1. Comment #311140 by tvictor on January 2, 2009 at 3:37 pm

Thank you very much for sharing.
I just finished watching it and I don't quite agree with Nicholas Humphrey's condenscendence towards pseudo-science just because it's a valid way to deliver the placebo effect. I'd much rather get my placebo from a real doctor that honestly thinks I'm better off with a suggar pill than to be deceived into believing a spirit is healing me or other nonsense.

What you guys think?

Other Comments by tvictor

2. Comment #311144 by Minium Jones on January 2, 2009 at 4:27 pm

Hmmm....

Forgive me for noticing but, where are the women?

Other Comments by Minium Jones

3. Comment #311152 by Morbo on January 2, 2009 at 5:33 pm

tvictor,

A sugar pill from the doctor may well be able to help you via the placebo effect but that would be because you trust the doctor and expect a result.
People who tend seek alternative medicine do so either due to the failure of real medicine or due to a mistrust of doctors I would think that this mistrust would negate any placebo effect.
Often practitioners of alternative medicine have a lot more time to spend with the patient (customer) and this can help them to feel something is being done leading to them feeling better.
Even so I cant say that I agree with frauds treating people as it can lead to them not seeing a doctor when they really should and no amount of feel good therapies can help them.

Other Comments by Morbo

4. Comment #311155 by Cartomancer on January 2, 2009 at 6:00 pm

I think Richard's suggestion that we try to develop a drug that might replicate the placebo effect is actually a rather good one.

Yes, it is undoubtedly much cheaper to carry on administering placebos with social interaction, reassuring bedside manner, an air of authority and so forth. But not everybody will respond to these things. Some people, perhaps, will respond to none of these things. What of the socially inept, misanthropic person who is always suspicious around others? What of the paranoid person who mistrusts all kinds of authority, be they white coat wearing doctors or new age hippie quacks? What of the deeply pessimistic and depressed people who habitually take a negative view of life and assume as a matter of course that any medicine they are given probably won't work? In fact, there are deeply suspicious, paranoid and cynical pessimists out there (I know, I am one) who tend to think that any medicine they have been given is probably just a placebo and thus won't have any effect. For these people, the placebo effect cannot easily be activated in the traditional way.

But pessimists still get cancer too. And because they're pessimists they generally take much longer to get better anyway - their immune systems might be depleted through depression. Obviously the best solution would be psychological therapy and counselling to alleviate the pessimism and instil a more balanced mindset in the patient, but that can take decades to achieve and is often dependent on outside factors over which the clinician has little control. Meanwhile, the pessimistic, depressive patient is still struggling with cancer or whatever else he has on a half-full immune system, which his psychology will not permit him to fully utilise because it is subconsciously holding a lot back for later.

Were we to have some kind of drug which bypassed the psychosomatic mechanisms of the placebo effect and opened the floodgates wide at will, such people could be helped immeasurably. It might even have some impact on their pessimism and depression to find themselves much healthier than they used to be.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

5. Comment #311156 by Aerik on January 2, 2009 at 6:18 pm

Holy crap.

I found Nicholas Humphrey about a year before I got into atheist activism. It was Humphrey who introduced me to Dawkins in the 1997 speech to Amnesty International. http://nospank.net/humphrey.htm

When Dawkins cited Humprey (a trackback, hehe) last year in an essay, that was awesome for me. And now this.

I almost just pooped myself from all the excitement.

Other Comments by Aerik

6. Comment #311160 by Fifth Ape on January 2, 2009 at 6:56 pm

Cartomancer, it used to be thought that attitude had an effect on cancer prognosis but the latest research suggests that neither positive or negative outlooks have any effect. I'd certainly advocate psychological therapy to treat any depression that arises but there isn't any current conclusive research of which I am aware that has found a correlation between attitude (positive or negative) and cancer outcomes.

