1. Cocoa Butter - Organic & Fair Trade Certified
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. **NEW** BL11 - Orange, Red & Infrared Therapy Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Charcoal Soap - For Deep Cleansing
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Orange & Red Light Therapy Device - LGS1
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Organic Cocoa Powder
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Metabasoap - Handcrafted Soap
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  7. Cascara Sagrada Powder From Farmalabor In Italy
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  8. **NEW Mini Body Light** MBL1 - Orange & Red Light Therapy Mini Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice

Does Anyone Care To Explain January 2019 "Receptors, Or Sensitive Substance?"

Discussion in 'Articles & Newsletters Discussion' started by ecstatichamster, Feb 9, 2019.

  1. ecstatichamster

    ecstatichamster Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    4,817
    Help! I don't get what Dr. Peat is saying. I just don't understand the point.
     
  2. jb116

    jb116 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2015
    Messages:
    722
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NJ
    Which part of it exactly is evading you hamsterooni?
     
  3. OP
    ecstatichamster

    ecstatichamster Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    4,817
    the whole thing. I get the "receptors theory is dumb" but I don't know where this all is going...
     
  4. schultz

    schultz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,578
    Yah I am exactly where you are. The whole thing just hasn't clicked with me yet. After reading that newsletter I thought I should make it a point to try and figure out Rays ideas on this subject. I am going through all the old newsletter discussing this topic.

    He has said this in another newsletter:

    "When a "receptor" is first proposed or
    "discovered, " it is always "a protein, " though because of the idea of a barrier (semipermeable) membrane around cells, "membrane lipids" are sometimes invoked. But after a few years of research, the "receptor" becomes a more and more complex system of interacting molecules. The doctrine of the "receptor" is intended to explain why cells have a specific response to a specific substance. Gradually, a receptor becomes a "response element," but the "element, " in its complexity, begins to shade off into the system "membrane/cytoplasm/nucleus."
    which is to say, the cell. The cell is the response element. The "transmitter substance" interacts with various agonists. antagonists. inverse agonists and binding competitors to produce an
    effect that is a summation of influences. A single protein or protein system can serve as a "receptor" for antagonistic substances."

    So the cell is the receptor I suppose, but then I am confused as to what the other thing is? So what is the estrogen "receptor"? Some protein? What is its actual role?

    He also discusses receptors in the newsletter titled "Estrogen, calcium, heavy metals and nerve degeneration", as well as "free hormones", another topic which I find fascinating as he basically says free hormones are a laboratory construct (at least that is how I currently understand it... Takes me a while lol)
     
  5. CLASH

    CLASH Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2017
    Messages:
    374
    Gender:
    Male
    From what I understood there is not actually a specific receptor on the cell surface or in the cell at all. The cell itself is a crystalline gel maintained in structure by the ordering interaction of lipids, proteins, ionic solutes etc. on water. I think the streaming of energy plays a part here by allowing for quorum between cells and by maintaining the crystalline structure. When a substance interacts with the cell or the context of the environment around the cell is adjusted, the crystalline shape of the cell is confirmationally changed in a chain reaction that rips through the entire cell as the interacting bonds between the different substance arrange themselves into a slightly different structure due to the force of the substance or context on the cell. Thus with multiple compounds acting on the cell there are multiple simultaneous changes occuring such that the overall change is a “summation of the influences”. I think this is why Dr. Peat is so adamant about thyroid hormone, calcium and steroids. These molecules, atleast based on his description, seem to have strong ordering properties on the cells, perhaps maintaining the crystalline gel structure despite poor context or the influence of other compounds.
     
  6. lampofred

    lampofred Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,022
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought this was a very profound newsletter. If you read between the lines, he is saying something very controversial, which is why I think he intentionally left his main point vague:

    First, he is saying that most science today is based on a metaphysical idea instead of being rooted in empiricism, and as a result of today's science being based on a false premise, the science itself is wrong. This metaphysical idea he is attacking is the notion that mind and body are separate.

    Second, he is also saying nothing is really random. In other words, nothing external needs to be imposing order in this universe for order to actually exist -- order happens naturally in our universe without extraneous intervention.

    Third, he mentions a theory for how life began.

    Putting these three points together, and combined with his previous writings on criticizing the philosophy that mind and body are separate and that the universe was created by a external, order-generating force and then left to entropy (I don't think entropy is a verb but whatever), the implication seems clear to me -- he is saying our universe is a self-ordering system which needs no creator god to impose order in it, and forcing science to conform to preconceived metaphysical ideas instead of relying solely on experimental data has led to mass confusion.
     
  7. CLASH

    CLASH Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2017
    Messages:
    374
    Gender:
    Male
    @lampofred
    What if the concept of “God” is the ordering principles of the universe? And I dont mean in the sense of a white guy with a beard pulling the strings. I mean in a very literal sense the fundamental organizing principles that have lead to the development of existence in its entirety are akin to our concept of “God”. We are apart of “God” yet “God” is not us. We were created in “His” image haha....
     
  8. lampofred

    lampofred Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,022
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, I think from Dr. Peat's writings we can infer that he believes in some order-forming force in the universe but that he doesn't believe in a creator.
     
