Thank you for your clarification.

I wrote that it was my dog who was healed by Reiki, not myself. [I did, in fact, blow out a disc myself some years later. Yes, it healed itself without Reiki or any other intervention but it was a very long and arduous process eventually resulting in spontaneous fusion.] My dog went from moderate+ neurological impairment to, literally, overnight complete recovery with no more signs/symptoms the rest of his life. I would be genuinely interested in a logical, allopathic explanation for this.

Greene basically says (among other things) that none of us actually experience "reality." Sort of like you last paragraph before the p.s., but more so.

Cheers.

I do hope that you don't take any of my superciliousness personally. I never meant to "denigrate" your experiences with Reiki, and you certainly have every right to pursue any healing modality you like, if you believe it works for you.

What I meant to do was to denigrate Reiki itself, not your personal experience with it, and certainly not you for wanting to try it.

I'm generally careful to say things like "Modality X is stupid", instead of saying "You're stupid if you use Modality X". I never intend for it to sound like the latter.

Anyway, the reason I jumped to the conclusion that you implied Brian Greene's book lent support for McTaggart's theories is that you wrote about it in a comment to a blog post about McTaggart. What other conclusion would I draw?

Even after your clarification, I still fail to see what specific aspect of Greene's book lends support to any mystical teachings. If I may make a prediction, you're probably taking one of Greene's descriptions of quantum theory (watered down for laypeople), and making it seem like it fits with some pre-scientific mystical teaching. Greene himself doesn't believe anything of the sort, by the way.

I understand that your experiences with prolonged pain and rehabilitation must have had a profound influence on your choices of treatment, and I can't begin to empathize with that kind of pain. However, I also know that the body itself is an amazing self-healing machine, and placebo effects are very real.

The fact is that successful Reiki treatments are not repeatable, which is why it's ruled out as a scientifically valid modality.
The notion that Reiki "worked" for you simply means that your body healed itself around the same time as when you received the Reiki treatment. This should be the default assumption until proven otherwise. (until a double-blind study shows that Reiki actually "does" something)

What I always remember in the back of my mind is that my senses are fallible, and very easily deceived (and so are yours). Therefore, when I come across something that might initially appear "odd" or even "supernatural," I adopt a default skepticism towards it. And, time and time again, upon a closer and more objective look, I can derive a perfectly rational, natural, and much more satisfying and convincing explanation for it. And so can anyone.

P.S. Some (nonfiction) writers whose works I enjoy: David Hume, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, etc.

I don't believe I ever said that Greene's writings support McTaggart et al., about whom I've already expressed a less-than-flattering opinion. [I do wish you'd stop jumping up and down about McTaggart and The Field when you're addressing me.] Rather, Greene's material is much more relevant to some of the teachings of any number of mystics, quite a different matter.

You're entitled to your opinions and experience and research; so am I. As I remember, you dismissed Reiki in toto as silly. Obviously, your experience with it is much different than my own. By all means, conduct an experiment if you like. Or not. I don't need to convince you that your experience of Reiki is anything other than that it is silly, although you seem to find it necessary to denigrate my experience. [BTW, I happen to have 30 years in physical rehabilitation; I know something about nerve damage, causes, and reversibility.] To loosely quote one of my all-time favorite people, I don't have research, I have results.
I know what I've seen and experienced, not only with Reiki but with a number of other modalities and techniques. Honestly? I was raised in an extremely rational/left-brain household and didn't believe in anything remotely outside the realm of good old Reality with a capital 'R;' it took me probably a couple of decades of...odd experiences to come to grips with the limitations of Horatio's philosophy. It has certainly been a long strange (and at times, crushingly disappointing) trip, but ultimately a rich one.

Out of mere curiosity, whose writings do you find palatable?

hag

You're adorable when you spit out one-liners and never return for a meaningful exchange of ideas.

There's absolutely no connection between Brian Greene's writings (or anything currently done in modern physics) and the nonsense perpetuated by McTaggart and the like. Where exactly do you see a connection, by the way?

Brian Greene simply uses grandiose and flowery terminology to get laypeople excited about modern developments in physics, for which I applaud him, but it leads some people (like you, apparently), to believe that Greene endorses new-age bullshit.

It's like when Einstein said that "God doesn't play dice with the universe," he was using "god" as a metaphor and didn't mean that he actually believes in a deity.

Modern physics does not predict humans to be able to influence the world using "intentions," no matter how you twist Greene or any other respectable physicist.

It would appear that your exhaustive research hasn't included Brian Greene's 'The Hidden Universe.' Too bad...

If you'd like to contribute further, then try clarifying this for me:
- Name some coincidences that you feel are "unexplained," and why you feel that way. What is the meaning behind these coincidences?
- When you pray for me, which god will you pray to? And, for the record, what precisely will you pray for? This could be a good opportunity to find out if prayer works. If you pray for something sufficiently unlikely, and it comes true, then I assure you I'll reevaluate my conclusions.