VincentRJ

5 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, @SlappyMc, just like our delusions of dark energy and dark matter or just plain old energy and matter. All our concepts of reality are delusions created by our (human) intellect. "God" is just one of the more crazy ones.

It's rather sad that the most people on our planet do not seem to understand the most basics processes of the 'methodology of science'.

This process begins with some questioning and research on a particular topic, followed by the creation of a 'hypothesis' which might appear to explain the observed phenomena, but which is not certain.

In order to reach a high degree of certainty, many experiments need to be done, and repeated by other scientists. If the results of numerous experiments are consistent and align with eath other, and the ypothesis is not falsified, then the original hypothesis becomes a confirmed theory.

However, this is not an 'either/or' situation. There are many degrees of certainty or uncertainty, and there are many examples in the history of science where confirmed theories have later been demonstrated to be incorrect.
The existence of a 'Creator God' is very much an uncertain hypothesis. However, the concepts of the 'Big Bang' origin of the universe, and the existence of 'Dark Matter and Dark Energy', are also hypotheses, despite ongoing research.
In fact, recent research on Dark Matter and Dark Energy suggests it doesn't really exist, or doesn't need to exist to explain the observations of an expanding universe. Here's a link to the research for those interested.

"The fabric of the cosmos, as we currently understand it, comprises three primary components: ‘normal matter,’ ‘dark energy,’ and ‘dark matter.’ However, new research is turning this established model on its head.
A recent study conducted by the University of Ottawa presents compelling evidence that challenges the traditional model of the universe, suggesting that there may not be a place for dark matter within it."

https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter-does-not-exist-universe-27-billion-years-old-study/

On 8/13/2024 at 7:16 PM, placeholder said:

What you don't seem to understand is that in this context climate states is not synonymous with climate.  This is the kind of mischaracterization that is to be found on denialist websites and in tweets and such.

 

Fact check: 2001 climate change statement misrepresented to disparage climate models

The word "climate" refers to the range of expected weather conditions, including temperature and precipitation levels. Conversely, "climate states" refers to the presence or absence of relatively discrete weather events like a rainstorm...

"What this quotation is about is the limits on weather forecasts and forecasts of other variability, like El Niño," Baylor Fox-Kemper, an associate professor at Brown University and an author on a 2021-22 IPCC report, told USA TODAY.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/23/fact-check-climate-models-reliable-ipcc-statement-misrepresented/9618298002/

 

So while it may not yet or maybe ever be possible to predict how many thunderstorms will occur in a given locale over a period of time, it is entirely possible to predict the rise in global temperature. In fact, most of the models created in the 1960s and 1970 created very accurate algorithms to predict the rise in global temperatures for example.

 

Climate models are often attacked, but most of the time they're remarkably good

After years of hearing critics blast the models' accuracy, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather decided to see just how good they have been. He tracked down 17 models used between 1970 and 2007 and found that the majority of them predicted results that were "indistinguishable from what actually occurred."

"By and large our models have gotten it right, plus or minus a little bit," said Hausfather, a UC Berkeley scientist who is climate and energy director at the Breakthrough Institute.

https://phys.org/news/2019-12-climate-theyre-remarkably-good.html#:~:text=After years of hearing critics,indistinguishable from what actually occurred."

 

The models also predicted that average temperatures at the polar regions would rise faster than elsewhere and that as the lower atmosphere warmed, the stratosphere would actually get cooler as a consequence of the heat trapping power of the rising levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. The latter prediction is especially remarkable and rules out the claims of some that the current rapid rate of climate change is due to solar cycles.

 

 

"So while it may not yet or maybe ever be possible to predict how many thunderstorms will occur in a given locale over a period of time, it is entirely possible to predict the rise in global temperature. In fact, most of the models created in the 1960s and 1970 created very accurate algorithms to predict the rise in global temperatures for example."

Sorry I haven't responded to your comment until now. I've been rather busy, and it's taken me some time to dig up some reliable scientific studies on this issue. However, I've found a few that may 'tickle your fancy'. 

Here's a recent article in Nature magazine, written by Gavin Schmidt who is a climatologist and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, so I guess you would consider him reliable.

WORLD VIEW 19 March 2024
"Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory."
"For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z

Here's another article from an independant Climate Research publisher.

"Given the host of uncertainties and unknowns in the difficult but important task of climate modeling, the unique attribution of observed current climate change to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, including the relatively well-observed latest 20 yr, is not possible."
https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v18/n3/p259-275/

And here's another from a Hydrological Sciences Journal.

"Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671

And here's another study which claims the evidence suggests that increases in CO2 levels are an effect of temperature rises rather than the cause.

"All evidence resulting from the analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. That link is not represented in climate models, whose outputs are also examined using the same framework, resulting in a link opposite the one found when the real measurements are used."
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35

And yet other one.

"The reliability of general circulation climate model (GCM) global air temperature projections is evaluated for the first time, by way of propagation of model calibration error. An extensive series of demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear projections are subject to linear propagation of error. A directly relevant GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error in global annual average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate models. This error is strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a source in deficient theory."
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

And here's another study addressing Sea Surface Temperatures (SST).

"We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985–1999) and CERES (2000–2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks.
The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x

22 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

That’s all I need to know. “Doing your own research” means reading articles on the internet that you like reading, that reinforce what you think you already believe. This reminds me of a meme that was floating around, which addressed vaccines and not climate science, but the psychology is the same. The first picture is labeled “vaccine research” and shows a group of people in lab coats, doing work in a lab setting with test tubes and other equipment. The second picture is labeled “antivax research” and shows a woman with her pants down, sitting on a toilet and staring into her phone.

"That’s all I need to know. “Doing your own research” means reading articles on the internet that you like reading, that reinforce what you think you already believe. "

That's a good point which merits addressing. It might mean that for some people, but not for me. I do research on any topic that interests me, in order to learn more about the subject.

When the scare about anthropogenic global warming became prominent in the media in the late 1990's and eary 2000's, and after listening to interviews of climate experts on the media, such as James Hansen and James Lovelock, I assumed it was a serious threat. Why should I not?
I'm sufficiently educated in Physics and Chemistry to understand that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' because it absorbs infrared radiation, and I understand that CO2 can dissolve in water to produce carbonic acid. I also understood that an ocean which is too acidic might not be good for sea life in general.

However, at the time, I knew very little about past climate changes and the many processes that cause climate to change, and the information I gained from the media, mostly through interviews of scientists on the media, raised some perplexing questions in my mind.

In order to find the answer to these questions, I began searching the internet, including Google Scholar, Wikipedia, NASA, NOAA, BOM, and The Working Group 1 part of the IPCC reports (which addresses the science rather than the politics), and what I discovered, surprised me. In order for this post not to be too long, I'll just give one example, but I have many.

After hearing many reports of the alarming effects of ocean acidification, I began to wonder what is the normal pH of the oceans. Are the oceans slightly acidic, or slightly alkaline, or possibly neutral. 
I understood that 'acidification' meant 'becoming more acidic', which would suggest the oceans are normally either acidic or neutral. I also understood the pH system, which is important if you do gardening, because most plants thrive in slightly acidic to neutral soils, but some also thrive in slightly alkaline soils. If one adds too much lime to increase the calcium content of the soil, the soil can become too alkaline and the growth of certain plants will slow down. A pH of 7 is neutral. Less than 7 is acidic, and greater than 7 is alkaline.

I was puzzled why the media never mentioned what the pH of the oceans are, and how much they have changed since industrialization. So I began to search for the answer on the internet.
What my research revealed is that the average pH of the oceans' surface (up to a depth of 500 metres) is 8.1, which is significantly alkaline, and that most estimates claim that during the past 150 years or so, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH has fallen from 8.2 to 8.1. Wow! It's no wonder that the media never mentioned that. That's definitely not alarming. 🤣

Digging deeper into the issue, I also discovered research that shows the pH of the ocean's surface, at any particular location, can vary by more than 0.1 pH on a daily basis, and on a seasonal and regional basis it can vary between pH 7.9 and pH 8.3. Furthermore, coastal waters can routinely vary even more, between a pH of 7.5 and 8.5.

Why should anyone be alarmed about a rather uncertain estimate of a 0.1 change in average pH over a 150 year period, in the top 500m of the sea, and a rather uncertain rise in average global temperatures of 1 degree C during a similar period?

The best answer I could find is the following quote from Stephen Schneider who was a Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University.

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
 

Sounds a bit like politics. 

13 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Plus scientific journals, university papers, research papers....

 

Where do get your information....YouTube and Christmas crackers?

"Where do get your information....YouTube and Christmas crackers?"

Don't be silly! I'm not a Christian, and YouTube videos are far too slow for my learning purposes. I prefer to read the transcripts and/or the pdf versions of actual scientific studies.

