Our First Love

[Nicholas]

i'm a bit perplexed at what you got out of my post - it is the very opposite of promoting learned helplessness. I have absolutely no idea how you gathered here what you have and it appears you haven't understood a single word i've written. My entire post is about helping yourself. If you can't see that, i don't know what to say. I hope you can accept that your perception of my post is wrong.

 

[jaguar43]

i'm a bit perplexed at what you got out of my post - it is the very opposite of promoting learned helplessness. I have absolutely no idea how you gathered here what you have and it appears you haven't understood a single word i've written. My entire post is about helping yourself. If you can't see that, i don't know what to say. I hope you can accept that your perception of my post is wrong.

Health is not something that you reach, it's something you have a limited responsibility over till the day you die.

How do we overcome manifestations of dysfunction? By not focusing on it. Because it's a good thing. It's perfectly normal. It should encourage us that our body has the functionality to be dysfunctional.

Research doesn't lead to truth.

All of these things are nothing we have power over.

Humans cannot treat symptoms.

What do these quotes have in common, you tell the members of this forum what they can't do. Hence the authoritative attitude towards life.

 

[Nicholas]

Either you think that i am stupid or you really are being deluded by dogmatic beliefs which disable you from reading anything honestly and openly. If you are selecting my words and comments intentionally truncated and out of context...like i said, i'm not stupid - and neither is anyone else here (hopefully). You dissect my words and leave out the 90% which tells people what they CAN DO.

Because you are sunbconsciouly or consciously trying to smear my post, i guess i will have to now take the time to correct everything you've quoted.....

You twist this quote by isolating it: "Health is not something that you reach, it's something you have a limited responsibility over till the day you die." two sentences before i define what "health" is - that health is an active process, it's not an attained result. If it offends you that the cell is smarter than you are and has its own priority list, then maybe it is *you* which needs to re-read Peat. By isolating my quote you try to make it sound like i am saying that healing is unattainable.

You take another quote and twist it by isolating it: "How do we overcome manifestations of dysfunction? By not focusing on it. Because it's a good thing. It's perfectly normal. It should encourage us that our body has the functionality to be dysfunctional." By isolating this quote you are making it sound like i am saying we should just accept dysfunction but you leave out where i say that it is the cell's job to deal with dysfunction and OUR job to encourage the cell to accept functionality. Once again, if it offends you that the cell has more control over your manifestations of dysfunction, i'm sorry. But it doesn't end there, as i so laboriously demonstrate that OUR job (that doesn't sound like learned helplessness) is to create a state of confidence for the cell to gradually exit the emergency state. This is about RESPECT.

You take another quote and dramatically twist it by isolating it: "Research doesn't lead to truth." and forget to include the sentence which follows: "perception leads to truth." If it offends you that researching won't amount to a hill of beans unless it is accompanied with perception, then we should consult Peat:

"Authoritarians talk about protocols, but the only valid ‘protocol’ would be something like ‘perceive, think, act.’”

I challenge you to find any protocol in my post that goes above "perceive, think, act". I then challenge you to locate protocols which go beyond "perceive, think, act" administered on raypeatforum.com

You then take another quote and twist it by isolating it once again: "All of these things are nothing we have power over." I will just complete what follows that sentence: "The *cell* is the only thing which has power over these symptoms. So if we take that understanding and apply it to the healing process we are left with one huge reality: our one and only contribution to the healing process is to look out for the cell - to keep cellular emergencies at bay. If the cell feels like it is in a resourced and peaceful environment, it can do its job without our interference. How you get there will be different for everyone, but it's about each individual meeting the demands of their cell and creating a balanced environment so that cell feels confident."

I'm sorry if it offends you that there is only so much involvement you have in the healing process. And i'm sorry if you read this and can't see how much we really do contribute to the healing process. If we weren't perceiving, WE WOULDN'T BE HEALING.

Your last quote, "Humans cannot treat symptoms" completely ignores my sentence which follows shortly after: "only cells can". Once again, i'm sorry if it offends you that it's the cell's job to do these things and that your job is to tend to the cell.

 

[tara]

You take another quote and dramatically twist it by isolating it: "Research doesn't lead to truth." and forget to include the sentence which follows: "perception leads to truth." If it offends you that researching won't amount to a hill of beans unless it is accompanied with perception, then we should consult Peat:

"Authoritarians talk about protocols, but the only valid ‘protocol’ would be something like ‘perceive, think, act.’”

