Ha, ha :)

Yes, a modern day Frankenstein!

Yes, well, I think it will eventually be possible for a person to be created by combining molecules to form a genotype, placing them in an ovum and allowing nature to take its course in growth and development of the phenotype (body) and the programming of the brain through normal interaction with the environment as the body grows. What purpose this would serve I do not know.

However, to create a fully grown person and program the brain without the usual environmental interaction, would, I think, prove extremely difficult, if not completely impossible. I don't think we will see it in our lifetime, fortunately.

Why?
When the evidence says that this is not the case.
Why would the misguided view of one individual be of interest to you when her claims have already been found to be untrue?
There are still flat-earthers, but do you really still want to hear what they have to say?

The total energy in the universe is conserved, it merely transforms from one form into another.

Not really.
The facts are against any connection whatsoever, so it is not a matter of belief.
It's more an issue of matter those who understand the issues involved and those who don't don't. :)

THe Japanese will be interested! The native Japanese population has started to decrease recently, and there are not enough people to look after the elderly, so what they are doing is trying to do robot research hoping to replace people with robots. THey actually say that it's nicer to have a robot around, you don't have to feel bad to ask him to pour you a cup of tea - I'm sorry now that I did not save this quote, it was in the newspaper.

Why do you say that there will be no environmental influence? Who would prevent you to put your artifical individual into a group to help them grow up - if this is possible at all?

WHere will the ovum come from?

If you beleive that brain runs "under a program" (however that is created), how creative activity like art could be possible? Or from another angle, why do some people like red colour and some hate it, for example? Because they were taught so?

Why do you not want to see this "in our lifetime"? If matter is primary - what difference will a naturally born person have from a Frankenshtein? If you follow all the steps correctly - you seem to beleive that you know all about the human body to be very definite in your conclusions that you write to Lew and other people, so you should be able to control everything, right? - what makes you uncomfortable, or did I misunderstand you?

You know, to understand that feelings are real - which you seem to dismiss as a possibility - you need to come to Japan and live here for a certain period, preferable surrounded entirely by the natives. In the beginning you will just feel uncomfortable, and then you will notice that the (majority of - there are exceptions, of course) people around you DO NOT FEEL anything at all and do indeed function under a program. And then you'll know how creepy is this and how it is an important part of being a human - to feel something. And just how vital it is... And you will not need any knowledge of the quantum physics theory or any other theory for that matter to understand that.

THanks for all the quotes about vaccines, that must have been a lot of work for you to compile them.

But why do you deny the person their desire to find out something? THey have the right to know whatever they want, you can only provide them with your information, and then they will decide what interests them and what not. We cannot really tell people what their favourite colour - or field of interest - should be, why does that bother you? THey are not going to use any of your money, or cause YOU any real harm. You say that the lobby is small but powerful - why don't you create a large and powerful lobby against them - if this corresponds better to your "meaning of life" - by the way, I forgot, where they are doing their lobbying? I really did not hear about that, and I have not heard about homeopathic vaccinations until recently, although I'm studying homeopathy for 10 years already. In fact, my feeling (MY FEELING, I would like to stress) is that any vaccinations are unnatural - humanity has managed to survive without them for many long thousands of years, and there are ways to boost one's immunity in a natural way in most traditional - in the real sense - having long history - medicines and by wholesome nutritional practices, just eat good fresh food! Even in Africa, it seems, there are herbal treatment for various diseases, although I do not know much about this.

A robust child can be expected to handle any naturally possible external shock - like contact with a contagious agent, at least your own grandparents and all previous generations have been able to withstand all this, and it became possible for you to have been born, right? Why do you think that modern children cannot do this? Have they become so weak that it worries you that they will not survive - in massive numbers? After all, there are always casualties, a brick can fall on your head - there obviously can be no vaccination against this, and no other means of preventing this. Like the great Tsunami on Christmas vacations in the Indian Ocean 2 years ago (if I'm not mistaken) - recently my sister-in-law's relative - a 14 year old girl - has died after contracting a simple common cold, certainly you would not think about this as a fatal disease, as you propose to use this condition in your trial - but the fact is that she has died! It was not even a flu, just a common cold as by autopsy. Maybe, it's true then that people have become weaker? Then it would be useful to try to find out why - and try to make them stronger - rather than engaging in highly educated debates. I'll check your references, though, and please permit me to comment if I find something I could say or would like to ask you, will you?

