A typical scientist's reaction and conclusion to the DNA discovery is that human is a machine, a statement made e.g. by Bill Sullivan, the American scientist and the university worker. People don't doubt it - well, it's science, it's certainly very well thought through, isn't it? Masses obviously are not trained to dealing with such scientific statements, they actually also don't care much about them, but expect others to tell them what the reality is (so that they could do different things that are on their minds). There were also other attempts in a different circumstances to convey such a conclusion about human being just a machine and nothing else, but the DNA discovery is now the main source of support (I believe, now treated as proof) for this thesis.

I'm not sure why, but it might be also noticed that scientists have also a tendency to be modern preachers as a replacement to old priests, i.e. suggesting people why everyone who thinks differently is regrettable, at best. They don't have to do it, it is also risky to put such statements, they might be judged as biased, and there are in fact no benefits of doing that - so why do so many scientists do that anyway?

At least 50% books written by scientists (typically from the physics, chemistry and biology fields; mathematicians or philosophers typically don't have this tendency as far as I observed) that are targetted at masses which I've seen seem like to want to smuggle their own beliefs, next to talking about and praising science and its criteria for judging the reality and making conclusions out of such an approach. It seems like this old christian heritage to convert people to their beliefs is still very deeply rooted for some reason. But let's put the ancient beliefs war aside for now.

Well... my view is different. I don't undermine the spirit existence nor my psychic experience, I also don't treat physical experience to be of more importance than the psychic one. The fact that physical is measured by the use of physical detection, and spirit is measured by spirit, did not drive me to a conclusion to pay attention only or mainly to the former, and call - directly or indirectly - everyone who doesn't agree with me a "dumb" or "ignorant".

But maybe I should, as well.

Anyway, the war between flesh and spirit is about how much there is one over another. My observation is, decreasing spirit influence increases personality and DNA influence, and vice versa.

But the real challenge is to find a truce between the two. When they won't come to common terms, the war is lost: the spirit leaves and the body dies.

Consider the idea that the body is a design of the mind, which is, in turn, a design of the spirit. Then, the body is a creative result - is like a thought of mind: when the thinker stops thinking the thought, the body pattern dissolves. But you are free to choose the opposite perspective: take the DNA book, read it, and (inevitably) conclude that your complex mental experiences are a product of simple molecules called proteins (so that at least, you would be in majority of massive beliefs then, and scientists would praise you for being a decent thinker instead of putting a word fight against you - a price and a reward for not thinking independently)

Some of the scientific "conclusions" go far beyond the biology itself and include the idea of people's inability to get over their issues, whatever they are: like overweight or depression (which BTW actually don't quite conform with other scientific fields like the rather recent mathematical conclusions about what and how much can be determined). My observation, again, is different: paying attention to spirit, or strengthening the spirit, builds the inner strength, and allows you to overcome any shortcomings, physical included.

Last but not least, I wish scientists like Bill to overcome their inability to belief in their personal abilities of overcoming their shortcomings.