Here is the thing . . .

[Roger B]

There is some healing agency out there in the objective world that we can't see and measure. However, we know that a number of things get a positive response from it: most especially homeopathy, but also BFR, and probably traditional Chinese Medicine and chiropractic and Ayurveda and perhaps others. By understanding the similarities and difference between all of these healing modalities, we can better understand what it is that we are dealing with that is this healing agency that lives inside of each person. The better that we can understand it, the better that we can use it to help people.

There are a number of problems with homeopathy. And I am not counting the flashing past Avogadro's number like greased lightning. There is no help for that and materialists can just pout all day about it if they need to.

An issue is that we don't really know exactly what potency is ideal. It seems highly unlikely and co-incidental that one of these potencies 20C and 30C and 200C and 1000C [MC] just happens to be perfect for someone. What if we could somehow find out exactly what potency was best for someone? I have no clue how to do that. I understand that some people use meditation to "prove" a remedy.

A bigger issue, I believe, is that finding the correct remedy is extremely difficult. With computers this should get better. Some dear on this forum found Sulfur 200C for me, and my using the ABC Homeopathy Remedy Finder came up with the same remedy. I thought that that was very nice. I have still to find out what my naturopathic doctor prescribed, but after 11 days, my constipation has greatly improved and my pinched nerve pain is much better.

But I think, and I emphasize the word 'think', that the problem is that the very same thing will be said in different ways. Perhaps I am all wet on this. But why is finding a remedy with a computer so difficult? Perhaps I just don't quite understand how to do it. And my attention deficit problem just does not encourage me to study homeopathy for 4 years.

Is there a remedy for someone who has all of my symptoms plus the attention deficit problem that I rarely have mentioned because I am retired and don't need to focus. But, golly, I'd love to be a homeopath. Has anyone started the homeopathic path at age 67 and finished????

Sincerely,

Roger Bird

[Irene de Villiers]

One big reason is that remedies are UNequally represented - both overall and also in the sub-categories.
For example a remedy like Asterias rubens has 679 rubrics listed, but Sulphur has 15883 rubrics listed.
There is no rule or logic about how many rubrics are known and listed for a remedy. The computer can not "judge" relevance to a case ether.
Because Sulphur has so many, it is going to pop up in practically every repertorizing. That does not make it the most likely correct remedy.
So taking into account the relative known-ness of a remedy's characteristics, is just one reason
computers can't simply do the job for you. There is art and science to it and it takes years to learn to do well.

Relative importance - One rubric may be critically important and another less so - a judgement call.

Another example: Having a rubric included is not enough - you need to know WHY that rubric is included.
For example "loss of fluid" is a rubric. But is it loss of blood fluid, and if so is it lost by accident or due to a pathology causing internal blood vessel leakage or surgical accident or is it the body THINKING there is loss when there is not any (by triggering the blood vessel pressure sensors). Or is it dehydration from electrolyte loss in hot weather or..... the computer does not know.
For example "want of elegance" is a rubric. But is it because the guy is on crutches, or because the cat has a squiffy foot, or is it part of the genetic makeup of how the individual walks.

Repertorizing needs a LOT of knowledge of the individual and the selection of characteristics to use and convert to rubrics is a great part of it - they need to be relevant and in proportion to the situation - before you even get to the computer repertory. Computers are not good at that judgement stuff Essentially, computers have no judgement.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Roger B]

Thank you, Irene,

I promise, I am a certified, card carrying Amish Luddite, really. [Some Amish moved back to England and joined the Luddite movement. Not many people know that. I am a direct descendent of those people. (:->) {I hope that nobody really believes that.}]. But I have had some experience with artificial intelligence (AI), and it is really quite amazing. At one point I was able to guess National Football League game scores at about 65% accuracy, with regard to "the line", which is actually a good way to get a visit from people with no neck whose every word ends in an 'a'. It would be very cool if someone were to 'teach' an AI system by entering the constellation of symptoms and the successful remedy that healed those symptoms. Teaching from the very beginning, being careful to use the same wording. This would give the computer system some level of judgment, I think.

Oh, well, I can still dream.

And think. I am thinking.

Good night.

Tomorrow is a big LENR demo and my boy's registration as a freshman in high school, and I have serious insomnia.

Roger

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: furryboots@icehouse.net
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:10:03 -0700
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Here is the thing . . .
One big reason is that remedies are UNequally represented - both overall and also in the sub-categories.
For example a remedy like Asterias rubens has 679 rubrics listed, but Sulphur has 15883 rubrics listed.
There is no rule or logic about how many rubrics are known and listed for a remedy. The computer can not "judge" relevance to a case ether.
Because Sulphur has so many, it is going to pop up in practically every repertorizing. That does not make it the most likely correct remedy.
So taking into account the relative known-ness of a remedy's characteristics, is just one reason
computers can't simply do the job for you. There is art and science to it and it takes years to learn to do well.