5 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

I think you’re obfuscating the issue. The vast consensus among climate scientists with respect to the effects of human activity is incontrovertible; it’s not something the media just made up. And I think the scientists have gotten pretty good at modeling. Many effects that were predicted decades ago are now happening.

 

As for your comparing inaccurate weather forecasts with long-term models created by climate scientists, now you’re the one mixing up “weather” and “climate.” Do I really need to point out that projecting the long-term effects of continued CO2 emissions is quite different from predicting whether or not it’s going to rain tomorrow?

"The vast consensus among climate scientists with respect to the effects of human activity is incontrovertible"

Where did you get that information from? The media? 

If you had an enquiring mind and did your own research, you'd find lots of controvertible evidence about the effects of CO2 on the climate. The problem is, the alarm about human CO2 emissions has become a type of religion, and as we know from history, questioning religious faith has had dire consequences.

There are numerous scientific studies which provide controvertible evidence, but the results tend to be ignored in the media or dismissed, and the authors are often censored, which is the antithesis of the true 'methodology of science' where every bit of controvertible evidence should be fully examined.

"Do I really need to point out that projecting the long-term effects of continued CO2 emissions is quite different from predicting whether or not it’s going to rain tomorrow?"

No, you don't. The weather predictions for the next day are reasonably accurate. Usually greater than 50%. However, climate is defined as an average of weather events over a 30 year period. Accurate predictions of the 'average of weather events', 30 years, 60 years, 90 years, and so on, into the future, is not possible.
 

I hope this type of mushroom has not been misidentified. Some types are poisonous. It is speculated that the Buddha died as a result of mushroom poisoning.

"Recently, the Ministry of Interior approved a significant initiative: a garbage-fuelled power plant capable of processing around 650 tonnes of waste daily.
The project will separate recyclable and non-degradable trash uses. Recyclable waste will be turned into compost, while non-degradable trash will be burnt as fuel for the power plant.
This new infrastructure aims not only to mitigate the odour and fly problem but also to provide a more sustainable waste management solution for the region's growing garbage woes."

Good news! This process of disposing of garbage should be used everywhere and in every country. Not only will it solve the problem of foul odour and flies, but such 'garbage-fuelled' power plants will probably emit that wonderful, clear and odourless gas called CO2, which helps most plants thrive at increasing levels, and is essential for all life. What could be better. 

I'd never heard of Temu before reading this news item. Out of interest, I did a Google search for Temu Australia on the internet, and found the Temu-Australian site with lots of different products at amazingly low prices, including free shipping. So I ordered a few items, less than A$100 in total, to check on their reliability.

56 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

 

I think both those points apply to the socalled spiritual awakening and enlightenment. 

 

If someone is ever in doubt whether he is awakened or not, you can be 100% sure he isn't. This is to say that there is a difference between thinking/believing and knowing. Knowing is not based on intellectual understanding or belief. There is no doubt when there is Knowing. 

Say you wake up from an ordinary dream. In the dream you may or may not be conscious that you were dreaming, but once you wake up to our ordinary reality, you know you're awake. Nobody will be able to convince you otherwise. You just know the difference between the dream state you were in and the reality of being awake. 

The same happens when people talk about the big awakening, with enlightenment being the permanent state of being awake. There can be no doubt to what state you've awakened to, because it will feel more real than anything you've experienced before. And if people tell you that it's just a hallucination, that you're imagining it, you will know better and just answer with a smile.

 

The placebo effect works when there is thinking/believing involved, because it works within those mental parameters.

Awakening is separate from thinking/ believing and therefore, there can't be a placebo effect.

 

To be clear...one can have several awakenings, but most of the time they are temporary. You can still fall back into the dream state (what we call ordinary reality) while retaining some memories of the experience. Enlightenment,  on the other hand, means that you have established the awakened state as a permanent reality, and there is no going back....even if you tried.

"Say you wake up from an ordinary dream. In the dream you may or may not be conscious that you were dreaming, but once you wake up to our ordinary reality, you know you're awake. Nobody will be able to convince you otherwise. You just know the difference between the dream state you were in and the reality of being awake." 

The above part of your post reminds me of that ancient Chinese story about the philosopher Zhuang Zhou who once dreamed he was a butterfly, flitting and fluttering around, and so happy, and doing as he pleased. When he woke up, he wasn't sure if he was still a butterfly, now dreaming that he was a human called Zhuang Zhou. 🤣

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Thank you for the link. The study sounds familiar to me. Maybe it was already shared here once.