THanks!

Elena

This is not the same as growing up with all your experiences from infancy to adullthood, influences that help mould your brain during its development.

Well, yes, I see what you mean.

But to tell you the truth I was not speaking about humans, as obviously it's a rather complex matter. WHat I meant is "starting life from scratch", take the simplest life-form and try to reproduce it with synthetical substances - or was this done? The last I heard about the matter, the scientists were not able to spot how organic matter from prehistoric oceans made the leap to living forms. WHen you said "take the ovum" - well, this means you borrow a living cell. But if I'm not mistaken - correct me if this is not so, - so far a synthetic - purely synthetic - living cell or a primary life-form has not been reproduced? Why? If matter is all that is needed, then putting the molecules found in a living form together in a certain way should let one to obtain a living organism of his own creation?

That is still the case. There are only ideas about how it could be done, but it has not yet been achieved.

That is correct. If matter is all that is required, this should be possible.

It is based on British Common Law that is still in force in most of the
Commonwealth countries. Simply put, everything is allowed except when it is
formally restricted.

Everybody can examine you, make a diagnosis and give you a treatment but
cannot call himself a Registered Medical Doctor if not registered with the
official body and cannot give or prescribe restricted medications (like
antibiotics) that are limited to professionals who supposedly know how to
use them.

For example, I am allowed to use the titles Dr. and MD. because I do have a
bona fide MD from an overseas university (and 3 other doctorates/PhDs) even
though I am not registered as a conventional MD, which is clearly mentioned
in my waiting room.

Seen differently, it maintains the right of every person to seek help from
anyone that person chooses to; the patient is at the center here and has the
ultimate and final say on his treatment, no coercion ever allowed.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Visit http://drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for some articles and
comments.
-------Original Message-------

From: homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
Date: 17/01/2008 7:59:12 a.m.
To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
Subject: [H] Re: @ gimpy: proof of homeopathy

Yes, Dr. J. Rozencwajg,

As I wrote my answers I realised that I'm somehow being caught into
this frame of considering disease SEPARATE from the people, thanks for
reminding this!

I also wanted to ask you, actually, if you could provide some history
to the legislation in New Zealand that you've mentioned, how
practitioners all have equal(?) legal rights unless they are an
impostor. Was it so from the start? And if not, what were the arguments
that the people were putting forward to have it in place?

THanks!

Elena


--
Elena Zagrebelnaya
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Zagrebelnaya's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member
php?userid=6569
View this thread: @ gimpy: proof of homeopathy

On Jan 15, 2008, at 11:04 PM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com wrote:

> [...]
> ANyways, the universe often reflects itself and the energy found in the
> universe is exactly the same on all levels.

What does this mean?

> in relation to homeopathy and quantum physics, it is a matter of
> belief. =)

*What* is a matter of belief?

>
>
> --
> pmc57

Good that we agree on this. That's why I was saying that if it is your SINCERE belief that matter comes first and living functions - be it simple life-sustaining function such as cell-division, or complex issue of consciousness, - follows from material interactions between "ingredients" so-to-say, then trying to actually reproduce life in this way is a worth-while investment for your analytical talents, as this - a successful achievement in this area - will put an end to all those "speculations" about Vital Force and energies, not?

Would not it be more interesting rather than trying to see who is going to be harmed by what and increasing fear and anxiety in your mind and minds of other people?

That matter is all there is, is not a belief. It is an assumption. An assumption is something that is taken to be true, without evidence, as a starting point. It is the assumption that science makes. And the purpose of making this assumption is to see how far natural explanations can take us towards explaining things.
Science really does not examine supernatural phenomena, such as soul, spirit, or Vital Force. However, if vital force is said to be the cause of something and science finds a natural explanation, then the role of vital force is reduced. In the future there may be little left for this vital force to explain. I suppose I think this will be the case because the trends are in that direction. I can't be sure though.

I guess it would, but I'm sure people with a vested interest in these things will not agree. Many people still believe in things today that have been proven long ago to be false (ie, there are still people who believe in a flat earth).
It is a tall order, though, to create life from inanimate matter. Maybe one day.

If I did not tell my young daughter, not to cross the road and explain why, I would spare her the nasty thought that she could be run over by a car, but then she may not be alive today.