Other Comments by Fifth Ape

7. Comment #311177 by miekol on January 2, 2009 at 8:21 pm

I guess what we are really dealing with is not so much the placebo effect, which is a given, but the power of our mind and its potential to cure ailments, and prevent illness. Thirty five years ago when I first learnt that many of our illnesses are self inflicted, I made up my mind not to be ill ever again. I've not been ill ever since.

Michael
Australia

Other Comments by miekol

8. Comment #311206 by Dr. Hameer on January 2, 2009 at 9:38 pm

Well done Prof. Humphrey!

As an allopathic physician myself, I couldn't agree more with Nicholas Humphrey on his views on Alternative Medicine and the power of the Placebo, and more importantly the power of the body and the Mind.

This is not much different from Dr. Deepak Chopra's concepts of Mind-body Medicine and Physicist Amit Goswami's concept of Integral Medicine.

Mainstream Scientists tend to ignore and undermine the power of the individual self in many things including healing. This bias comes from treating the individual as an automaton - an organic robot with no free will. People who are physicians and healers know different.

Rather than try to minimize the impact of self healing and the power of consciousness and the self by calling it a "placebo", it would serve us better to acknowledge the role of the individual in healing and combine allopathic medicine with efficacious alternative medicine methods. This is happening in some major hospitals in India, but the West is still lagging quite behind.

- Dr. Hameer

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer

9. Comment #311210 by decius on January 2, 2009 at 9:52 pm

Comment #311206 by Dr. Hameer

As an allopathic physician quack myself, I couldn't agree more with find a juicier opportunity to spin and distort Nicholas Humphrey' views on Alternative Medicine and the power of the Placebo, and more importantly the power of the body and the Mind.


This is not much different from This video has nothing to do with the nonsense promoted by Dr. Mountebank Deepak Chopra's concepts of Mind-body Medicine and Physicist Charlatan Amit Goswami's concept of Integral Medicine.

SNIP

This is happening in some major hospitals in India, but the West is still lagging quite behind rather uncontaminated by egregious medieval stupidity and magical thinking.

There, fixed.

Other Comments by decius

10. Comment #311214 by Dr. Hameer on January 2, 2009 at 10:09 pm

To decius:

You sir are a nitwit. That's all I have to say for you and all your other ditto heads who think like you do and have no mental capacity to hold reasonable discussions. Peace!

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer

11. Comment #311216 by decius on January 2, 2009 at 10:20 pm

Comment #311214 by Dr. Hameer

May be so, but at least I don't fleece the sick for a living. I'd rather fight off the quacks and proponents of magical thinking who attempt to pollute these boards with their nonsense. There is no debate to be had with fraudsters.

http://whatstheharm.net/alternativemedicine.html
http://whatstheharm.net/ayurvedicmedicine.html

'Doctor' my arse.

Other Comments by decius

12. Comment #311233 by silver bullet on January 2, 2009 at 11:11 pm

Dr. Hameer,

I agree with you, as long as what is complementing standard medicine is not harmful (scientifically determined as appropriate), and is subjected to scientific enquiry to determine how it may be having its beneficial effect.

I despise Deepak Chopra for hijacking science to promote his form of BS. I also despise the inaccurate use of language, which he is guilty of in spades.

"Mind-body" promotes the unproven proposition that they are separate. Studying the effect of "state of mind" on well being and health is preferable.

Other Comments by silver bullet

13. Comment #311237 by madame_zora on January 2, 2009 at 11:23 pm

Wow decius, who crapped in your Wheaties? I don't see how Dr. Hameer "spun" Humphrey's words- did he not just say he uses the power of placebo, and that it's interesting to learn more about the mind's power to heal the body? I don't see what was so whacky about that.

Ramachandran gave a lecture at TED where he used a mirror to help a patient with pain management by accessing what are being called "mirroring neurons". This is something neurobiologists have isolated as the function that allows us to experience things vicariously. We salivate when we watch someone else take a bite of something we like to eat. These are "real things" that a materialist need not be embarrassed about acknowledging.