The placebo effect is a great example for the power of beliefs. If the whole point of religion were to strengthen this ability (that we can change things thanks to our belief...for example that prayers are answered), then this alone should give it a reason to be. Awakening is much more than that, though....I think.

There are two basic, but related, meanings of 'awakening.
1. An act of waking from sleep.
2. The act of starting to understand something, feel something, or become aware of something.

There are obviously thousands of different types and degrees of 'awakenings', but I assume you are referring to a sudden, life-changing awakening, perhaps resulting from long periods of deep meditation, or perhaps being hit by a lightning strike which fails to kill you but alters your neuronal activities in a way that makes you see and view everything differently.

The placebo effect might not appear to have any role in the lightning strike, but what if the person who is struck by lightning thinks that his survival is due to the intervention by God, and his religious faith is strengthened as a result. Do you think a 'placebo effect' is involved in this outcome?
 

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Sorry, should have tagged @VincentRJ, not Red Phoenix.

Actually, I initially thought you were posting a quote from a Red Phoenix post, but never mind.

The placebo effect is not fully understood and more research is required. Also, most of the research relates to the effectiveness of drugs administered to cure a disease or ailment.

However, I found the following study of the "Placebo Effects in the Context of Religious Beliefs and Practices", which you might find interesting.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/behavioral-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.653359/full

"This study investigated placebo effects in the context of religious beliefs and practices. The participants received an inert substance (tap water) along with the verbal suggestion that the water would come from the sanctuary in Lourdes (a major Catholic pilgrimage site with reports of miracle cures). We investigated changes in resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) in three brain networks (default-mode, salience, cognitive control) associated with the drinking of the placebo water."

"Immediately after the session, the participants reported increased intensity of pleasant bodily sensations (e.g., feelings of warmth, tingling) and feelings (e.g., gratefulness) for the “Lourdes water” condition.
Conclusions: The present findings provide the first evidence that placebos in the context of religious beliefs and practices can change the experience of emotional salience and cognitive control which is accompanied by connectivity changes in the associated brain networks."

23 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Shamanic rituals invole the use enteogenic substances (psychedelic "soul revealing" plants and mushrooms that are passed around. These rituals are aimed at revealing to the participants parts of themselves that are hidden and at reconnecting them to who they really are. Going through such a journey opens the traveller to sometimes radical transformative experiences. Not just physical, but mental and emotional. Possibly even spiritual. 

 

The passing around of the eucharist waffle seems to be a symbolic reenactment of such a ritual.

 

Unfortunately, the real meaning and especially the efficacy of the original rituals have been watered down to a meaningless habit that transforms absolutely nothing. It's a waste of time, basically. 

"Unfortunately, the real meaning and especially the efficacy of the original rituals have been watered down to a meaningless habit that transforms absolutely nothing. It's a waste of time, basically."

I tend to agree, but we should not ignore the placebo effect. This is a major factor in all beliefs, even when one takes a medically prescribed drug to cure an ailment. Without a belief in the soundness of the medical system and the testing of drugs, the drug would be less effective.

22 hours ago, soalbundy said:

One mustn't get too involved in the myths that grow around such famous figures in history, virgin births, walking on water, resurrection etc. there are also many unbelievable myths surrounding the Buddha. In more recent times even the Delai Lama has had myths attached to his birth (the sounds of trumpets and bells in the sky during his birth for instance). A high level of conscious awareness doesn't turn one from a man of flesh and bone with human desires into a demi god.

 

Buddha expressed himself in a less exalted manner than Jesus saying, 'don't believe anything you hear or read, even if it is from me, if it doesn't correspond to your own experience' whereas Jesus elevated himself above humanity when he declared, the only way to the father is through me. What was really said is of course lost in the fog of history.

 

In more recent times it is known that Ramana Maharshi (died in the 1950's) would hold gatherings without speaking a word and it has been testified by both westerners and Indians alike that his mere presence could bring about a state of enlightenment.

The revered sage Nisargadatta, also in recent times, swayed his audiences with fiery discourses and could destroy ones pre-held spiritual conceptions by letting one explain them in his presence, he would say nothing but the held concepts died away under his gaze, people left his presence joyful and uplifted and yet his interpreters said he could be a rather foul speaking man, he refused treatment for his throat cancer saying, I as the absolute have no need of this body.

