The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Steve3007 »

Dealing with the rest of the post:
stevie wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:Yes, and that would be based on what is observed.
Yes, but not only that because what is observed is believed as being really existent.
I'd say pretty much only that. I'm not aware of any person who I know to take a metaphysical position on something but who lacks all sensory organs. And I don't know any person with sensory organs who doesn't use them as part of the process of deciding what they believe to be the case.
stevie wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:It depends what you mean by "completely unnecessary". Unnecessary for what purpose?
For the purpose of applying the conventional name and for other purposes like e.g. scientific investigation.
The conventional name of what?

That depends on what you think scientific investigation is for. If the purpose of scientific investigation is to figure out how the world works, then the concepts of reality and existence are necessary. If the purpose of scientific investigation is only to be able to accurately describe and predict the patterns in reported sensations, then maybe you're right. Although we'd then be left wondering what we're using to receive those sensations. Real eyes? Real ears?
stevie wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:It looks like you're taking a solipsistic view that the only thing we have evidence for is a bunch of sensations.
Nowhere have I expressed such a view.
No, you haven't (as far as I know) explicitly described yourself as a solipsist. But your words makes you appear a bit like one.
stevie wrote:On the contrary sensations are not evident because they cannot be publically observed independent of beliefs. However verbal expressions about sensations are evident because these can be publically heared or read independent of beliefs.
If you and me are seeing a car then the car is an evident appearance.
OK, so the reports of sensations are publicly accessible. I don't think that alters the point about solipsism.
stevie wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:I take the view that the patterns and similarities in those sensations are evidence for the existence of a thing called reality. You can call that reality a model in my mind whose purpose is to help me to describe and predict those sensations if you like. But there's no good reason to do that.
Maybe you are referring to subjective evidence?
I'm referring to the way in which we examine the common features of our various sensations, and those reported by others, and draw the conclusion that the best explanation for those common features is the existence of a real world which we propose to be the common cause of those sensations.
stevie wrote:From my perspective evidence is necessarily connected with public observability, i.e. accessibility by the five senses independent of beliefs.
OK. To me, evidence is not necessarily connected with public observability. If, as Macbeth, I have the sensation of seeing a dagger in front of me, and if I then try to clutch that dagger, I'm trying to use one sense to confirm the evidence of another sense in order to gather evidence as to whether the dagger can consistently be considered to be real. That act, in itself, doesn't require anything public. Although, of course, further evidence could be gathered by asking other people if they can see and/or clutch the dagger.
stevie wrote:But if you are referring to "patterns and similarities in those sensations" as verbal expressions but not the "patterns and similarities in those sensations" as such then these verbal expressions of course are evident.
I'm referring to both. Obviously as verbal expressions they're also sensations.
stevie wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:So do you see no function for concepts like "reality"?
They function as the basis for speculations. If someone feels the need to speculate then "reality" is necessary for this indvidual.
It's this kind of comment that makes me think of your view as solipsistic. (It seems to be a very common view in philosophy forums.) I'd say reality functions as more than just the basis for speculations. It functions as a useful and practical model telling me what I'm likely to experience next. My office door is currently shut. I find the notion that the world outside my office is real very useful when trying to predict what I'll see when I open that door. Likewise with everything else in life.
stevie wrote:But the concept isn't needed for e.g. scientific investigations.
OK. As I said above, it depend on our view of what science is for.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

stevie wrote: November 1st, 2021, 5:30 am I used the expression "assertively speculate" to refer to a speculative claim. So the meaning may also expressed with "Such a person would make speculative claims about what isn't evident."
So your objection has nothing to do with metaphysics, or its 'advocation', but simply with people who assert the correctness of unjustified speculation? I think we can all agree on that. 👍
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by stevie »

Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 7:48 am
stevie wrote:Fine, but "a metaphysical position like materialism would be based on observations of what things appear to really exist." isn't appropriately expressed. Why? Because ""a metaphysical position like materialism" is a position of followers of metaphysics and followers of metaphysics would not speak of "what things appear to really exist" but of "what things really exist".
OK, so we come back to this group of people you've created and called "followers of metaphysics". You assert that these people don't speak of "what things appear to really exist".
I am not asserting anything (to be true or represent truth or to be real or represent reality). I am expressing thoughts and using expressions that appear appropriate to me.
Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 7:48 am So are you saying that there is a group of people you've experienced who ignore all of their sensations?
I can't make a consistent meaning of this expression of yours. What makes you think that what you are expressing follows from what I've said? What is your understanding of "sensations" here? See possible definitions of sensation.
I would not say that they ignore "sensations" but that they impute something mentally synthesized to these.
Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 7:48 am If I am a materialist, would you accept that that is my metaphysical position? Or would you only accept that it's a metaphysical position if I am a "follower of metaphysics", with all that you say that entails?
I think that the intended meaning of "materialism" should be elaborated on because this term is excessively applied by many people who understand quite different things when using "materialism".
But generally if a notion of 'true existence of matter' is involved then it is clearly a metaphysical (speculative) position. Again merely expressing metaphysical views is evidence for "follower of metaphysics" even if the expressing subject isn't aware that there is something like metaphysics. As is the case with someone making claims about "god" which renders her/him a follower of theism even if she/he has no knowledge of the term "theism".
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Steve3007 »

Let's leave it at this for now:
stevie wrote:I am not asserting anything (to be true or represent truth or to be real or represent reality). I am expressing thoughts and using expressions that appear appropriate to me.
You said this:
...followers of metaphysics would not speak of "what things appear to really exist" but of "what things really exist".
If you're going to assert things, as you did above, and then say you haven't asserted them, we're going to have trouble communicating. There's nothing wrong with asserting things. It's not a pejorative term. It just means you stated what you believe to be true. You told me, above, what you believe to be true of "followers of metaphysics" didn't you? If we're going to get bogged down in things likes this there's no point in trying to talk about anything else.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by stevie »

Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 9:07 am Dealing with the rest of the post:
stevie wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:Yes, and that would be based on what is observed.
Yes, but not only that because what is observed is believed as being really existent.
I'd say pretty much only that. I'm not aware of any person who I know to take a metaphysical position on something but who lacks all sensory organs. And I don't know any person with sensory organs who doesn't use them as part of the process of deciding what they believe to be the case.
Well as soon as belief comes in (" they believe to be the case") it's impossible to distinguish that from speculative metapyhsics because a notion of truth/reality/existence is likely to be involved.
Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 9:07 am
stevie wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:It depends what you mean by "completely unnecessary". Unnecessary for what purpose?
For the purpose of applying the conventional name and for other purposes like e.g. scientific investigation.
The conventional name of what?

That depends on what you think scientific investigation is for. If the purpose of scientific investigation is to figure out how the world works, then the concepts of reality and existence are necessary. If the purpose of scientific investigation is only to be able to accurately describe and predict the patterns in reported sensations, then maybe you're right. Although we'd then be left wondering what we're using to receive those sensations. Real eyes? Real ears?
Conventional name of the appearance.

Scientific investigation has a specific and quite narrow goal (E.g. to find out how X reacts in the context of Y or to find out whether hypothesis A about X in Y can be supported by experimental evidence) which certainly is not "to figure out how the world works". "to figure out how the world works" might be the object of speculative philosophy.
Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 9:07 am
stevie wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:It looks like you're taking a solipsistic view that the only thing we have evidence for is a bunch of sensations.
Nowhere have I expressed such a view.
No, you haven't (as far as I know) explicitly described yourself as a solipsist. But your words makes you appear a bit like one.
I can't see why. Solipsism is based on speculative inconsistent metaphysical views about an external world and about the internal self/I.
Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 9:07 am
stevie wrote:On the contrary sensations are not evident because they cannot be publically observed independent of beliefs. However verbal expressions about sensations are evident because these can be publically heared or read independent of beliefs.
If you and me are seeing a car then the car is an evident appearance.
OK, so the reports of sensations are publicly accessible. I don't think that alters the point about solipsism.
I don't have any influence on what you are inclined to believe.

Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 9:07 am
stevie wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:I take the view that the patterns and similarities in those sensations are evidence for the existence of a thing called reality. You can call that reality a model in my mind whose purpose is to help me to describe and predict those sensations if you like. But there's no good reason to do that.
Maybe you are referring to subjective evidence?
I'm referring to the way in which we examine the common features of our various sensations, and those reported by others, and draw the conclusion that the best explanation for those common features is the existence of a real world which we propose to be the common cause of those sensations.
To me it appears as if you would be confusing verbal expressions with what these are intended to express. "common features of our various sensations" can be thought of and the thoughts may be verbally expressed but there is no evidence for "common features of our various sensations" as such.
Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 9:07 am
stevie wrote:From my perspective evidence is necessarily connected with public observability, i.e. accessibility by the five senses independent of beliefs.
OK. To me, evidence is not necessarily connected with public observability. If, as Macbeth, I have the sensation of seeing a dagger in front of me, and if I then try to clutch that dagger, I'm trying to use one sense to confirm the evidence of another sense in order to gather evidence as to whether the dagger can consistently be considered to be real. That act, in itself, doesn't require anything public. Although, of course, further evidence could be gathered by asking other people if they can see and/or clutch the dagger.
For me evidence is necessarily connected with objectivity which depends on public observability. It's a scientific perspective. Thus exclusively private observability (subjectivity) never can be evidence of anything.

Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 9:07 am
stevie wrote:But if you are referring to "patterns and similarities in those sensations" as verbal expressions but not the "patterns and similarities in those sensations" as such then these verbal expressions of course are evident.
I'm referring to both. Obviously as verbal expressions they're also sensations.
But only verbal expressions can be shared and agreed upon because they are publically observable. "patterns and similarities in those sensations" as such are exclusively private referring necessarily to one's own "patterns and similarities in those sensations".

Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 9:07 am
stevie wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:So do you see no function for concepts like "reality"?
They function as the basis for speculations. If someone feels the need to speculate then "reality" is necessary for this indvidual.
It's this kind of comment that makes me think of your view as solipsistic. (It seems to be a very common view in philosophy forums.) I'd say reality functions as more than just the basis for speculations. It functions as a useful and practical model telling me what I'm likely to experience next. My office door is currently shut. I find the notion that the world outside my office is real very useful when trying to predict what I'll see when I open that door. Likewise with everything else in life.
It's interesting that the absence of both, affirmation and negation of "reality" appear to you as solipsism. I have a different understanding of solipsism.
Since any functioning of the concept "reality" depends on either affirmation or negation of this concept as "true" or representing "truth" I am out of this game and I can only express what I've expressed.

Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 9:07 am
stevie wrote:But the concept isn't needed for e.g. scientific investigations.
OK. As I said above, it depend on our view of what science is for.
Covered above.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by stevie »

Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 11:30 am Let's leave it at this for now:
stevie wrote:I am not asserting anything (to be true or represent truth or to be real or represent reality). I am expressing thoughts and using expressions that appear appropriate to me.
You said this:
...followers of metaphysics would not speak of "what things appear to really exist" but of "what things really exist".
If you're going to assert things, as you did above, and then say you haven't asserted them, we're going to have trouble communicating. There's nothing wrong with asserting things. It's not a pejorative term. It just means you stated what you believe to be true. You told me, above, what you believe to be true of "followers of metaphysics" didn't you? If we're going to get bogged down in things likes this there's no point in trying to talk about anything else.
I am not involved in believing things.
For me expressing thoughts isn't asserting the content of these thoughts to be true or representing truth. If you can't conceive of the verbal expressions of another to be other than assertions/claims then this is as it is and I don't mind you having this attitude but you also shouldn't mind me expressing an attitude different from yours.
I don't think that there being a point to talk about something necessarily depends on the talker asserting his verbal expressions to be true or to represent truth or expressing his beliefs because for me a conversation is an exchange of expressions for the purpose of mutual inspiration. And so far there's been quite a lot of mutual inspiration, right?
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Steve3007 wrote: November 1st, 2021, 11:30 am There's nothing wrong with asserting things. It's not a pejorative term. It just means you stated what you believe to be true.
I have to disagree with this one small part of what you say.

If I say "I believe X", that's a factual statement. "It just means I stated what I believe to be true."