While I agree with Dawkins about exposing the nonsense aspects of nonsense/alternative medicine, I have all the time in the world for honest, sincere forging through the study of the mind from a lot of different directions. If what Humphrey believes is true, some of the less orthodox treatments being bandied about may actually give traditional medicine a type of "permission" to take chances in a field some may perceive has become too stodgy- if not almost equally corrupt.

The healthcare situation in America has a lot of us angry about being provided with absolute minimal care in group health centers that feel like a factory. It can't be denied that it would feel better on some level if the caregiver actually knew you, and took time to ask "How's the wife and kids?". If the alternative provider says, "Hey, I'll listen to what you say and give a crap about you- and for good measure I'll wave my magic stick!" I say if it ain't broke don't fix it. I also say, study it in detail and find out what's going on. If they are good at accessing the placebo effect, find out why!

Other Comments by madame_zora

14. Comment #311241 by decius on January 2, 2009 at 11:38 pm

Comment #311237 by madame_zora

I don't see how Dr. Hameer "spun" Humphrey's words- did he not just say he uses the power of placebo, and that it's interesting to learn more about the mind's power to heal the body? I don't see what was so whacky about that.

Simple, he used Humphrey's words to lend credibility to Chopra (look him up, if you don't know him). Also, Hameer calls himself an "allopathic" physician. The word was coined by the inventor of homoeopathy. Only major quacks would use such terminology, usually to indicate an adept of ayurvedic medicine (another useless practice that is causing a lot of preventable deaths) and similar fraudulent activities.

Finally, he has a history of posting nonsense and promoting pseudo-science.

Other Comments by decius

15. Comment #311242 by mordacious1 on January 2, 2009 at 11:39 pm

I think that psychophysiologic illnesses can probably be treated quite well with placebos, but other illnesses cannot be. You may feel better but won't get better faster. Let's say we have two patients with the exact infection which can be cured by a certain medicine. Patient A is in a coma or otherwise unconscious, B is wide awake. Are we saying B is going to recover faster because he is aware of the treatment? I would like to see some research on this.

Other Comments by mordacious1

16. Comment #311243 by silver bullet on January 2, 2009 at 11:42 pm

The notion that the placebo works even when the patient is aware that it is a placebo ought to be tested before we accept it because that seems to be the N=1 case for the researcher mentioned in the interview. To do otherwise certainly is not very scientific!

Other Comments by silver bullet

17. Comment #311245 by silver bullet on January 2, 2009 at 11:47 pm

I wish Dawkins had pressed Humphrey to explain exactly what he meant in saying the 80% of the effect or Prozac is explained by placebo effect.

He may be referring to the fact that the natural history of depression is for eventual recovery (that is, 80% or so get better without Prozac). This would not constitute an argument to provide a placebo pill however, which Humphrey does advocate.

Presumably, his claim rests upon a randomized trial where there were three arms: (i) no pills, (ii) placebo, and (iii) Prozac. I really wish I'd heard more about this.

Does anybody know?

Other Comments by silver bullet

18. Comment #311249 by silver bullet on January 2, 2009 at 11:57 pm

As a physician, my experience so far seems to indicate that the placebo effect is not lasting. I tend to believe that placebo effect is active when I hear a patient say, "drug X worked well for the first few weeks, but then it wore off".

The proposition that placebo ought to be prescribed to patients does not sit well with me.

Nor does the proposition that in all (or most) cases, the so called placebo effect can actually be attributed to an as yet misunderstood mechanism of active healing. I find this concept very provocative. While I cannot discount this being true some of the time, my bias is that the placebo effect really is a subjective one that only has positive psychological effects. How interesting it would be if I were wrong . . .

Other Comments by silver bullet

19. Comment #311251 by decius on January 3, 2009 at 12:02 am

Comment #311237 by madame_zora

Sorry, I forgot this bit.