 

No matter how enlightened a person may be, all are human beings with feet of clay with their desires and frustrations, joys and depressions. Jiddu Krishnamurti, at one time declared by the Theosophical society to be the world teacher of humanity (a title he rejected), when speaking to an audience never used the word 'I', instead he would say 'the speaker would like....' Shortly before his death at 90 said he felt that nobody took him seriously but that he was endured as a figure of fun and yet he was revered throughout the world and was showered with gifts of land, castles and money (which he returned)....in short, he was plagued by doubt about himself. 

"One mustn't get too involved in the myths that grow around such famous figures in history, virgin births, walking on water, resurrection etc. there are also many unbelievable myths surrounding the Buddha. In more recent times even the Delai Lama has had myths attached to his birth (the sounds of trumpets and bells in the sky during his birth for instance). A high level of conscious awareness doesn't turn one from a man of flesh and bone with human desires into a demi god."

This is a very significant point which is difficult for 'believers' to address because doing so would tend to undermine their faith.

Religions tend to be a part of the political system of 'control of the population'. The narratives tend to adapt to the cultural background of the people, and fanciful stories are created to impress the gullible and uneducated masses.

One could argue that as long as this 'fanciful story-telling' maintains a peacful and harmonious society, the fictions are justified. However, the long history of religious conflicts, which continue in the present time, would tend to falsify this argument.

As you mention in your post, Buddhism appears to be in a different category in the sense that the scriptures include the advice, claimed to be the actual words spoken by the Buddha, that one should not accept the views of any authority without questioning whether the views align with one's own experience and understanding. This teaching from the Buddha is known as the Kalama Sutta. The following article describes it in detail.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html

When I first read the Kalama sutta, I was very impressed that a religion could encourage any thoughtful questioning. As a result, I read more about Buddhism, but found there's a mixture of sensible advice and unbelievable nonsense.  One should always try to separate the two.
 

8 hours ago, it is what it is said:

 

hybrid cars seem a logical solution.

 

need to reduce the use of fossil fuels - hybrid cars do this

 

need to remove range anxiety - hybrid cars do this

 

i don;t believe EVs are the future, hybrid cars are a very effective stop gap as we develop the next, more appropriate, technology. 

"I don't believe EVs are the future"

You should check the latest developments in China. I recently came across the following news.

"At Auto China 2024, CATL unveiled Shenxing PLUS—the world's first LFP battery that achieves a range above 1,000 kilometers with 4C superfast charging. Within eight months after the launch of the Shenxing superfast charging battery in August 2023, CATL has once again pushed the boundaries of LFP battery technology, ushering in the era of superfast charging for the whole industry. 
The 1,000-km pure electric range comes from continuous technological breakthroughs. The cathode of Shenxing PLUS is made with a granular gradation technology, which places every nanometer particle in the optimal position to achieve ultra-high compact density."

https://www.catl.com/en/news/6239.html

From another source, it's claimed "it should be possible to charge the energy that would be necessary for a journey of 600 km within 10 minutes. This means that 1 km of range would be charged into the battery every second. A full charge for a range of 1,000 km can be purportedly achieved in 16.6 minutes."

There is also the issue of 'spontaneous combustion' which needs to be addressed. These new LFP batteries, apparently, do not have this risk. From the following site:

"Lithium phosphate cells are incombustible, which is an important feature in the event of mishandling during charging or discharging. They can also withstand harsh conditions, be it freezing cold, scorching heat or rough terrain."
https://www.relionbattery.com/knowledge/how-are-lifepo4-batteries-safer-than-other-lithium-batteries#:~:text=Lithium phosphate cells are incombustible,scorching heat or rough terrain

Whilst I don't believe that CO2 emissions present any  risk of catastrophic climate change, I do believe in the power of technological development. Some of the claimed features of CATL's new battery technology might not be ready at the present moment, but most probably will be in the near future.
 

On 6/2/2024 at 8:28 AM, Brucenkhamen said:

I don't see how meditation could cause brain damage, meditation is a mental activity and the brain is a physical organ.  Could software damage hardware?  maybe if it switched off the cooling fan I guess but otherwise I think its a good analogy.

 

While mediation should result in not getting entangled or distracted by thought its purpose isn't  the end of thought.  Thinking subsides in the 2nd jhana but the mind is still active I'd expect, just in a non verbal way.