How can any research be done without perception? Sounds like a novel without words, or a movie without light, to me. I consider good research to be able to improve considerably on a model based solely on direct perception without relevant research, in all kinds of areas.

Not sure what your RP quote has to do with that, though. Peat reads a lot of other people's research, and appears to rely heavily on this in building his own view of physiology etc. (Of course he applies his own perception to this process as well.) He does not propose a detailed protocol to everybody else about how to live. Apples and oranges?

If what you meant is that it's a good idea to pay attention to how your own body responds to various conditions, then I agree. No need to disparage well-conducted research, though.

 

[jaguar43]

Either you think that i am stupid or you really are being deluded by dogmatic beliefs which disable you from reading anything honestly and openly. If you are selecting my words and comments intentionally truncated and out of context...like i said, i'm not stupid - and neither is anyone else here (hopefully). You dissect my words and leave out the 90% which tells people what they CAN DO.

Because you are sunbconsciouly or consciously trying to smear my post, i guess i will have to now take the time to correct everything you've quoted.....

You twist this quote by isolating it: "Health is not something that you reach, it's something you have a limited responsibility over till the day you die." two sentences before i define what "health" is - that health is an active process, it's not an attained result. If it offends you that the cell is smarter than you are and has its own priority list, then maybe it is *you* which needs to re-read Peat. By isolating my quote you try to make it sound like i am saying that healing is unattainable.

You take another quote and twist it by isolating it: "How do we overcome manifestations of dysfunction? By not focusing on it. Because it's a good thing. It's perfectly normal. It should encourage us that our body has the functionality to be dysfunctional." By isolating this quote you are making it sound like i am saying we should just accept dysfunction but you leave out where i say that it is the cell's job to deal with dysfunction and OUR job to encourage the cell to accept functionality.it Once again, if it offends you that the cell has more control over your manifestations of dysfunction, i'm sorry. But doesn't end there, as i so laboriously demonstrate that OUR job (that doesn't sound like learned helplessness) is to create a state of confidence for the cell to gradually exit the emergency state. This is about RESPECT.

You take another quote and dramatically twist it by isolating it: "Research doesn't lead to truth." and forget to include the sentence which follows: "perception leads to truth." If it offends you that researching won't amount to a hill of beans unless it is accompanied with perception, then we should consult Peat:

"Authoritarians talk about protocols, but the only valid ‘protocol’ would be something like ‘perceive, think, act.’”

I challenge you to find any protocol in my post that goes above "perceive, think, act". I then challenge you to locate protocols which go beyond "perceive, think, act" administered on raypeatforum.com

You then take another quote and twist it by isolating it once again: "All of these things are nothing we have power over." I will just complete what follows that sentence: "The *cell* is the only thing which has power over these symptoms. So if we take that understanding and apply it to the healing process we are left with one huge reality: our one and only contribution to the healing process is to look out for the cell - to keep cellular emergencies at bay. If the cell feels like it is in a resourced and peaceful environment, it can do its job without our interference. How you get there will be different for everyone, but it's about each individual meeting the demands of their cell and creating a balanced environment so that cell feels confident."

I'm sorry if it offends you that there is only so much involvement you have in the healing process. And i'm sorry if you read this and can't see how much we really do contribute to the healing process. If we weren't perceiving, WE WOULDN'T BE HEALING.

Your last quote, "Humans cannot treat symptoms" completely ignores my sentence which follows shortly after: "only cells can". Once again, i'm sorry if it offends you that it's the cell's job to do these things and that your job is to tend to the cell.

You say

If it offends you that the cell is smarter than you are and has its own priority list, then maybe it is *you* which needs to re-read Peat.

then you say

Once again, if it offends you that the cell has more control over your manifestations of dysfunction, i'm sorry.

So, would it be taking your words out of context to say that you believe a cell is smarter and has more control than a human. Because you just said it.

My point is that you are denying the ability for humans to have any understanding and control of their own cell. You have neo-kantain ideology that fits into your thought process. Here is a quote by Ray Peat that i believe defines your tendencies.

in emphasizing the objectivity of the image, rather than Kantian, in looking for subjective or arbitrary tendencies or limitations in image formation.

Mind and tissue page 44

Instead of looking for objective truth, you promote a theory that limits human understanding of the cell. Thus not only being authoritative but a neo-kantian. Your other thread that is called lies of the mind also show those ideas.