Ramachandran gave a lecture at TED where he used a mirror to help a patient with pain management by accessing what are being called "mirroring neurons". This is something neurobiologists have isolated as the function that allows us to experience things vicariously. We salivate when we watch someone else take a bite of something we like to eat. These are "real things" that a materialist need not be embarrassed about acknowledging.

This has very little to do with both placebo and quackery. Besides, none of these interesting mechanisms do pose a problem for 'materialism', nor is the scientific community embarrassed by them, quite the contrary.

Other Comments by decius

20. Comment #311252 by mordacious1 on January 3, 2009 at 12:03 am

My son takes anti-depressant meds. On certain days I'll notice a change in his behavior and ask him if he took his pills. He swears he did but when we return home and check, he had not. If it were purely placebo and he thought he took them, there would be no change in his behavior. My anecdotal belief is that some people take these meds and they act as a placebo, others take them because they really have a chemical imbalance.

Other Comments by mordacious1

21. Comment #311254 by z8000783 on January 3, 2009 at 12:10 am

Quote of the year -

"If I were a sceptic" Richard Dawkins

Other Comments by z8000783

22. Comment #311255 by decius on January 3, 2009 at 12:11 am

Comment #311249 by silver bullet

I agree.

Other Comments by decius

23. Comment #311256 by madame_zora on January 3, 2009 at 12:17 am

Sliver bullet, my guess is that you are right. I think it obviously IS subjective, and that's the whole point.

No, I would never advocate placebo instead of real pharmaceuticals in acute cases, where an immediate response is necessary, but with chronic cases such as pain management and depression, there's a little more room for experimentation. Since people ARE voluntarily going to alternative healers, I am interested in it as a phenomena if nothing more. I'm interested in why they chose that instead of traditional medicine- is it due more to legitimate concerns about the manner in which the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry has behaved, or is it simply indulgence in wish thinking- or a combination or those, and more?

I don't think it's too far out to accept that the brain is capable of much more than we currently understand. I am very interested in Humphrey's position that the placebo may in fact be a conduit toward self-healing. One question would be, is it universal, or are some people better candidates for it than others?

decius- didn't realise the doctor was known to you- mea culpa.

Other Comments by madame_zora

24. Comment #311257 by Dr Doctor on January 3, 2009 at 12:23 am

#10 can be summarised as "My backside hurt due to Decius's judicious use of strikethrough. Make puny insult. Now I've got my insults in, I call peace. Any followups trading insults with me will be met with 'but I offered the olive branch of peace and you just slap it away'"?

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

25. Comment #311262 by madame_zora on January 3, 2009 at 12:38 am

[quote]This has very little to do with both placebo and quackery. Besides, none of these interesting mechanisms do pose a problem for 'materialism', nor is the scientific community embarrassed by them, quite the contrary. [/quote]

Here's the lecture, if you watch it I assure you it is directly relevant to a discussion on the placebo effect.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html

If you say no materialists are ever embarrassed by psychology, or by thrashing about for theories in the earliest of stages, then I have to accept that that is your opinion and/or experience. It isn't mine. I also accept that at some point, psychology will either marry itself to neurobiology or risk losing even its status as little sister to the sciences, but in these earliest of years in trying to understand the brain without neurobiology, it got us this far.

I think there is in the end something of value to be gained by "talking things through" and placebos that is worth pursuing, especially as a preliminary measure to see if that will suffice before actual pharmaceuticals that have side effects are prescribed. Naturally I'm putting a great deal of faith in the doctor to make that determination, but since they already have our very lives in their hands, it doesn't seem that great a leap.

