Copper Levels In Women (clipped From Earlier Post), And the value of References. Options

I would like to keep everything within the realm of known science. I would love to see a QUANTITATIVE (with math - that I can read) study which validates that men have more Iron in their "system" and that women have more "copper" in their system. Are we talking copper metal, copper compounds? cuprous oxides? ... and for iron - ferrous oxides? ferrous nitrate? ferrous sulfate? ... which chemicals are we talking about here. If we are going to bring science into the discussion we should CITE the document or literature which supports the claims being made. Second, if you are going to connect magic to science please do so with some grace and courtesy to scientists who are working exclusively in the boundaries of empiricism (i.e. none of this "women have more copper (unknown compound) than men, (how much more please provide statistics numbers charts graphs analysis of variance .... anything - in what part of the human anatomy or biology was this demonstrated ?? etc.) and this is why women are connected with or identified with Venus (the planet - the archetype - my roommates bunny named Venus ... what do you mean???) AND copper (obviously not a scientific conclusion). Please do not spout facts which have no basis in the literature.

666-Sirius-666

Monitoring brain activity isn't the same as saying 'So and so is thinking about ice cream. $person happens to like strawberry best.' We know what consciousness is, but we have no idea how it works or even how to measure it with any degree of real accuracy.

what I would say is that these things will eventually be measurable. In fact, emotion already is, to some extent

Exactly. Vilhjalmr, you're assuming the materialists are correct, that brain=mind. Consider:
Someone has Alzheimer's. Their brain is damaged. Their mental functioning is impaired. Brain equals mind.
Someone recovers a past life experience, which is validated by physical evidence (see Sanderson's work). There is no way their brain could have obtained that information. Brain does not equal mind.
See the problem? We have two apparently contradictory sets of evidence. If both are valid then our concepts are incomplete and we can't make a valid theory of how brain/mind works.

That's a good point, but I have never seen any evidence that would indicate to me that brain != mind - so I do not have two contradictory sets of evidence. Sanderson is unknown to me, although I haven't Googled yet.

This post has been edited by Vilhjalmr: Feb 9 2011, 09:38 PM