h1

Bruce Lipton’s ‘Biology of Belief’ – Annotated With Facts: Part 48 (Lipton switches the laws of physics for the laws of grammar)

February 6, 2019

And so, back to Lipton. Sigh. Sharp objects removed from table.

We left Lipton flailing about in the 17th century and inviting us to join him. He continues:

The reality of a quantum universe reconnects what Descartes took apart.

Nope. As we saw last time, Descartes argued that the soul was non-material but could act directly upon the (material, physical) body, by transmitting its will to the pineal gland. That is, Descartes in fact argued that the two are indeed *connected*. That was the whole point of his philosophy here.

Yes, the mind (energy) arises from the physical body, just as Descartes thought.

No. Descartes explicitly did NOT think that. In fact he staked his life on NOT thinking that — in order to avoid the Inquisition.

Moreover, NO ONE in the 17th century thought anything like that! Lipton is a fucking idiot.

And even more moreover, he is on the wrong track completely with his unsupported assertion (as usual stated bluntly as if it has already been established as a fact by someone or other), that the mind is “energy”. This is a simple straight forward categorical error. If anything, mind is information — dependent on the way matter is organised — not energy. What the brain DOES involves energy, but the subjective experience involves information — the particular *configuration* of that energy. Otherwise your fingernails growing is also a mindful experience.

(The distinction is important. Energy can’t be destroyed, but ‘information’ in this sense can be increased, deleted, altered without being conserved.)

However, our new understanding of the Universe’s mechanics shows us how the physical body can be affected by the immaterial mind.

No it does not.

Thoughts, the mind’s energy…

Rather a lot of things, which have already been conflated with other things, are now being conflated with each other here.

Two sentences ago Lipton conflated the mind itself with energy. Now thoughts are that energy, and are connected to this mind, not by the laws of physics as Lipton claims he can manage, but by the laws of grammar — in particular a possessive pronoun.

So the ‘non-physical’ mind (some kind of non-physical energy) ‘has’ thoughts (some kind of sub-order of energy or something)… Okay, what about it?

Thoughts, the mind’s energy, directly influence how the physical brain controls the body’s physiology.

Well, um, we now the brain does control many aspects of physiology — the pineal controlling sleep patterns, the pituitary controlling a bunch of other glands, etc. But does thought “directly influence” this? And if so, in what ways, when? Or, WTF is Lipton talking about exactly?

Thought “energy” can activate or inhibit the cell’s function-producing proteins via the mechanics of constructive and destructive interference, described in the previous chapter.

God’s Third Law of the Divine Possessive Pronoun has now decreed that it is the thoughts themselves that “have” the energy. Ok, I’m fine with that. Did Einstein say something about that? Or was it Lamarck…

And it “activates or inhibits” the “function-producing proteins” of a particular cell. And what are function-producing proteins? This video will explain it every bit as well as Lipton does. (Joke.)

That’s right — it’s another Lipton-invented term masquerading as a “believe me — I have a PhD and this is real science” term. He offers absolutely no evidence for whatever the fuck he is talking about here. And it’s a central claim of this book. He is selling this to his readers as a cancer cure. He has offered many dozens of citations: often extremely complex biochemistry papers to support irrelevant points. He offered quantum physics and gave us grammar. He offers a cancer cure and doesn’t even bother to give anything at all.

Despite the discoveries of quantum physics, the mind-body split in Western medicine still prevails.

And he even gets this completely wrong, even journeying all the way back to the 1700s to do it.

Scientists have been trained to dismiss cases like the boy above who used his mind to heal a genetically “mandated” disease, as quirky anomalies.

A baseless, unsupported, absurd, slanderous and hilariously stupid and ignorant assertion. It demonstrates that Lipton was paying as little attention in his biology classes as he was when he was trying to read Ryle, or that poor physicist Heinz Pagels whose book “changed his life” when he completely misunderstood what it said.

I believe, on the contrary, that scientists should embrace the study of these anomalies.

Every research paper ever published is concerned in one way or another with studying an anomaly. It is not an understatement to say that Lipton has entirely misunderstood the entirety of science.

Buried in exceptional cases are the roots of a more powerful understanding of the nature of life— “more powerful” because the principles behind these exceptions trump established “truths.”

Fine, but “exceptional cases” are useless to science unless the raw data has been accurately and rigorously collected. A badly reported anecdote of a case in 1950 is of little to no scientific value. Is that all Lipton has got? Yep. That and the magical grammar of possessive pronouns…. And of course the usual assertion-as-fact method of frauds everywhere:

The fact is…

Nope. Let’s reword this to accurately reflect what Lipton has actually offered up here.

“The assertion-presented-as-fact, and only supported by a cheesy anecdote from 1950 is…”

…that harnessing the power of your mind can be more effective….