Relative importance - One rubric may be critically important and another less so - a judgement call.

Another example: Having a rubric included is not enough - you need to know WHY that rubric is included.
For example "loss of fluid" is a rubric. But is it loss of blood fluid, and if so is it lost by accident or due to a pathology causing internal blood vessel leakage or surgical accident or is it the body THINKING there is loss when there is not any (by triggering the blood vessel pressure sensors). Or is it dehydration from electrolyte loss in hot weather or..... the computer does not know.
For example "want of elegance" is a rubric. But is it because the guy is on crutches, or because the cat has a squiffy foot, or is it part of the genetic makeup of how the individual walks.

Repertorizing needs a LOT of knowledge of the individual and the selection of characteristics to use and convert to rubrics is a great part of it - they need to be relevant and in proportion to the situation - before you even get to the computer repertory. Computers are not good at that judgement stuff Essentially, computers have no judgement.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: > only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Rochelle]

Hi Roger,
Most reps even on computer software come up with Sulphur as the top remedy. This is because it is a polycrest probably the main one and has nearly every conceivable symptom in the proving. As homeopaths we often ignore Sulphur unless the mental and emotionals also are very high in the rep. If you use the modern Murphy’s Rep Carcinosin often comes up as the top remedy! The thing to realise is to never prescribe unless you check the remedy you wish to give in the MM. I use Clarke as it is the most comprehensive for everything except of course the newly proved remedies.
BTW I sometimes give BFR with a homeopathic remedy. I learnt this from sitting in clinics of a lecturer while at a very classical college. She used to put the BFR on pillules and tell the patient to take it daily after giving 1 dose of their constitutional remedy. She said it makes them think they are taking pills like the doctor gives and it won’t do any harm. I think this is far preferable to giving placebo which to me is dishonest but I really have no intentions of getting into a discussion about that!!
Rochelle Marsden MSc, RSHom, MNWCH, AAMET

Registered with the Society of Homeopaths

EFT(Advanced) Practitioner

www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

https://www.facebook.com/southporthomeopathicpractice
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger B
There is some healing agency out there in the objective world that we can't see and measure. However, we know that a number of things get a positive response from it: most especially homeopathy, but also BFR, and probably traditional Chinese Medicine and chiropractic and Ayurveda and perhaps others. By understanding the similarities and difference between all of these healing modalities, we can better understand what it is that we are dealing with that is this healing agency that lives inside of each person. The better that we can understand it, the better that we can use it to help people.

There are a number of problems with homeopathy. And I am not counting the flashing past Avogadro's number like greased lightning. There is no help for that and materialists can just pout all day about it if they need to.

An issue is that we don't really know exactly what potency is ideal. It seems highly unlikely and co-incidental that one of these potencies 20C and 30C and 200C and 1000C [MC] just happens to be perfect for someone. What if we could somehow find out exactly what potency was best for someone? I have no clue how to do that. I understand that some people use meditation to "prove" a remedy.

A bigger issue, I believe, is that finding the correct remedy is extremely difficult. With computers this should get better. Some dear on this forum found Sulfur 200C for me, and my using the ABC Homeopathy Remedy Finder came up with the same remedy. I thought that that was very nice. I have still to find out what my naturopathic doctor prescribed, but after 11 days, my constipation has greatly improved and my pinched nerve pain is much better.

But I think, and I emphasize the word 'think', that the problem is that the very same thing will be said in different ways. Perhaps I am all wet on this. But why is finding a remedy with a computer so difficult? Perhaps I just don't quite understand how to do it. And my attention deficit problem just does not encourage me to study homeopathy for 4 years.

Is there a remedy for someone who has all of my symptoms plus the attention deficit problem that I rarely have mentioned because I am retired and don't need to focus. But, golly, I'd love to be a homeopath. Has anyone started the homeopathic path at age 67 and finished????

Sincerely,

Roger Bird

[Hennie Duits]

It doesn't finish, ever.

Op 23-7-2013 7:30, Roger B schreef:
Has anyone started the homeopathic path at age 67 and

[Maria Bohle]

Amen to that Henny. That was one of the things that attracted me to homeopathy. Always more to learn, always an attempt to find a deeper totality.
It is nice to make miracles through the correct remedy.

Sent from my iPhone