 

[Nicholas]

You take another quote and dramatically twist it by isolating it: "Research doesn't lead to truth." and forget to include the sentence which follows: "perception leads to truth." If it offends you that researching won't amount to a hill of beans unless it is accompanied with perception, then we should consult Peat:

"Authoritarians talk about protocols, but the only valid ‘protocol’ would be something like ‘perceive, think, act.’”

How can any research be done without perception? Sounds like a novel without words, or a movie without light, to me. I consider good research to be able to improve considerably on a model based solely on direct perception without relevant research, in all kinds of areas.

Not sure what your RP quote has to do with that, though. Peat reads a lot of other people's research, and appears to rely heavily on this in building his own view of physiology etc. (Of course he applies his own perception to this process as well.) He does not propose a detailed protocol to everybody else about how to live. Apples and oranges?

If what you meant is that it's a good idea to pay attention to how your own body responds to various conditions, then I agree. No need to disparage well-conducted research, though.

i meant that if you read a study, you are certainly learning something....but that learning, in and of itself, is not what creates the truth of a matter. the truth has always been there. In other words, you can have the truth of a matter without doing the research........by perception alone. The truth of a matter that i am focused on is that intersection of "perceive, think, act". If you read a study, you are only perceiving *if* you are perceiving the truth of the matter. There are many "ever learning" but never coming to the "knowledge of the truth". If one spends years upon years researching the cell and has breakthrough discoveries, but at the end of the day takes actions in their lives which contradict the function and role of the cells in their body which they have helped to illuminate, then they have not found the truth of the matter - they have only learned a lot and perceived nothing. There is nothing wrong with good research and synthesis of ideas, but the person who has never researched or read a Peat article but has perceived the truth of the matter is better off. (i'm not saying that only non-researchers perceive the truth of the matter)

 

[Nicholas]

Either you think that i am stupid or you really are being deluded by dogmatic beliefs which disable you from reading anything honestly and openly. If you are selecting my words and comments intentionally truncated and out of context...like i said, i'm not stupid - and neither is anyone else here (hopefully). You dissect my words and leave out the 90% which tells people what they CAN DO.

Because you are sunbconsciouly or consciously trying to smear my post, i guess i will have to now take the time to correct everything you've quoted.....

You twist this quote by isolating it: "Health is not something that you reach, it's something you have a limited responsibility over till the day you die." two sentences before i define what "health" is - that health is an active process, it's not an attained result. If it offends you that the cell is smarter than you are and has its own priority list, then maybe it is *you* which needs to re-read Peat. By isolating my quote you try to make it sound like i am saying that healing is unattainable.

You take another quote and twist it by isolating it: "How do we overcome manifestations of dysfunction? By not focusing on it. Because it's a good thing. It's perfectly normal. It should encourage us that our body has the functionality to be dysfunctional." By isolating this quote you are making it sound like i am saying we should just accept dysfunction but you leave out where i say that it is the cell's job to deal with dysfunction and OUR job to encourage the cell to accept functionality.it Once again, if it offends you that the cell has more control over your manifestations of dysfunction, i'm sorry. But doesn't end there, as i so laboriously demonstrate that OUR job (that doesn't sound like learned helplessness) is to create a state of confidence for the cell to gradually exit the emergency state. This is about RESPECT.

You take another quote and dramatically twist it by isolating it: "Research doesn't lead to truth." and forget to include the sentence which follows: "perception leads to truth." If it offends you that researching won't amount to a hill of beans unless it is accompanied with perception, then we should consult Peat:

"Authoritarians talk about protocols, but the only valid ‘protocol’ would be something like ‘perceive, think, act.’”

I challenge you to find any protocol in my post that goes above "perceive, think, act". I then challenge you to locate protocols which go beyond "perceive, think, act" administered on raypeatforum.com

You then take another quote and twist it by isolating it once again: "All of these things are nothing we have power over." I will just complete what follows that sentence: "The *cell* is the only thing which has power over these symptoms. So if we take that understanding and apply it to the healing process we are left with one huge reality: our one and only contribution to the healing process is to look out for the cell - to keep cellular emergencies at bay. If the cell feels like it is in a resourced and peaceful environment, it can do its job without our interference. How you get there will be different for everyone, but it's about each individual meeting the demands of their cell and creating a balanced environment so that cell feels confident."

I'm sorry if it offends you that there is only so much involvement you have in the healing process. And i'm sorry if you read this and can't see how much we really do contribute to the healing process. If we weren't perceiving, WE WOULDN'T BE HEALING.