CAN BE? CAN BE? He hasn’t even established that!

…than the drugs you have been programmed to believe you need.

Are Lipton’s really duped into believing what he wants them to believe here? That there is precisely as little evidence for “drugs” as what he has just presented in support of his case?

Clearly they are duped by this, though they were put to sleep first while having each trigger word or buzz word whispered into their ear with not-so-subtle product placement.

Of course, it is Lipton who programs his readers to believe they don’t need modern medicine because their thoughts send energy waves that amplify or inhibit the waves that emanate somehow from their “function-producing proteins”.

Maybe not quite certain how this sounds to his readers, Lipton assures them:

The research I discussed in the last chapter found that energy is a more efficient means of affecting matter than chemicals.

No — it asserted that just as stupidly as done here, and didn’t bother to even try to explain how “thoughts” “also” “affect” the supposed “energy waves”.

After bucket loads of irrelevant technical bluster, either totally wrong, totally irrelevant, or both, Lipton has given up and is just making blunt, stupid assertions. His case is collapsing, or rather, not even being made. Worse, he doesn’t seem to know what his case would be if he did try to make it.

4 comments

  1. I still maintain that his real method is to bore the cancer out of people. Such tedious, self aggrandizing writing! Did this book do well?

    It’s just so damn grim to read these kinds of books when you actually have cancer. It’ another example of subtle victim blaming..we are sick because our beliefs are out of alignment and we are not smart enough to understand ‘how things really work’. If what Lipman professes were true, none of us would be sick. We’d just affirm and believe ourselves well. And again..he completely ignores our toxic and disintegrating environment as a formidable causal factor in a lot of cancers.

    One doesn’t even need your line by line analysis of the book, though it’s a lot of fun to read..(even if I have trouble accessing the posts chronologically..I got 1-9 and then couldn’t get to ten..so now I am trying to read them from most recent to earliest..)

    It’s just such a simplistic idea and anyone with a modicum of common sense will just go pfft and move along. Only the desperate, or the healthy “normies”, will latch on to this stuff.

    Anecdotally, some of the pissiest and most angry, negative patients I know live a long time and weather the ravages of treatment better than the “nice” “good” “positive!” patients.

    Bernie Segal pisses me off, too, though I must say he really seems to care about his patients. I listened to his saccharine CD about preparing for chemo the night before my first treatment..seeing the chemo drugs as your little friends killing the cancer cells. I threw it into the recycling when I got home from the hospital,( right before I went to bed for 4 days).
    Ugh. these people.


  2. Bernie Segal said WHAT????? I kind of specialise in ridiculous spiritual statements, but I am speechless…

    Alas, Lipton’s book is extremely successful, and he is probably the most popular cancer quack in the world now that his publisher (Louise Hay) is dead. In one post I compared his Amazon ranking in non-fiction (3,000th) to Richard Dawkins book on evolution The Greatest Show on Earth (53,000th).

    He is also popular enough to have earned himself an entry in the esteemed ‘Encyclopedia of American Loons’
    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2017/09/1899-bruce-lipton.html

    Sorry about the difficulties reading the posts sequentially. I should set up an index page. Maybe I’ll do that… In any case, no matter which order you read them, there is no continuity.


  3. Hey! I’d be interested to know at some point your thoughts on Marianne Williamson..now a presidential candidate. I don’t mind her on the whole..she did a very interesting book based on the Kabbalah, but, well, you know. Val

    On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:58 PM Spirituality is No Excuse wrote:

    > Yakaru posted: “And so, back to Lipton. Sigh. Sharp objects removed from > table. We left Lipton flailing about in the 17th century and inviting us to > join him. He continues: The reality of a quantum universe reconnects what > Descartes took apart. Nope. As we saw l” >


  4. I haven’t read any of her stuff, but I know people who like her work, and it seems to me like they got something from it. (Most of my friends are kind of spiritual, and I notice how some fads seem to cause problems for people or make them convinced that they know everything and now have all the answers. MW doesn’t seem to have that effect on people.)

    Casting an eye over her web presence, I don’t see any red flags or especially embarrassing connections. (Though she was into “A Course in Miracles” — someone channeling Jesus, who despite his omnipotence, didn’t realise we speak modern English and not faux-Shakespearean gibberish.)

    But generally, my impression was she probably has some good ideas (probably from mainstream psychology) and isn’t too prescriptive, and one can probably have a bit of fun experimenting with her ideas. My general guidelines are anything is good if it encourages one to become more sensitive to one’s needs, and to find new ways of trying to meet them. It’s not rocket science, and doesn’t need to be!

    What was the main idea behind her Kabbalah book?



Comments welcome, but please try to address the issues raised in the article!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: