitalism is that rejected tradition in biology which proposes that life is sustained and explained by an unmeasurable, intelligent force or energy. The supposed effects of vitalism are the manifestations of life itself, which in turn are the basis for inferring the concept in the first place. This circular reasoning offers pseudo-explanation, and may deceive us into believing we have explained some aspect of biology when in fact we have only labeled our ignorance. 'Explaining an unknown (life) with an unknowable (Innate),' suggests philosopher Joseph Donahue, D.C., 'is absurd'."
Wikipedia | Vitalism

If to say that make sense to say that a body need consciousness to be alive is a bad analogy then
you tell me what a good analogy is?
Sorry yog, i just can't get you out the mental sewer until you grow up a little bit.
I just haven't got the time to give private tuition.  

(January 8, 2016 at 9:44 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Nobody gives a flying fuck what you 'believe' based on your Yoga, we care what you have evidence for.  So far the only thing you've used to support your belief is bad analogies, bare assertions, and what you believe based on Yoga.  That's not evidence.  Anybody can spin similar stories about most anything.  ("A cell is like a factory.  Factories have smoke stacks.  Therefore a cell has a smokestack, it's just nonphysical and can't be seen."  )

If to say that make sense to say that a body need consciousness to be alive is a bad analogy then
you tell me what a good analogy is?
Sorry yog, i just can't get you out the mental sewer until you grow up a little bit.
I just haven't got the time to give private tuition.  

You're trying to say that somebody else needs tuition whilst at the same time admitting you have no fucking clue what a good analogy is?

One day when you're sitting having your breakfast, naked but for a loin cloth made out of barbed wire, dribbling snot into your cornflakes, it's my sincere hope that a moment of clarity hits you and you realise just quite how fucking mental you are little Prik.

(January 8, 2016 at 9:53 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 9:44 am)Little Rik Wrote: If to say that make sense to say that a body need consciousness to be alive is a bad analogy then
you tell me what a good analogy is?
Sorry yog, i just can't get you out the mental sewer until you grow up a little bit.
I just haven't got the time to give private tuition.  

You're trying to say that somebody else needs tuition whilst at the same time admitting you have no fucking clue what a good analogy is?

One day when you're sitting having your breakfast, naked but for a loin cloth made out of barbed wire, dribbling snot into your cornflakes, it's my sincere hope that a moment of clarity hits you and you realise just quite how fucking mental you are little Prik.

You can twist my words as much as you like as you just have done but that doesn't get you out the mental sewer son.  
Try again.  

(January 8, 2016 at 10:00 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 9:53 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: You're trying to say that somebody else needs tuition whilst at the same time admitting you have no fucking clue what a good analogy is?

One day when you're sitting having your breakfast, naked but for a loin cloth made out of barbed wire, dribbling snot into your cornflakes, it's my sincere hope that a moment of clarity hits you and you realise just quite how fucking mental you are little Prik.

You can twist my words as much as you like as you just have done but that doesn't get you out the mental sewer son.  
Try again.  

Twisting words?  If your prose were a chocolate bar, it would be a curly wurly you dribbling imbecile.

A quick question little prik, you claim atoms have consciousness. My PC is made up of lots and lots of atoms.

Loads of 'em.

Is my PC sentient?

(January 8, 2016 at 9:44 am)Little Rik Wrote: If to say that make sense to say that a body need consciousness to be alive is a bad analogy then
you tell me what a good analogy is?

I already explained this to you.  Maybe if you had listened instead of dribbling insults out your piehole then you wouldn't need me to repeat myself.

(December 26, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The body may be like the universe in many ways, but unlike it in the ways that you are analogizing it has a mind.  That is the problem with analogies as proofs of things: you can't tell from the analogy whether or not the analogy holds with respect to the characteristic in question.  Your pointing out that the universe is like the body in some ways is not evidence that the universe is like a body in all ways, and in particular, in the specific way that the body has a mind.  This is why your entire argument for the universe having a mind fails.  In addition you are engaged in cherry picking the ways that your analogy applies.  If the analogy is intended to extend to unknowns like the universe having a mind, you're not free to pick and choose the ways in which the body and universe are alike.  It's an all or nothing deal, and your cherry picking makes it another failure.

And since you didn't get that the first time, you probably didn't get the following.

(December 26, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: While we're busy chatting, what is it with you and all the condescension?  You've told me that I'm not spiritually wise person because I am not humble.  If that's the hallmark of a spiritually wise person, then your constant insults mark you as a complete spiritual ignoramus.  So what's with all the insults?

(January 8, 2016 at 8:42 am)Little Rik Wrote: So you reckon that there is a contradiction among the two statements and that make me a liar?
Let us see.
In the first statement i say ....... the point has really nothing to do with wiki being reliable or not.........here i am not saying whether wiki is good or bad, no judgement therefore.
In the second statement i say .........Not all the information coming from Wiki are incorrect but many are that is why in the scientific world this source is not taken in much consideration........here i say that wiki some time is correct while other time is not.
How these two statements contradict each other only Santa and an imbeciles like you know.  

You're either too stupid for words here, or just an incredibly dishonest person. Take your pick.

(January 8, 2016 at 9:53 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: You're trying to say that somebody else needs tuition [intuition?] whilst at the same time admitting you have no fucking clue what a good analogy is?

Come on people, help little Rik out. Lets see some good analogies to help our friend out of his backward beliefs.

Intuitional 'science' is to science,
as alchemy is to chemistry.

Go!