Other Comments by madame_zora

26. Comment #311264 by Richard Dawkins on January 3, 2009 at 12:42 am

Once again, thank you for understanding that this is unedited, almost completely uncut, raw footage. Only a tiny fraction of it was used in 'Enemies of Reason'. At times, Nick and I went on talking when the Director was talking in the background to the cameraman, which accounts for the camera suddenly lurching off and 'looking' at the grass. I think there is some value in this kind of 'mutual tutorial', where the whole film is not stitched up into a polished, final cut. But I am interested to know, would people prefer at least SOME editing of footage like this?
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

27. Comment #311265 by PsyPro on January 3, 2009 at 12:43 am

Hmmm.

I am not sure Professor Humphrey's' position is being clearly articulated here; certainly, the statement is not as clear here as it is in the chapter in his book. Still, he is responsible for what he says, especially when the interrogator is Professor Dawkins.

A large problem, of course, is that what is meant by the ``placebo effect'' is poorly if at all defined. It certainly is NOT what most seem to think it is (i.e., positive attitude resulting from some fake treatment resulting in a positive result).

No. A placebo effect is some efficacious result in the direction of a known treatment relative to some non-treatment control. There are in fact very few demonstrations of such an effect in medicine, surprisingly, but mostly because there have been very few medical studies directed that way. Indeed, recent meta-analytic studies of these few have concluded that on the whole there have been no demonstrated medical placebo effects (making one question what placebo-controlled experiments are actually controlling for. My answer: basic science; double-blind and placebo-controls are just euphemisms for basic scientific control).

On the other hand, there have been a few experimental studies in both human and non-human animals that have produced significant differences in favour of some internally-defined ``placebo'' treatment relative to some non-treatment control. And it is these results that for the most part Professor Humphrey is referring. At least, that is my reading/hearing.

Most (if not all of these) involve the immune response in one way or another and thereby fit in one form or another Professor Humphrey's evolutionary thesis.

Those that don't with humans would seem to fall under the very powerful ``illusory placebo effect''---about more if requested---that also fits Professor Humphrey's evolutionary thesis in a very satisfying (to his thesis) social way.

Other Comments by PsyPro

28. Comment #311266 by madame_zora on January 3, 2009 at 12:49 am

The weird camera shots were distracting, but honestly I wouldn't have wanted to lose the conversation so I'd leave it as is. Then again, I'm one of those sick people who goes hours early to concerts because I wouldn't want to miss sound check. I think there are a lot of us who like to see how things work, and appreciate these gems immensely.

Other Comments by madame_zora

29. Comment #311267 by Laurie Fraser on January 3, 2009 at 12:50 am

Richard - I like this presentation of uncut footage, but of course there are parts (interruptions, etc) that could easily be cut out without detracting from credibility. If the naysayers want to get picky with minimal and reasonable editing, well, fuck 'em.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

30. Comment #311268 by Dr Doctor on January 3, 2009 at 12:56 am

Uncut, every time. I always work while listening to these extended interviews[1]. Once listened to in full, any edited version heard later on I find deeply unsatisfying.


[1- Except when stealing still frames of McGrath looking frightened to use as an avatar]

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

31. Comment #311270 by decius on January 3, 2009 at 1:04 am

Comment #311262 by madame_zora

I am acquainted with the work of Ramachandran and I have also seen the extended version of that lecture.
Could you please explain how it is relevant to the placebo effect? May be I am missing something, but I don't seem to be able to connect the dots.

If you say no materialists are ever embarrassed by psychology, or by thrashing about for theories in the earliest of stages, then I have to accept that that is your opinion and/or experience. It isn't mine.

Unless we are using a different definition of materialism, by which in this context I mean a theory of the mind based on monist assumptions, I can't recall a single case where such assumptions had to be called into question.
Conversely, dualism has been constantly failing all its predictions and is now to neuroscience what creationism is to biology. Ramachandran's work representing no exception in the general picture.

I also accept that at some point, psychology will either marry itself to neurobiology or risk losing even its status as little sister to the sciences

I agree.