  9. jb116

    jb116 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2015
    Messages:
    722
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NJ
    Yup, pretty much this.
    It's about energy status rather than a definitive "receptor" concept. These proteins that allow for the interaction for us to even call it a receptor, are therefore determined by the organism's energy status rather than any inherent quality. This TOTALLY removes the mechanistic idea for a bio-energy one where there is a true interaction and dynamic rather than a key-fitting-into-a-keyhole concept. So there is no "estrogen receptor" for example, there is only the energy state, or lack thereof, in which estrogen dominates and begins to further dictate the status of the individual rather than the cell being receptive to progesterone. Incidentally, this is where they came up with the phony progesterone causing cancer idea because you can use tricky language to say - keeping in mind the energy state - these proteins and cells (bio-energy aspect: in a good state receive progesterone and in a bad state more estrogen), that progesterone then causes cancer BUT by leaving out the bio-energy aspect of it lol. Tricky tricky tricky.
     
  10. Ras

    Ras Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    If Ray Peat believes there is no God, he is a fool.
     
  11. Hans

    Hans Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    596
    Gender:
    Male
    +1
     
  12. Tenacity

    Tenacity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    645
    Gender:
    Male
    [redacted]
     
  13. Tenacity

    Tenacity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    645
    Gender:
    Male
    I remember reading in an email response that process theology was the closest thing to his philosophical view.
     
  14. Waynish

    Waynish Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,185
    Gender:
    Male
    His communication style makes me doubt that he knows how to cure autism :P

    Here's a summary based on what Peat put in bold:

    "Some of the best known
    ideas of biology--including
    genes, membranes and recep-
    tors—have blocked, and
    continue to block, understand-
    ing of aging, cancer, stress,
    shock, epilepsy, regeneration,
    perception, and thinking."

    Many of the most prolific paradigms in biology are the most toxic to its success.

    "The assumption of randomness is
    an integral part of a larger system
    of interlocking assumptions--genetic
    determinism, barrier membranes,
    random diffusion, osmosis, recep-
    tors, channels, and pumps. Those
    are simple concepts to learn, and
    when they are reinforced by years
    of “education,” they are very hard
    to question."

    These mechanistic paradigms of biology include genetic determinism, barrier membranes, random diffusion, osmosis, receptors, channels, and pumps. However, confounding them all is the bogus claim of randomness.

    "The possibility of extending
    the period of development, delay-
    ing or eliminating aging and
    restoring normal differentiation
    to cancerous tissue, grew out of
    the work of the experimental
    embryologists who saw the
    importance of investigating the
    physical-chemical properties of
    the living substance itself."

    Look to the science of embryology for more on better causal mechanisms of cancer, tissue development, and aging.

    "The (electronic) polarizability of
    a molecule governs its adsorptive
    properties, the way it interacts with
    and influences the molecules in its
    surroundings."

    All of the way down to the level-of-order explained within the science of physics are molecules misunderstood in mainstream biology. For example, the reasons molecules smell the way they do are described much better by the vibration theory of olfaction than the lock & key descriptions of the receptor theories.

    "A “receptor” is a way to
    imagine order being introduced
    into an otherwise supposedly
    random system of diffusing
    molecules.
    In oxygen deprivation, cells
    take up water, and the “estrogen
    receptors” behave as though they
    had been stimulated by estrogen,
    but without the estrogen molecule."

    The idea that receptors are embedded in the sides of cells is a way to explain how cells react with, concentrate, and emit things. However when analyzing how cells manage oxygen deprivation, water, and estrogen, we should realize this receptor idea is inconsistent with the results.

    And an all-in-one summary now:

    Many of the most prolific paradigms in biology are the most toxic to its success. These mechanistic paradigms of biology include genetic determinism, barrier membranes, random diffusion, osmosis, receptors, channels, and pumps. However, confounding them all is the bogus claim of randomness. Look to the science of embryology for more on better causal mechanisms of cancer, tissue development, and aging. All of the way down to the level-of-order described in physics are molecules misunderstood in mainstream biology. For example, the reasons molecules smell the way they do are described much better by the vibration theory of olfaction than the lock & key descriptions of mainstream biology's receptor theories.The idea that receptors are embedded in the sides of cells is a way to explain how cells react with, concentrate, and emit things. However when analyzing how cells manage oxygen deprivation, water, and estrogen, we should realize this receptor idea is inconsistent with the results. Please do better science everyone.

    This translation is brought to you by my inner right-wing talk show personality.
     
  15. jb116

    jb116 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2015
    Messages:
    722
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NJ
    What a concise way to push "I'm right you're wrong"
     
  16. lampofred

    lampofred Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,022
    Gender:
    Male
    This is amazing. You made everything so much easier to understand without taking out any of the meaning. A shift from left-brained writing to right-brained writing.
     
  17. lampofred

    lampofred Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,022
    Gender:
    Male
    I think all he is implying is that he doesn't think there is some "super soul" who exists apart from this universe who creates/destroys it at will. However, he does seem to think there is some inherent "force" that exists as a part of the universe that guides everyone who is receptive to this "force" (and in other places, I think he has suggested ways to increase receptivity). He's definitely not saying everything is random.
     
  18. Kartoffel

    Kartoffel Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2017
    Messages:
    833
    Gender:
    Male
    I think midichlorians and T3 are really the same thing. The force is definitely strong in Ray.
     
  19. managing

    managing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,352
    There ya go. More concise than I would have done.
     
  20. MatheusPN

    MatheusPN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2017
    Messages:
    76
    Gender:
    Male
    Hans thoughts are among the ones I most like in this forum but...

    If god dont is only a storytelling, solely the most useful storytelling for the rulers
    Then
    If this new or old god testament isn't unreal; I will sing for Satan! Because you know anyone more tyrannical, bloodthirsty and cruel than God?
    Yeah, Satan is a much more Peaty-hearted guy, he tried to create a more ethical Human in that book, god says

    So if you have certainty that he exist, as the real deal, principally in all that Christian thing, almost certainly you are being used by those rulers that Ray condemn
     
Loading...