If I assert X, that's a different matter. To say "I believe X" is to say what I believe. To 'assert X' is to say to the world at large that X is true. Not just that you believe it to be true, but that (in your opinion) others should believe it too.

That's how I've always understood "assert", anyway.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

stevie wrote: November 1st, 2021, 12:06 pm I am not involved in believing things.
Given the dearth of certainty in our real world, that seems unlikely. As we know so little, we are reduced to belief or nothing.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by stevie »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 1st, 2021, 2:49 pm
stevie wrote: November 1st, 2021, 12:06 pm I am not involved in believing things.
Given the dearth of certainty in our real world, that seems unlikely. As we know so little, we are reduced to belief or nothing.
That's a belief of yours.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Steve3007 »

stevie wrote:I am not involved in believing things.
You didn't, by any chance, used to go by the names evolution and creation did you? (If not, that probably sounds like an odd question.)
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by stevie »

Steve3007 wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 6:58 am
stevie wrote:I am not involved in believing things.
You didn't, by any chance, used to go by the names evolution and creation did you? (If not, that probably sounds like an odd question.)
Hmh, not sure if I get this right.
Due to my history of conditionings my spontaneous conceptual thoughts are inclined towards 'evolution' if there is an appearing context where both words, 'evolution' and 'creation' may be used. I usually prefer scientific vocabulary over religious vocabulary because I find it more appropriate and in line with non-belief to speak/write this way and a conceptual framing is necessary to be able to speak/write at all.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

stevie wrote: November 1st, 2021, 12:06 pm I am not involved in believing things.
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 1st, 2021, 2:49 pm Given the dearth of certainty in our real world, that seems unlikely. As we know so little, we are reduced to belief or nothing.
stevie wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 12:27 am That's a belief of yours.
I don't know about you, but I know only one thing: that Objective Reality exists, and that I am all or part of it. All else is belief, IMO. So while it's true for you to say that my words express a belief of mine, it isn't really a response to what I wrote, is it? 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Steve3007 »

stevie wrote:Hmh, not sure if I get this right....
Sorry to ask a cryptic question. It's just that there used to be a poster on here who went by the name "creation" and then later re-appeared under the name "evolution". It wasn't those names that I was thinking about, when asking you the question. It was the fact that he regularly declared himself not to believe anything. I think in his case this was because he had some funny ideas about what it means to believe something. I think he conflated it with religious faith, or similar. Anyway, your comment reminded me of that. But you're clearly not him, so don't worry about it.
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Gee »

So there were two scientists talking together in a lab. One scientist stated, " I am about to test "hypothesis A about X in Y" to see if it "can be supported by experimental evidence". If this works, I will be able to send the results to a science journal. I am so pleased.

The second scientist stated; no, you can't. Your whole experiment is based on logic and a metaphysical position of causal reality, which has nothing to do with science and does not even validate metaphysical positions in philosophy. What were you thinking?

===============================

So the prosecuting attorney told the Judge that the defendant willfully and with intent did murder the victim and should go to prison for life.

The defense attorney told the Judge that his client came home and found a child horribly murdered and caught the man (victim) in the process of hacking the defendant's wife into pieces. He said the defendant went crazy and admits murdering the victim (murderer). Because the defendant was trying to protect his family and home, this was self defense and that should be considered when passing judgement.

The Judge stated: We all know that there is no evidence that a "self" actually exists or is real -- that is simply a belief. I can not let the defendant go because of a belief. Hang him.

Stevie, what are you thinking?

Gee
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by stevie »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 9:19 am
stevie wrote: November 1st, 2021, 12:06 pm I am not involved in believing things.
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 1st, 2021, 2:49 pm Given the dearth of certainty in our real world, that seems unlikely. As we know so little, we are reduced to belief or nothing.
stevie wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 12:27 am That's a belief of yours.
I don't know about you, but I know only one thing: that Objective Reality exists, and that I am all or part of it. All else is belief, IMO. So while it's true for you to say that my words express a belief of mine, it isn't really a response to what I wrote, is it? 😉
Even though you are using the word "we" you have merely expressed what appears to you and I have expressed what appears to me upon seeing your words which has been my response. So?
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021