This isn't the place for an extended discussion/debate about this stuff, as I've long learned that it's driven far more by ideology and ego than actual science.
But I've heard it said by a leading proponent of mind-body health hypotheses and practices, that there's a pattern the debate so often seems to follow when discussing this stuff with materialist hardliners:
You start by suggesting that physiological illnesses can be (at last partially) treated with emotion-based therapies, and they scoff, "that's preposterous".
You then carefully explain it using known, established science, to do with factors like cortisol, the fight/flight response, priority resource allocation, etc.
They then respond "well of course, everyone knows that, there's nothing novel about this at all".
Yet after many years of people talking about, actual practice of this kind of treatment is still confined to the fringes and beyond.
This isn't the place for an extended discussion/debate about this stuff, as I've long learned that it's driven far more by ideology and ego than actual science.
But I've heard it said by a leading proponent of mind-body health hypotheses and practices, that there's a pattern the debate so often seems to follow when discussing this stuff with materialist hardliners:
You start by suggesting that physiological illnesses can be (at last partially) treated with emotion-based therapies, and they scoff, "that's preposterous".
You then carefully explain it using known, established science, to do with factors like cortisol, the fight/flight response, priority resource allocation, etc.
They then respond "well of course, everyone knows that, there's nothing novel about this at all".
Yet after many years of people talking about, actual practice of this kind of treatment is still confined to the fringes and beyond.