Other Comments by decius

32. Comment #311271 by Quine on January 3, 2009 at 1:05 am

Richard, I think it is just fine the way it is. I tend to put these on more than once but only listen to the sound on successive playings so the quality of video editing is not as important.

Other Comments by Quine

33. Comment #311272 by decius on January 3, 2009 at 1:15 am

Comment #311264 by Richard Dawkins

Fine as it is, in my opinion.

Other Comments by decius

34. Comment #311273 by admin on January 3, 2009 at 1:17 am

In assembling interviews like this I've tried to leave in any dialogue that seemed relevant and interesting. Occasionally decent discussion would occur when the cameraman was grabbing cutaways or "noddies." Even with what I left in on this interview, there was still a small amount of footage I cut out between discussion chunks (director interjections, etc.). Since the footage wasn't intended for this use, we are making the best of what we've got.

Josh

Other Comments by admin

35. Comment #311282 by AllanW on January 3, 2009 at 2:07 am

No, I would not prefer any editing. The veracity and immediacy holds my attention. I think Josh's approach of editing-out footage that does not involve the main participants is helpful and is as far as I'd go in making any changes to how it was filmed when it was made.

Thanks again for the interview.

Other Comments by AllanW

36. Comment #311289 by Swordmaiden on January 3, 2009 at 2:55 am

I love these uncut interviews; I also think they are best left exactly as they are. You can often get more of an insight into the interviewees mind through subtle responses and body language; especially when interviewing religious people - their hesitations can speak volumes!
I often listen to these interviews on my portable player next to my bed intead of reading before sleep; not because they bore me to sleep but I don't have to watch them to enjoy them....just listen and drift off; I never tire of them. Thank you!

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

37. Comment #311292 by Steve Zara on January 3, 2009 at 3:26 am

I love the sense of there being a real conversation that comes from these unedited videos. I think these have a freshness that makes them exciting to listen to.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #311300 by AfraidToDie on January 3, 2009 at 4:12 am

Where are all the skeptics? As far as I’m concerned, Jesus is a placebo effect. Just because many people claim their belief in him gives them strength to make it through their life doesn’t make his story true, nor does it warrant a pass from criticism. If we give a “pass” to accepting “placebo effect” medicine because it makes people feel good, which somehow can heal them, then why don’t we give a “pass” to all the religious who “feel good” believing in their interventionist creator? Does RD believe in what was conveyed in this interview? It seemed that way based on the lack of challenging questions, and for that, I am very disappointed.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

39. Comment #311309 by Richard Dawkins on January 3, 2009 at 4:36 am

I feel it incumbent on me to snark at this point. This has been forced upon me by the collegial attitude shown by the previous posters. It is not a position I take lightly, but it is a burden I accept.

Right, edit it all, who want's a real conversation with noddies? Make it look slick like some shonky advertising for condos on the Gold-coast.

The whole point is that the noddies are (almost) the only bits that are NOT shown in this version. The whole point of noddies is that they are used for the EDITED version, shown on television. Noddies go hand in hand with EDITING. This is UNedited.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

40. Comment #311330 by Psyris on January 3, 2009 at 5:33 am

I agree with AfraidToDie that believing in Jesus can function as a placebo effect. So does believing in alternative medicine. Neither should be granted "pass" from criticism. All we can do is try to make people aware of the inanity of it.

If you catch a cold, it will take one whole week until you're over it. If you go to your GP for a painkiller and a cough drink (there's probably a proper English word for it which I don't know), it will take "only 7 days".

There is a reason why medicine research usually has a double-blind experimental design. It's not that difficult to make the naive and unthinking believe in something that doesn't work at all. I think religion and believing in Jesus is a good example.

The placebo itself doesn't work of course. Like I said, when you go to your GP for a spoon of cough drink and a paracetamol, you'll be cured from your cold in "only 7 days", exact the same duration your body needs to overcome it, one week.