Your last quote, "Humans cannot treat symptoms" completely ignores my sentence which follows shortly after: "only cells can". Once again, i'm sorry if it offends you that it's the cell's job to do these things and that your job is to tend to the cell.

You say

If it offends you that the cell is smarter than you are and has its own priority list, then maybe it is *you* which needs to re-read Peat.

then you say

Once again, if it offends you that the cell has more control over your manifestations of dysfunction, i'm sorry.

So, would it be taking your words out of context to say that you believe a cell is smarter and has more control than a human. Because you just said it.

My point is that you are denying the ability for humans to have any understanding and control of their own cell. You have neo-kantain ideology that fits into your thought process. Here is a quote by Ray Peat that i believe defines your tendencies.

in emphasizing the objectivity of the image, rather than Kantian, in looking for subjective or arbitrary tendencies or limitations in image formation.

Mind and tissue page 44

Instead of looking for objective truth, you promote a theory that limits human understanding of the cell. Thus not only being authoritative but a neo-kantian. Your other thread that is called lies of the mind also show those ideas.

Interesting. What i am getting at is that there is a RELATIONSHIP that has to be cultivated with the cell. On one hand, the cell has a "mind of its own" (which is really just electric impulse from the Creator), and on the other hand - that cell confirms its need for us in the relationship by its ability to adapt away from compensatory states. The cell cannot be happy without us... just as we need the cell to show us when it feels we are growing distant. But if we don't make that cell happy is it simply going to quit "thinking"? No, it's going to use its "own" mind and compensate for our inattentiveness. So when i acknowledge that the cell is smarter than us and has a mind of its own, what i am really acknowledging is that it will keep doing its thing in the best interest of the entire organism whether we are attentive to it or not. I am also saying (certainly not the first) that the process of adapting away from compensatory states is STILL a relationship endeavor - that's not when we become solo - no, by making the cell happy you create the environment where the cell adapts ON ITS OWN. We don't tell it when or how - we just plant the seeds and wait.

I have no interest in diminishing or halting objective exploration, my exploration is certainly rooted in objectivity. Just because i am speaking on a more subjective level does not mean that i am disconnected from the objective. You may disagree, but the subjective is more revealing than the objective. After all, the subjective experience has to already be with you for the objective evidence to ring a bell. Nobody has to take any of this....i am not a dictator, after all. You completely mistook my desire to help others for trying to enslave others - which really baffles me but perhaps i just haven't been communicating well. I'm confused at what you truly disagree with now that you.. should know that i have no desire to discredit the objective or keep people from understanding or tell people they have no involvement in their bodies. I'm endeavoring literally the opposite.

 

[tara]

i meant that if you read a study, you are certainly learning something....but that learning, in and of itself, is not what creates the truth of a matter. the truth has always been there. In other words, you can have the truth of a matter without doing the research........by perception alone.

I agree that the truth has always been there, and theat learning it does not create the truth (though it may create knowledge of the truth). And I agree that you can sometimes have the truth of the matter by perception, but perception does not create the reality either, and perceptions can also be mistaken.

 

[Nicholas]

i meant that if you read a study, you are certainly learning something....but that learning, in and of itself, is not what creates the truth of a matter. the truth has always been there. In other words, you can have the truth of a matter without doing the research........by perception alone.

I agree that the truth has always been there, and theat learning it does not create the truth (though it may create knowledge of the truth). And I agree that you can sometimes have the truth of the matter by perception, but perception does not create the reality either, and perceptions can also be mistaken.

agreed

 

[pboy]

you are wrong, how dare anyone act like they know anything....the only ones who know anything are those with suits on, or possibly a robe of some sort, that are on TV or get articles in newspapers and mainstream magazines and TV shows, possibly reside in a religious building of some sort, wear a tie, have make up on, and use voodoo like hand motions and move their forehead and eyes a lot as if trying to penetrate a message into you....and you must have certificates from official institutions. If you don't do all these things there is no way you can know anything and might as well submit and buy and do what they tell you. In social settings you are only allowed to speak about what such people say or do, or other things on TV or mainstream print. And if you say anything against them or that they might be wrong, you are a nutter, anti social, weird, and should be ostracized and ridiculed. Doesn't everybody know this?

 

[Nicholas]

you are wrong, how dare anyone act like they know anything....the only ones who know anything are those with suits on, or possible a robe of some sort, that are on TV or get articles in newspapers and mainstream magazines and TV shows, possibly reside in a religious building of some sort, wear a tie, have make up on, and use voodoo like hand motions and move their fore head and eyes a lot as if trying to penetrate a message into you....and you must have certificates from official institutions. If you don't do all these things there is no way you can know anything and might as well submit and buy and do what they tell you. In social settings you are only allowed to speak about what such people say or do, or other things on TV or mainstream print. And if you say anything against them or that they might be wrong, you are a nutter, anti social, weird, and should be ostracized and ridiculed. Doesn't everybody know this?

yes, the greatest lie of the enemy is that nobody knows the truth. You see this in "peace-making" religions that lie to people and say: "let's just agree on the essentials."

"Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life." - Immanuel Kant

 

[jaguar43]

Interesting. What i am getting at is that there is a RELATIONSHIP that has to be cultivated with the cell. On one hand, the cell has a "mind of its own" (which is really just electric impulse from the Creator), and on the other hand - that cell confirms its need for us in the relationship by its ability to adapt away from compensatory states. The cell cannot be happy without us... just as we need the cell to show us when it feels we are growing distant. But if we don't make that cell happy is it simply going to quit "thinking"? No, it's going to use its "own" mind and compensate for our inattentiveness. So when i acknowledge that the cell is smarter than us and has a mind of its own, what i am really acknowledging is that it will keep doing its thing in the best interest of the entire organism whether we are attentive to it or not. I am also saying (certainly not the first) that the process of adapting away from compensatory states is STILL a relationship endeavor - that's not when we become solo - no, by making the cell happy you create the environment where the cell adapts ON ITS OWN. We don't tell it when or how - we just plant the seeds and wait.

I have no interest in diminishing or halting objective exploration, my exploration is certainly rooted in objectivity. Just because i am speaking on a more subjective level does not mean that i am disconnected from the objective. You may disagree, but the subjective is more revealing than the objective. After all, the subjective experience has to already be with you for the objective evidence to ring a bell. Nobody has to take any of this....i am not a dictator, after all. You completely mistook my desire to help others for trying to enslave others - which really baffles me but perhaps i just haven't been communicating well. I'm confused at what you truly disagree with now that you.. should know that i have no desire to discredit the objective or keep people from understanding or tell people they have no involvement in their bodies. I'm endeavoring literally the opposite.

First you say that cells have a mind of their own, then you say a cell is just an electrically impulse from the "creator". Then you say the cell cannot be happy without us. All of these statements contradicted each other. Your "philosophical" ideas seem to stem from confusion and self misunderstanding. You are trying to redeem your religious dogma with idealism. Then spinning your argument to fit it into a "scientific" context.

Being objective would require the understand that the world works without an overseeing god to justify the systems at hand. Those who believe in such ideas also believe that the world (matter) is not understandable. Here is another quote you may find interesting

The Marxian position is committed to the objective existence of generality: For the "Dialectic" to operate in matter, without an overseeing God, the meaningful units (such as thesis and antithesis, and the social classes, etc.) must exist intrinsically in matter, which is just to say that generality has objective existence.

Mind and tissue page 52

Being objective, therefore, will go against your belief that "the creator" provides the electrically impulse to the cell. But then again, you contradict yourself numerous times throughout this thread.

 

[jaguar43]

i meant that if you read a study, you are certainly learning something....but that learning, in and of itself, is not what creates the truth of a matter. the truth has always been there. In other words, you can have the truth of a matter without doing the research........by perception alone. The truth of a matter that i am focused on is that intersection of "perceive, think, act". If you read a study, you are only perceiving *if* you are perceiving the truth of the matter. There are many "ever learning" but never coming to the "knowledge of the truth". If one spends years upon years researching the cell and has breakthrough discoveries, but at the end of the day takes actions in their lives which contradict the function and role of the cells in their body which they have helped to illuminate, then they have not found the truth of the matter - they have only learned a lot and perceived nothing. There is nothing wrong with good research and synthesis of ideas, but the person who has never researched or read a Peat article but has perceived the truth of the matter is better off. (i'm not saying that only non-researchers perceive the truth of the matter)

Again you seem to provide more confusion then understanding. You seem to hold truth as an independent substance of learning. Almost as a dualist would adhere. Here is a quote by Ray Peat

Learning is not a closing, but an opening of possibilities.

mind and tissue page 60

If learning doesn't always lead to truth, then it doesn't mean it isn't worthy of acknowledgement. Learning what to believe and denounce is part of the search of truth. Trying to deny a human possibilties shows that your character is authoritative in nature. Here are other quotes From mind and tissue.

It is worth noting that the Marxian theory of scientific discovery (and of education) is identical in form to the Marxian theory of brain function--in both, there is an emphasis on purpose, deep reorganization, and complex perceptual interaction with the material. In the west, scientific discovery is likely to be explained by reference to logical processes (deduction, induction) or by the idea of a "lucky" choice of a good hypothesis, with none of these relating very deeply to theories of brain function, except that the "computer" theory of brain function is popular, i.e., the brain is seen as a logic machine.

Mind and Tissue page 50

But when learning has to do with the way the world actually works, one insight is enough to fix the knowledge forever; Pavlov said that when a cat learns how to open the latch to its cage, such learning has taken place, and the cat is doing something equivalent to science. (He also believed that such permanent, scientific learning was eventually incorporated into heredity as the instincts.)

Mind and tissue page 70

Your idealist sense of truth doesn't really provide any basic understanding.Because you believe that learning doesn't lead to truth. Or as such, truth is independent of humans. I think this quote sums up the definition of truth.

Part of Maslow's definition of the self-actualizing person was the ability to perceive truthfully. Reich called truth "a natural function," "an integral part of the organism," and "a function most akin to growth."

Mind and Tissue page 96

Therefore, your whole premise on truth is incorrect.

 

[Nicholas]

i am tired of having to correct your foolish twisting and eliminating of my words. my words speak for themselves. i will say one thing, though - you have a very flawed belief that belief in the Creator is the opposite of objective thought. In fact, the natural world reflects the very nature of the Creator.

 

[milk]

Not to derail the discussion, but does anyone have a .pdf of "Mind and Tissue"? :)

 

[jaguar43]

Not to derail the discussion, but does anyone have a .pdf of "Mind and Tissue"? :)

I have the pdf, but i can't remember where i got it from. It's located some where.

 

[jaguar43]

i am tired of having to correct your foolish twisting and eliminating of my words. my words speak for themselves. i will say one thing, though - you have a very flawed belief that belief in the Creator is the opposite of objective thought. In fact, the natural world reflects the very nature of the Creator.

So you disagree with quote from mind and tissue ?

 

[Nicholas]

i am tired of having to correct your foolish twisting and eliminating of my words. my words speak for themselves. i will say one thing, though - you have a very flawed belief that belief in the Creator is the opposite of objective thought. In fact, the natural world reflects the very nature of the Creator.

So you disagree with quote from mind and tissue ?

i have no interest in reading the book and fully digesting Peat's view to truthfully comment. but page 60, of course i agree with it.

 

[jaguar43]

i am tired of having to correct your foolish twisting and eliminating of my words. my words speak for themselves. i will say one thing, though - you have a very flawed belief that belief in the Creator is the opposite of objective thought. In fact, the natural world reflects the very nature of the Creator.

So you disagree with quote from mind and tissue ?

i have no interest in reading the book and fully digesting Peat's view to truthfully comment. but page 60, of course i agree with it.

why don't you have any interest in reading the book mind and tissue ?

 

[Suikerbuik]

Nicholas, sometimes your points makes sense, sometimes you contradict yourself. I don’t feel like quoting your (to me) contradictions, as through the trees, I tend to resonate with your general message. Though, in the end I am also not completely sure about the relevance (see why below). Admittedly, it won't cause harm and I haven’t read this whole discussion . Despite, I’ll give my opinion.

The cell is the revolutionary and always has been

I’d say evolutionary.

If the cell feels like it is in a resourced and peaceful environment, it can do its job without our interference.

How is anyone certain that food is not enough?

From a cellular point of view there are numerous stimuli: light, irridiation, sound, even social contacts and thoughts, and more. I believe good food provides resistance to cellular stress, but cellular stress is not poor food only.

Perception leads to truth

does it really? I’d be withholding with this one as well. I think neither research nor perception might lead to truth. Truth might be something humans are never going to understand, (partly) experience may be ..? It is absolutely weird considering all the quantum mechanical issues we encounter. I’d say perception is temporal reality of the observer, but be aware that it could absolutely be tricking you sometimes, and therefore I think good science ain’t that a bad thing.

Furthermore, I believe that life is an experiment of mother nature following her rules defined in the smallest particles. The purpose of life is experience, and you can’t do anything wrong except not undergoing the experience by not making choices. From this perspective I dare not talk about good and bad, sure by human perception / perspective there are. But in an experiment there is no such thing as good outcome or bad outcome. Of course YOU can be happy with one or another based on your hypothesis.

Edit: only grammar (without any change in meaning).