 

Meditation, particularly mindfulness, is an active use of the mind.  When done right it should be a good way to keep the mind and brain active, even when relatively quiet it takes effort to keep the mind from going all over the place so I don't think you should expect it to result in an inactive atrophied mind or brain.

I agree. Dementia, Alzheimer's, and disorders in general, are caused by a combination of genetic conditions and a unhealthy life-style. We can't do much, or perhaps anything, to change our genetic condition, but we can change our lifestyle, if we have the self-control to do so.

Regular physical exercise and a healthy diet are a major part of the solution, but also, meditation, mind control, and regular deep breathing exercises should remove the negative effects of anxiety and stress.

The following article addresses these negative effects of mental stress.
https://www.nib.com.au/the-checkup/effects-of-stress#:~:text=The physical effects of stress&text=They can include trouble concentrating,flare-ups at stressful times

"On the surface, the signs of stress can include an increase in heart and breathing rates, dilated pupils and tensed muscles.  Under the skin, the signs can take a little longer to notice, especially when your stress is chronic. They can include trouble concentrating for long periods of time, weight fluctuations, stomach upsets, mood changes, struggle with sleep or feeling constantly restless.  Some people also notice skin breakouts or even eczema flare-ups at stressful times."

"These reactions are all down to what’s going on in our body when we become stressed. Essentially, our body kicks off the same chain of events as when we are faced with danger. More specifically, the team at the Mayo Clinic explain that stress sets off an alarm in your brain which triggers a surge of hormones, including adrenaline and cortisol."

On 5/24/2024 at 11:11 PM, rockyysdt said:

Hi fellow travelers.

 

I have been on a long path with periods of regular meditation as well as Buddhist retreats where long periods of daily meditation was practiced.

Troubled with finding meaning in life I've leaned to the possibility that following the Buddhist teaching (4 Noble Truths & 10 Fold Path)  may potentially yield answers.

 

Naturally staying on this path is difficult.

I've equated changing ones core habits is akin to escaping the pull of gravity of the event horizon of a black hole.

I've also recognized, if one can practice the Buddhas teachings faithfully, then this breakthrough in daily habit, is the key to changing any habit one may have.

 

I recently came across a lecture in which the speaker was talking about the consumption of certain foods which may lead to dementia.

Other causes also related to possible dementia included the fact that the brain requires stimulation to remain healthy.

As is the case with muscles, starved of stimulation (reduced or no signals), parts of the brain can experience atrophy (shrink in size).

We are often taught to regularly engage in mental stimulation such as crosswords, debating, sport, study, and anything which stimulates the brain.

 

Regarding the practice of the Buddha's teachings, my understanding is that there are two core practices which are performed.

One is Mindfulness, or being continuously aware of your breath, all your thoughts, feelings, sensations and actions, as well as the external around you during your wakeful day.

The other is Sitting Meditation, with mindfulness of breath, thoughts and feelings which can often lead to a conscious state with the absence of thought.

The suspension of thought leads one to experience that which is beyond conditioning.

 

This leads me to the point of my post.

 

Are long periods of sitting without thought akin to the absence of mental stimulation which may lead to brain atrophy, or is that which is eventually experienced mind enhancing and therefore stimulating?

 

 

Hi Rocky,
It's been a long time since there was any serious discussion on this forum. You pose some interesting questions. 

My interest in Buddhism tends to be mainly focused on the health benefits. Whilst I'm not particularly attracted towards sitting for long periods doing nothing, I do try to be very mindful, and avoid any stress and anxiety.

I believe that a healthy diet and regular exercise will reduce the risk of dementia, but also certain practices of Buddhism and Yoga such as slow, deep breathing, where one slowly fills one's lungs with clean air whilst concentrating on one's breath, will also reduce the risk of dementia, according to a number of scientific studies.

Here are just a couple of articles addressing the issue.

"This study revealed that applying DSB (deep and slow breathing) can enhance the ability of elderly individuals to process new cognitive tasks and improve cognitive function. These findings suggest that deep and slow breathing training could serve as a simple yet effective method for developing cognitive training programs to prevent and manage dementia in older adults within the community." 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10047962/#:~:text=These findings suggest that deep,older adults within the community

"Controlled breathing can cause physiological changes that include:
. lowered blood pressure and heart rate
. reduced levels of stress hormones in the blood
. reduced lactic acid build-up in muscle tissue
. balanced levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood
. improved immune system functioning
. increased physical energy
. increased feelings of calm and wellbeing."

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/breathing-to-reduce-stress