Some people just need the feeling that something is activey done to cure them, just like some people need the reassurance of a higher power on whom they can rely when they encounter drawbacks in their lives.

People feel victimized somehow and need the feeling of an active approach towards the problem to feel good again. All we can try to do is make those people aware that they themselves should take an active approach and find a rational solution for their problems instead of turning helplessly to a medicine man or some god.

Placebos only work for non-existent problems which are somehow perceive to exist.

Other Comments by Psyris

41. Comment #311333 by Dhamma on January 3, 2009 at 5:39 am

Dr. Hameer,

I'm aware I'm less intelligent than most people on this board. Recognizing this doesn't make me a negative person, but a mere realist. What I don't do in order to counter this is to pathetically put a (self-appointed?) title in my screen-name.

What's your excuse?

You really don't deserve any respect - simply because of that title. Dawkins screen-name isn't "Prof. Richard Dawkins" and I think it isn't for a reason.

Other Comments by Dhamma

42. Comment #311338 by fbrandt on January 3, 2009 at 5:51 am

The effects of placebos versus real drugs is of course of statistical nature. It is not mentioned, in this interview, anything about the statistical significance of the results. I would say that serious drug companies use serious statistical analysis when testing drugs and placebo effects.

Other Comments by fbrandt

43. Comment #311349 by Dr. Hameer on January 3, 2009 at 6:39 am

Comment #311333 by Dhamma

Dr. Hameer,

I'm aware I'm less intelligent than most people on this board. Recognizing this doesn't make me a negative person, but a mere realist. What I don't do in order to counter this is to pathetically put a (self-appointed?) title in my screen-name.

What's your excuse?

You really don't deserve any respect - simply because of that title. Dawkins screen-name isn't "Prof. Richard Dawkins" and I think it isn't for a reason.

Okay it looks like for some people here (perhaps many!) all they can resort to are ad hominem attacks and nothing more. So let me take this opportunity to clarify what my credentials are and what position I take in life:

(1) I am a REAL PHYSICIAN - I went to FIVE years of MEDICAL SCHOOL and have an M.D. degree

(2) I am an AGNOSTIC, mainly on the ATHEISTIC end of the spectrum. I am an advocate of Science and the scientific method

(3) My greatest intellectual heroes have been the lates Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman.

(4) I am a big fan of Professor Dawkins, even though I don't share the same viewpoints as him in everything.

(5) I DO NOT agree with everything people like Deepak Chopra say, however I do feel at times they raise interesting observations. I am a materialist for the most part, however I am NOT hostile to those INTELLECTUAL THINKERS (Chopra is an MD who worked for many years in Harvard university/Boston hospitals & Goswami is a retired theoretical physicist professor from Oregon University) who want to challenge materialistic philosophy and are offering interesting scientific and philosophical perspectives for discussion.

(6) I think there is much to the power of the human mind and body than what current scientific paradigm wants to acknowledge.

Anymore Ad hominem attacks from retards like decius and the likes, and I will just advice them to go back to their former evagelical religions, since their attitudes are more befitting of fanatics rather than true intellectual thinkers.

Peace.

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer

44. Comment #311350 by Steve Zara on January 3, 2009 at 6:43 am

Dr Hameer-

however I am NOT hostile to those INTELLECTUAL THINKERS (Chopra

Woah! I am going to have to stop you there.

You don't get to make the buffoon Chopra an intellectual by stating it in CAPITALS.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #311357 by Dhamma on January 3, 2009 at 7:06 am

Dr. Hameer,

I'm not, necessarily, objecting your opinions. I'm objecting to the use of your title. You deserve less respect for using it, even if you truly are a doctor.

It's a pathetic attempt at getting respect for your opinions.

Other Comments by Dhamma

46. Comment #311358 by Oystein Elgaroy on January 3, 2009 at 7:07 am

Comment #311349 by Dr. Hameer

(5) I DO NOT agree with everything people like Deepak Chopra say, however I do feel at times they raise interesting observations. I am a materialist for the most part, however I am NOT hostile to those INTELLECTUAL THINKERS (Chopra is an MD who worked for many years in Harvard university/Boston hospitals & Goswami is a retired theoretical physicist professor from Oregon University) who want to challenge materialistic philosophy and are offering interesting scientific and philosophical perspectives for discussion.

So you think "quantum healing" is a credible idea?

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

47. Comment #311362 by Dr. Hameer on January 3, 2009 at 7:22 am

Comment #311357 by Dhamma

I'm not, necessarily, objecting your opinions. I'm objecting to the use of your title. You deserve less respect for using it, even if you truly are a doctor.

It's a pathetic attempt at getting respect for your opinions.

Bloody hell...the fact I included my title in my username does not imply my attempt at getting respect for anything...its for the same bleeding reason Prof. Dawkins perhaps just chose not to refer to himself as "Professor" but rather just Richard Dawkins...and that is...PERSONAL PREFERENCE....

Do you really have to make a mountain out of a mole hill? Pathetic really.

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer

48. Comment #311365 by Dr. Hameer on January 3, 2009 at 7:32 am

Comment #311358 by Oystein Elgaroy

So you think "quantum healing" is a credible idea?

I don't know about the term itself, but I think it is an INTERESTING idea even if totally incorrect. Thats all I am saying.

I would not say that if "quantum healing" was coming from new agers and quacks, but after reading Physicist Amit Goswami's interpretation of the Observer effect in Quantum Measurement and Schroedinger's Cat Paradox and how it MAY, i repeat, MAY be linked to Consciousness (Goswami) and self- healing (Chopra), I feel they are interesting ideas for discussion.

Perhaps a physicist like Stenger could discuss the matter with Goswami and we could have an interesting and amicable debate.

In science we work in the materialistic paradigm since that has proved very useful and very effective. However I am not hostile to those who offer a different perspective on life's various philosophies and I will hear them out and not scream "Sacrilege!"

Peace.

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer

49. Comment #311367 by Oystein Elgaroy on January 3, 2009 at 7:43 am

Comment #311365 by Dr. Hameer

If interpretations of quantum mechanics were all that was involved here, I would understand your position better. But these people go much further than that they can cure illness. As far as I know there is no solid evidence for "quantum healing", to put it mildly. With this in mind I find it easy to understand the hostility of decius and Dhamma.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

50. Comment #311373 by Dr. Hameer on January 3, 2009 at 7:59 am

Comment #311367 by Oystein Elgaroy

If interpretations of quantum mechanics were all that was involved here, I would understand your position better.

For Goswami, his argument is based on interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and his hypothesis stems from that. I don't agree with all that he says. For instance, I found his book 'The Self Aware Universe' quite interesting even though I may not necessarily share his viewpoints. On the other hand, I found his book 'Creative Evolution' quite disappointing and falling in to Prof. Dawkins' famous trap of "The Argument from personal incredulity".

But these people go much further than that they can cure illness. As far as I know there is no solid evidence for "quantum healing", to put it mildly. With this in mind I find it easy to understand the hostility of decius and Dhamma.

There have been medical cases where a cancer patient undergoes spontaneous remission, sometimes literally overnight. We have still yet to fully explain these. Chopra is offering his hypothesis on the matter, which even if incorrect, I personally find interesting food for thought.

I would disagree with you and say that hostility has no place in a mature discussion. The attitudes of people like decius are similar to those of religious fundamentalists, who think their religion has the eternal truth, only in the case of decius and Co. they probably think Science has grasped the eternal truth.

It really is a pity when people resort to ad hominem attacks. I mean people like decius should learn from Prof. Dawkins who in most of his interviews is very amicable and still yet skeptical and critical (in the few times he is not, I don't quite blame him since many of those times he comes across idiots like Ted Haggard and those psychic charlatans).

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer