GOOD Attention, BAD Attention, NO Attention.

[niky]

I think you guys missed the whole point.
The thing is supposedly about "Good" or "Bad" vibes (for lack of better words).
Your way of thinking affects things around you (in this case water).
Easy as that.

The point is, it's snake oil. Only in a sparkling wrapper.

If we're talking about the sociological "implications", there's not really much there. It's already agreed upon, by educators and developmental psychologists that any kind of attention, whether negative or positive, is behavioral reinforcement, and that a lack of attention causes deprivation.

And we didn't need to read tea leaves to come to those conclusions,.

-

But saying this and putting it together does not really provide any profound insight into human relations nor does it tell you what to do with this information.

 

[Monatsende]

Thread seems to stir up some mod`s curiosity.

 

[axletramp]

Beer is made from water and that certainly has a distorting effect on the world, so there could be something in this. Not sure I necessarily have any control over it though.

 

[photonrider]

Okay - let's stop for a moment here to gather our resources.

First, a heads-up:
Spam is sometimes served on a silver salver, garnished with truffles, trifle and all the trimmings of 'Look-at-me, look-at-me, look-at-me.' Or even - 'I'm important - so my words are wise.' Or 'Ain't I the cutest comic?' All these are merely plaintive cries for attention, but can also derail the focus of the topic.
A review of the various discussions I've started will familiarise readers here with the usual spammers; they always come around like flies smelling . . . well, whatever attracts flies. Please learn to ignore them, and keep your minds firmly fixed on the goal . . . and the goal here is finding the truth.

Will the truth help us in some beneficial way? I believe so.

The thesis we're examining is the one we must concentrate on - never mind the personalities, nationalities, caste, creed and gender of the person behind the thesis.
Now are theses rare? Oh! No. People churn them out every day. Is this a progymnasmata exercise? One could use it for such. May help in your homework.
What this discussion is, is a search for those directly familiar with the phenomenon, a search for more material for and against, (citations are always welcome), and hopefully a reading of the book or some familiarity with the material before god-like judgement is applied and such judgement forced down the throat of other readers/writers (yes, that's all we are here) at the point of intimidation.

Do I believe this thesis? Not yet. Not fully. There are some truths in it. (For instance that human attention has an impact on what it is applied on.)

Do I disbelieve this thesis. Not yet. Not fully. There are holes in it that I can see through. (For instance the fact that the power of human consciousness is still in a murky state - at least when it comes to classical science, and is about as predictable, or definable as picking the superposition that will realise itself.)

But this is where I was drawn in - because this involves something that neither classical science, nor spiritual epiphany can explain away, except that it exists: Quantum reality.
Again, let's not get tied up too much in definitions, but we're not talking 'Quantum Physics' or 'Quantum Mechanics' - those things that are swept under the rug quickly by fundamentalists of any kind - we're talking about quantum reality - a brief overview on this phenomenon of water as it relates to quantum reality is mentioned in What the Bleep!?: Down the Rabbit Hole. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499596/

Again, so as to keep our minds clear - let's look at the thesis:
"Human Consciousness affects the structure of Water."

Now does this mean we can just create a tsnunami? Well, obviously not all humans are the same - and if we put aside for the moment the apocryphal tales of people calming storms with just a word, or making rain by dancing around - maybe that's a possibility (if we can prove the thesis right) - but what the thesis says isn't that. It says quite simply that the vibrations given off by a sample of water are prone to change when emotions are applied to it via human thought.

Again not a new idea - this is applied in many shamanic practises, yoga disciplines, etc, etc . . . the idea of taking a glass of water and 'adding' positive qualities to it isn't new. (Maybe to ostriches.) There's the holy water I mentioned earlier. There is the whole Ganges River, Lourdes water, Baptism by water, and dozens of water rituals practised in so many cultures (for instance the way Buddhists would water a Bo tree as part of penance or supplication) in fact a world gone mad with - as some would call it - snake oil. The temptation to eat of the tree of knowledge seems eternal and as equal to the fear of biting into the apple for fear of being punished.

Now - we have a claim . . . that these vibrations can be measured. These are small changes in the water. Not tsunamis. Doesn't change the water into wine. But it does change the water. Visually, and vibrationally.

I'm assuming (still, at this point) that no one here (whether you are 100% sure that it is false or true) is thoroughly familiar with the work being done on this - or who have even 'read the book'. What we (before believing Emoto or gathering the pitchforks) want to know is the truth. The while truth. Nothing but the truth.

I mentioned Chris Angel in passing to demonstrate that it is easy (like the media) to throw magicians, alchemists, charlatans, even nationalities, together so that we can quickly move on and get back to the beer and pretzels - but we cannot tar all with the same brush. Chris Angel is a magician - a trickster. Not a wizard. If wizards even exist.
So we give Emoto the benefit of the doubt for the moment, (this phenomenon is relatively new) and try to dig deeper to prove that he is charlatan or benefactor.

Does he have the usual professional skeptics (everyone wants to make money, eh?) on his tail? Yes. A few. They quickly break down some of his test protocols, (using the benchmarks of physical protocols) ignoring the other unexplainable anomalies (as skeptics usually do.)
Here's the most cynical one (because cynicism is (apparently) cool and not at all like weak fanboyism regarding love or compassion, and it comes as well with the usual skeptic's love of ego-boosting sarcasm:

"Rationalized irrationality is alive and well. This watery fantasy is all very entertaining and imaginative, full of New Age feel-good platitudes, holistic oneness, consciousness-raising, and warm fuzzies; but it’s hard to see how anyone could mistake it for science. Of course, our thoughts and words do have an effect on the world around us, but not exactly in the way Emoto imagines."

There is nothing, however, from this skeptic to prove (scientifically) that thoughts and words do have an effect on us, never mind as to what personal degree.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1144934/masaru_emotos_wonderful_world_of_water/

And another against:
http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(06)00327-2/fulltext
And one more that really doesn't know whether it's for or against:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lates...o+a+Spiritual+Madoff?-a0206951893#description

Note that most of the detractors work against the man himself, and with the usual MO of guilt-by-association, - not the concept. Most of the skeptics usually embrace the idea that people can affect people (though the physics behind our emotions isn't measurable either) -unless we believe Emoto and the measuring of the water in our bodies before and after the application of attention.

I, myself, am not interested in the man. I'm more focused on the concept: Do we affect each other? How and why? Do the words we use on each other - the emotions we project at each other - actually harmful or beneficial? Why? How? Is it controllable? To what degree? Are we all affected the same? Are some of us more thick-skinned, more wise, or just full of hard water? Can I deliberately make you 'feel better', and will there be a physically measurable difference in the 'water' of my body? And how can we collectively work to purify, respect, and take care of the water left in this world. (We actually lose a little bit (but just a little bit) to Space every day. )

Does he have supporters? Yes. Let's look at some of the more well-know people that have examined his work and commented:

"Masaru Emoto's research gives us an understanding of how we can better relate to water in our daily lives, and offers hope for the health of the world's water in years to come" John Gray Ph. D., author of Men Are from Mars, Women are from Venus.

"(Emotional) Energy is best transmitted through water as 70% of the human body is made of water." Kiril Sokoloff, founder, 13D research Inc. and Healthsearches.org.

Why would people like this (usually more well known than a pharma-sponsored skeptic) risk their reputations on snake oil?
There's plenty of material on him documenting everything from the change in water of an entire lake in Japan, to dropping the lead toxicity level of 12/21 to 2/21 in a child suffering from such a malady.
Heady claims.

So we do have both pro and con - and what I intended to do with this discussion is to not accept either right away at face value, but examine all possible data we can source - and make up our minds ourselves, instead of depending of what we have been pre-programmed to believe for the sake of satisfying the status quo.

Why did I label this topic with a focus on 'attention'?
Yes, it is well known that attention has an effect. But why? And on what? And how? And in relation to water? Maybe if we can get this piece of the puzzle to fit - whether unearthing Greek history, or quantum reality to do it, we can get to the point where we can actually use that information to the great benefit of ouselves, and the rest of mankind, too.

Further - and we will get into this more, as I bring in more details (too much to go into at once) - the 'bad' feelings in our personal water (what we're made of) can be neutralised by providing opposing vibrations with 'good' water - much the way a noise-cancelling device works by transmitting a frequency that neutralises the noise. The secret of beer. I guess. But we'll chase down that mystery another day.. . .

Remember to hydrate! With good vibrations.

I always enjoy your posts

Thanks, 250 GTO. 👍 My water feels better, already. Does this mean I have to work harder?

 

[niky]

The experiment is simple... so why not do it?

With the experimental controls being thus:

1. Water should be distilled, from sealed bottles.

2. When you talk to the water, you MUST NOT OPEN THE BOTTLE or expose the water sample to your sputum.

3. Water samples should be frozen in the same freezer, for the same amount of time, and at identical distance from the coils.

4. Record your findings with photographs. Better yet, get someone else to photo the samples, so that they don't know what they're looking for, eliminating reading bias.

-

If you're really interested in the truth, that's all that's needed to find out if this is true.

If there are any quantum effects caused by thought on water samples, the effects have never been shown at the macroscopic level.

 

[photonrider]

I think you guys missed the whole point.
The thing is supposedly about "Good" or "Bad" vibes (for lack of better words).
Your way of thinking affects things around you (in this case water).
Easy as that.

👍 You get the point. This is not only about Emoto; he is only the beginning in this discussion of Human Consciousness and how we affect each other.

________________________________

Stating uncategorically that it is snake oil is not the same as saying that one feels it is snake oil, or that one thinks it is snake oil. Stating uncategorically that it is snake oil is a bold claim. I cannot make that claim yet as I don't have 100% proof that this is false. Nor 100% proof that it works for everyone. Remember that there is a huge variable at work here: Human Consciousness. Do we all have the same consciousness?

Apparently some rather famous people (well known for Compassion) in the past - as far back as 2000, nay even 2500 years ago, had an almost divine consciousness, and were able to do some stunning, even other-worldly magic tricks with their Consciousness.
I would suggest anybody boldly and uncategorically making the claim that it is false to conduct the experiment themselves, first. I have still to find a critic of this in print, that had actually done even the simple 'Home experiment with Rice'. And failed.

I did this experiment myself. It worked. It still does not convince me totally. In fact I went further with other tests, which also worked. What would convince me is a test group of my own making - at least 9 conscientiously conscious subjects, in three groups. Hopefully we can get to that here.

In an interview with Dean Radin on May 3rd 2006, Lynne McTaggart, author of the famous work The Field, in which she presents "hard evidence for what spiritual masters have been telling us for years" (Wayne W Dyer) and "makes a good case that we are on the verge of another revolution in our understanding of the Universe - perhaps even greater than the one that heralded the Atomic age" (Arthur C. Clarke), she recounts the following in her work The Intention Experiment:

"Radin placed two vials of water in a shielded room in his laboratory at the institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California. Meanwhile a group of 2000 attendees at one of Emoto's conferences in Japan was shown a photo of the vials and asked to send them a prayer of gratitude. Radin then froze the water in those vials as well as samples of control water from the same source that had not been exposed to the prayers, and showed the resulting crystals to a panel of independent volunteers. He'd carefully blinded the study so that neither he nor his volunteers had any idea which crystals had been grown from the water samples that had been sent intention. A statistically significant number of the volunteer judges concluded that water sent the positive intentions had formed the more aesthetically pleasing crystalline structures."

Spooky action at a distance?

Move over, Einstein.

 

[niky]

So, a statistically significant number of people thought the water crystals were prettier? I'm sorry, without seeing a peer-reviewed copy of the study, with a concrete analysis of the structure of the crystals in both samples... no.

-

Unfortunately, there is no concrete evidence that said people in the past were performing magic, or, as you called it, magic tricks.

Those who have claimed such powers in the modern day who have actually submitted themselves to scientific testing have failed, so far, to prove they can do it. I know Hitler believed in the supernatural, and the KGB did a massive amount of experimentation in psychic abilities during the Cold War, but none of that helped either of them to win their respective wars.

Do I believe that human thought could affect the Universe? Probably. But have I seen proof of it yet? No.

-

The "Rice Experiment" does not work if the Experimenter himself is part of the experiment. You have to mix the rice completely, homogenously, then place them in three sets of containers. (Of course, right after the rice has boiled, it must be handled in a sterile environment and put in sterile containers. Safest is to microwave them all after the containers are sealed) Then involve several test subjects, each of whom will receive three containers, completely sealed and air-tight, labelled with random alphanumeric labels. Have them perform the affirmation/negation/neutral part of the experiment, writing down on a piece of paper which container received which treatment, then sealing this up in an envelope.

At the end of the test period, note the condition of all the containers first, then open the envelopes.

This is the only valid way to perform the test. If you'd like, I could get the Masteral Students to perform this, though I doubt you'll like the results.

-----

As for "vibes", there is scientific proof on the power of positive thinking. The "placebo effect" is often so profound that it can seriously affect the results of drug trials. (Sometimes placebos work better than the real thing). Positive thinking is a heartily encouraged part of the healing process. As for the effects it might have outside the body, the jury's still out.

 

[photonrider]

So, a statistically significant number of people thought the water crystals were prettier? I'm sorry, without seeing a peer-reviewed copy of the study, with a concrete analysis of the structure of the crystals in both samples... no.

Heh, heh. YOU are sorry? My apologies for your discomfort - I did not wish to give you BAD attention.. What would be the actual number that would be statistically significant to you that wasn't to Dean Radin or Lynne McTaggart - both highly respected in the scientific community?

Peer-reviewed? You might have to define the qualifications of the peers that are supposed to review this to your satisfaction. Remember that scientists are always at loggerheads. Which is why we move forward; not all scientists accept everything at face value, nay, not even when the papers are accepted. Or rejected.

Concrete analysis? What would that be? Magnetic resonance imaging? Already done. Do search out for yourself peer-reviewed copies - you may find some. Most of the critics were from early experiments, though, I can't find recent pundits on the negative side.

Unfortunately, there is no concrete evidence that said people in the past were performing magic, or, as you called it, magic tricks.

What were they doing then? Miracles? AFAIK, from enlightenment under a Bo tree, to been talked to by Angels have been considered 'Magic tricks' or hallucinations by most of the 'peers' that reviewed such activity.

Those who have claimed such powers in the modern day who have actually submitted themselves to scientific testing have failed, so far, to prove they can do it. I know Hitler believed in the supernatural, and the KGB did a massive amount of experimentation in psychic abilities during the Cold War, but none of that helped either of them to win their respective wars.

Hitler . . . who is that again? Godwin's grandfather?

Guilt by association doesn't work to dispel Emoto's work. As much as there were charlatans that were shot down there are still unsolved mysteries about many, many individuals in the world - the critics don't shout about them, too much. They might as well shoot down quantum entanglement. Or Bells Inequality.

It is hard to measure the non-physical with the physical though. We're still struggling with quantum entanglement, remember?
In fact throw Holmium into the works, and we will end up with anomalies that we wouldn't want to think about.

Do I believe that human thought could affect the Universe? Probably. But have I seen proof of it yet? No.

When you talk about accepting the placebo effect, you are then contradicting this thought. There is no outside/inside Universe. All is contained in the same Space and Time. As far as we know . . . or can perceive. A drop of dye in the ocean is still in the ocean.

The "Rice Experiment" does not work if the Experimenter himself is part of the experiment.

You are accepting that it will work then if the experimenter is not part of the experiment? Or are you concerned about the Observer Effect? In fact it is the Observer Effect we are trying to uncover here - Human Consciousness. Giving attention changes stuff. We are going further and trying to find out if giving attention to water changes its structure - and thereby by inference if giving other humans Good Attention, Bad Attention, or NO Attention, changes them. Physically. This also tells me that you are not entirely familiar with all the experiments been done. However calling them 'experiments' may also be cloudy. Some of the realities that have been experienced are not experiments but ongoing routines. Pray - things change. They did that at a lake in Japan. Are you familiar with that 'experiment'? Again, remember that we are talking about individual Consciousness at work here. Maybe it works for some, and not for others. Why?

BTW - are you familiar at all with the 'Backster Effect'? And the work thereafter by Konstantin Korotov?
How about the experiments by Radin and Schlitz on remote mental influence?
And then there are the 'experiments' by Gary Schwartz, Melinda Connor, and Kathy Creath.. . . all these experiments are connected with this same issue.
And many more . . . we'll investigate all these claims as we go along.
We can't dismiss the issue with just a careless reference to Alois Schicklgruber's son. Which paternity is also a debatable issue.

You have to mix the rice completely, homogenously, then place them in three sets of containers. (Of course, right after the rice has boiled, it must be handled in a sterile environment and put in sterile containers. Safest is to microwave them all after the containers are sealed) Then involve several test subjects, each of whom will receive three containers, completely sealed and air-tight, labelled with random alphanumeric labels. Have them perform the affirmation/negation/neutral part of the experiment, writing down on a piece of paper which container received which treatment, then sealing this up in an envelope.

At the end of the test period, note the condition of all the containers first, then open the envelopes.

That sounds like a good test. However it was not the one performed. But what will this prove?

This is the only valid way to perform the test. If you'd like, I could get the Masteral Students to perform this, though I doubt you'll like the results.

You assume a certain mind-state of mine that seems distinctly at odds with the wealth of information I've already posted - and you assume my potential like/dislikes. I would like to get at the truth. For ALL concerned. For the good of all concerned. Nothing more. Nothing less. Go ahead with your test; I would love to see the results.

This is not the only Forum on the internet either; there may be other tests being done.

If this is the only valid way that would satisfy your curiosity or encourage blessing on your part - I would suggest you go ahead with the experiment yourself so that your personal negation has proof. I have found you to be a very fair-minded individual - in fact the only mediator that brought together opposing camps in the 'God' thread once - enough to clink glasses together - (shortly after the barrage of links from Tic Tach two summers ago) - and you have my respect for such. Obviously I will respect the results you bring forth.

As for "vibes", there is scientific proof on the power of positive thinking. The "placebo effect" is often so profound that it can seriously affect the results of drug trials. (Sometimes placebos work better than the real thing). Positive thinking is a heartily encouraged part of the healing process. As for the effects it might have outside the body, the jury's still out.[/COLOR][/B]

You have me completely confused now, niky . . . but only about your thought process on this.

Let me quote Einstein (whom I will take as smarter than both of us put together):

"A human being is part of the whole, called by us "universe"; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness."

Ans maybe Maya Angelou (to remind you to keep this discussion impersonal, and focus directly on the issue and not on the individuals involved):

"I have learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."

More later? Of course. I wish to thank you for involving yourself in this so diligently. Maybe we can test this out together independently? 👍

 

[Azuremen]

You keep talking about the truth and wanting it, but you've put far too much weight on what amounts to psuedo-science. Like plant perception, which has never be taken seriously because there is nothing conclusive, or even close to. The "science" in these tests, in general, lack any real controls and methods.

Also, if you are going to perform this experiment, keep in mind water is influenced by magnetic fields as a result of it being polar. You could reduce the impact of this heavily with Faraday cages, but do keep in mind I doubt this has been accounted for in the many "experiments" being done. You'd also need to repeat the experiment many times and verify the results as consistent.

Of course, if you are purchasing water, you have no idea if some one bottling it didn't "channel" bad vibes into it, or at the store and so on. How do you run a control for that? How do you distill emotion?

 

[photonrider]

YES to all...depends on the situation.

This answer baffled me for some time. Obviously it must have sounded like I was taking a poll (again! ) but it wasn't really so.

That simple answer, though, made me think: are there times we would rather have no attention at all?

But then this lead to another thought: even when we want to hide away from the world, when we are tired of being attention whores, when we want nothing from anybody, no attentions at all, whether good or bad, when we want to be left alone . . . is this some sort of recuperation, or healing from the damages caused by the stress of attention, or do we give ourselves at those private and 'alone' times the kind of attention we really need?

 

[Slash]

This answer baffled me for some time. Obviously it must have sounded like I was taking a poll (again! ) but it wasn't really so.

That simple answer, though, made me think: are there times we would rather have no attention at all?

But then this lead to another thought: even when we want to hide away from the world, when we are tired of being attention whores, when we want nothing from anybody, no attentions at all, whether good or bad, when we want to be left alone . . . is this some sort of recuperation, or healing from the damages caused by the stress of attention, or do we give ourselves at those private and 'alone' times the kind of attention we really need?

I should have been more specific. I like all sorts of attention, but only when certain conditions or things happen. For example, it could be based on something as simple as my mood. I don't think that wanting to get away is a need, more so of something that is a want. Being in the limelight isn't a need, but more of a want, and it can go the other way as well. There are times when being alone and getting no attention is prefered though. As I said, it really depends on the sitaution and enviroment you have either been thrown into or entered yourself.

Here is an example. I gave a speech at one of my graduation ceremonies. When I got done, I was given a round of applause and when it was over, was congratulated and told good job. That is good attention.

Bad attention can be something I want to happen or don't think through when I do something. For example, I run down the hallway in school. I may need to be somewhere but running is frowned upon, therefore that is bad attention that I didn't bring on by mood. At the same time, I could be running in the hallways intentionally breaking the rules, and get bad attention when I'm scolded.

When I'm home being a hermit in my bedroom, I am recieving no attention from anyone.

 

[niky]

Heh, heh. YOU are sorry? My apologies for your discomfort - I did not wish to give you BAD attention.. What would be the actual number that would be statistically significant to you that wasn't to Dean Radin or Lynne McTaggart - both highly respected in the scientific community?

Respected by whom? One is a parapsychological researcher (a field of interest I used to have, though I stopped following it due to overwhelming empirical evidence against), while the other believes in homeopathy and is an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist. A line of reasoning that goes against all statistical and empirical evidence.

Peer-reviewed? You might have to define the qualifications of the peers that are supposed to review this to your satisfaction. Remember that scientists are always at loggerheads. Which is why we move forward; not all scientists accept everything at face value, nay, not even when the papers are accepted. Or rejected.

"Face value" is one thing. Selective, subjective interpretation of data is another. This is why the experiment on ice crystals can never become accepted science, because the results will vary based on personal bias. Scientific results cannot depend on subjective interpretation, not unless the subjective interpretation itself is the phenomenon under study.

Concrete analysis? What would that be? Magnetic resonance imaging? Already done. Do search out for yourself peer-reviewed copies - you may find some. Most of the critics were from early experiments, though, I can't find recent pundits on the negative side.

Post whatever you have here.

What were they doing then? Miracles? AFAIK, from enlightenment under a Bo tree, to been talked to by Angels have been considered 'Magic tricks' or hallucinations by most of the 'peers' that reviewed such activity.

That's not how peer-review works.

Hitler . . . who is that again? Godwin's grandfather?

Guilt by association doesn't work to dispel Emoto's work. As much as there were charlatans that were shot down there are still unsolved mysteries about many, many individuals in the world - the critics don't shout about them, too much. They might as well shoot down quantum entanglement. Or Bells Inequality.

Obviously, guilt-by-association was not my aim. My aim was to show that a lot of people took this seriously and poured a lot of money into testing of supernatural or parapsychological powers, and have come up with a blank.

It is hard to measure the non-physical with the physical though. We're still struggling with quantum entanglement, remember?
In fact throw Holmium into the works, and we will end up with anomalies that we wouldn't want to think about.

The experiments attempt to measure the physical result of non-physical phenomena. That's not hard to measure.

When you talk about accepting the placebo effect, you are then contradicting this thought. There is no outside/inside Universe. All is contained in the same Space and Time. As far as we know . . . or can perceive. A drop of dye in the ocean is still in the ocean.

The Placebo Effect doesn't require any spiritual or extra-dimensional causes. The Placebo Effect is quite simply a physiological response to certain stimuli. If you are fed a pill that you expect to cure your disease, this expectation causes chemical and physiological changes in the body. In other words, your brain starts releasing hormones that make you feel better. There's nothing supernatural or unexplainable about that.

You are accepting that it will work then if the experimenter is not part of the experiment? Or are you concerned about the Observer Effect? In fact it is the Observer Effect we are trying to uncover here - Human Consciousness. Giving attention changes stuff. We are going further and trying to find out if giving attention to water changes its structure - and thereby by inference if giving other humans Good Attention, Bad Attention, or NO Attention, changes them. Physically. This also tells me that you are not entirely familiar with all the experiments been done. However calling them 'experiments' may also be cloudy. Some of the realities that have been experienced are not experiments but ongoing routines. Pray - things change. They did that at a lake in Japan. Are you familiar with that 'experiment'? Again, remember that we are talking about individual Consciousness at work here. Maybe it works for some, and not for others. Why?

The observer of the outcome of the experiment cannot be one and the same as the observer that conducts it. If the posited theory is that observation causes changes, then the mere act of the second observation invalidates any results.

BTW - are you familiar at all with the 'Backster Effect'? And the work thereafter by Konstantin Korotov?
How about the experiments by Radin and Schlitz on remote mental influence?
And then there are the 'experiments' by Gary Schwartz, Melinda Connor, and Kathy Creath.. . . all these experiments are connected with this same issue.
And many more . . . we'll investigate all these claims as we go along.
We can't dismiss the issue with just a careless reference to Alois Schicklgruber's son. Which paternity is also a debatable issue.

I'm not familiar with the term, but upon looking it up, I recall having read about it ages ago.

Under more controlled conditions, the effect has not been reproduced.

That sounds like a good test. However it was not the one performed. But what will this prove?

It completely divorces the effects of the experimenters' expectations upon the rice. Meaning to say that only the subjects affirmation/negation/etcetera affects the rice.

A further stipulation is that the testers must either only think towards the rice rather than talk at it (to avoid the effects of vibration and/or possible contamination) or talk at the rice with a neutral inflection.

A further step would be (if you're still using the talking aspect of the experiment) to set "control" groups of rice exposed to no noise, white noise, and taped recordings of voices saying both affirmative and negative things, these audio recordings will be played to the rice automatically with no human intervention.

Again: If the experiment posits that mental energy affects the rice, then you have to separate it from the mental energy of the researchers and any physical phenomena that might bias the experiment.

If this is the only valid way that would satisfy your curiosity or encourage blessing on your part - I would suggest you go ahead with the experiment yourself so that your personal negation has proof. I have found you to be a very fair-minded individual - in fact the only mediator that brought together opposing camps in the 'God' thread once - enough to clink glasses together - (shortly after the barrage of links from Tic Tach two summers ago) - and you have my respect for such. Obviously I will respect the results you bring forth.

If I had the time, maybe...

You have me completely confused now, niky . . . but only about your thought process on this.

Let me quote Einstein (whom I will take as smarter than both of us put together):

"A human being is part of the whole, called by us "universe"; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness."

Ans maybe Maya Angelou (to remind you to keep this discussion impersonal, and focus directly on the issue and not on the individuals involved):

"I have learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."

More later? Of course. I wish to thank you for involving yourself in this so diligently. Maybe we can test this out together independently? 👍

Apologies if I seemed to extend my disbelief of the experiments to you, but after thirty-odd years of hearing, watching and reading about parapsychological research, I've become rather disillusioned with it. Simply because the field is littered with poorly conducted experiments and theoretical constructs that are more wish fulfillment than rigorous science.

Of course we are all enmeshed in the Universe. In fact, the barriers between "I" and "not-I" are not quite black-and-white. But cause-and-effect, given what we know of our Universe, is sort of black-and-white.

Is there a possibility that one's mind can influence the Universe around us? Quantum Physics tells us that this is undoubtedly so. It demands it.

But only at the Quantum level. The Observer Effect has never been demonstrated on a macroscopic scale.

 

[photonrider]

Apologies if I seemed to extend my disbelief of the experiments to you, but after thirty-odd years of hearing, watching and reading about parapsychological research, I've become rather disillusioned with it. Simply because the field is littered with poorly conducted experiments and theoretical constructs that are more wish fulfillment than rigorous science.

And now apologies myself, niky, for taking so long to pick up the thread again; this is not an ordinary 'one-liner' fun thread filled with repetitive memes, and jestful derailments - it's rather heavy going, isn't it? And I'm glad that I've found people with a fair modicum of intellect (and courtesy) with whom to discuss it.
My delay in responding was because I needed to gather some material together, and sort out what best to furnish first, so that we could go into this with baby steps and not stumble around blindly right off the bat being derailed right, left and center by inanities or logodaedelic conundrums.
I'm hoping, though, to involve many other members in this eventually, after we sort out some of the major pieces of the puzzle.

Strangely enough, sometimes, some get it right away - almost seeing the truth in a way that we cannot, without the due semantic analysis that we are prone to examine anything that sounds anomalous:

I think you guys missed the whole point.
The thing is supposedly about "Good" or "Bad" vibes (for lack of better words).
Your way of thinking affects things around you (in this case water).
Easy as that.

Is there a possibility that one's mind can influence the Universe around us? Quantum Physics tells us that this is undoubtedly so. It demands it.

Undoubtedly. And this is a great point of agreement at this juncture, helping us to move along and not get bogged down by ignorance; a fair start to the journey we are going to undertake. Those of us who have entangled our minds with what happens at the quantum level know that this is happening (or should I say can happen? )
How do we apply this to this?

First - before we go further and find ourselves shunted into heading towards a different destination let me reset our target:
What we're talking about is ATTENTION. And its EFFECTS.
We're also taking this further - we're talking about Good attention, as well as Bad attention, and No attention. (Compliments, Insults, Indifference)

We're further wondering (investigating) if this kind of attention affects water.

We know that we humans are composed of large amounts of water.

We realise we are conscious (attentive) beings (and that also our consciousness can affect 'stuff' at the quantum level)

And so we are trying to figure out if we affect each other - and how much. Enough to 'rot' our personal water, the water that we are made of? Enough to make someone kill?

These will be the thoughts that will drive us on.
_________________________________________

To continue the discussion, and giving attention to all members - those who were here from the start, and those who will eventually contribute:
Emoto's experiments were brought in here as a starting point.

There are other pieces of this same puzzle I'm going to lay out on the table for us all to look at - and obviously we're all going to have different opinions on the matter - all I ask at this point is that everyone in the discussion respect the opinions of others (they are only opinions after all and shouldn't hurt our sensibilities) and ironically enough that is attention of a kind, too.

If someone has a piece of the puzzle to contribute as a fact, please provide as many sources as possible. Not doing so will not be a crime - however credibility will then be an issue and such contributions will only be taken as opinions, not fact.

Before we put Emoto aside, let me say that the Japanese government thought highly enough of Emoto's work to plaster it all over the country's subways, encouraging people to love and respect each other more because they believed that we do have a noticeable effect on each other, not merely at a microscopic level, but at a level significant enough to have an impact.

But . . . Emoto made money with this. Doesn't that cast doubt on his motives? Doesn't it make it seem like another get-rich quick scenario by yet another 'snake oil' salesmen? Shouldn't we immediately apply the old 'snake-oil' sticker on this?

Yet, further investigation showed that the products he sold were hardly going to make him the kind of money for instance that Kazanori Yamauchi made with his Gran Turismo series (and yet Kaz's work was not plastered all over the subways by the government.)
And to be fair to Emoto - why is it that distrust is applied immediately to anyone who makes money out of a discovery? Doesn't that happen with the big pharma-corporations? Is it the fact that it is a small group, or an individual that is making the money that impugns their credulity?

Delving further into Emoto's work we find that he has performed many documented 'cures' of people with this water and he has taken this to another level - beyond the human consciousness effect. He has found that it's all about wave theory - in fact phase-cancellation. To sypnopsize: he shows that all diseases of the body emit specific frequencies. By drinking the water he has prepared with the opposing frequencies (through his HADO machine) the diseases are negated ('cancelled out'). Many of the cures are documented. As to whether we should believe or not is obviously up to us.

Sounds like magic, doesn't it? In fact, it brings to mind a buddy of mine who said something similar - that all this stuff we cannot understand may be indistinguishable from magic.

I miss that particular buddy - Arthur, since he is now passed; his infectious grin, and the brilliance behind his eyes as he enjoyed some cerebral humour that only he understood remain but fond memories.
Arthur was a fascinating character, and apart from the vicious TT games we indulged in (he was a monster if you put a bat in his hands), or the roast beef sandwiches and never-ending glasses of lime cordial we loved, our many long conversations entranced me, though more often than not the conversations were about sunken treasure or scuba diving (underwater safaris ) Or it would be something about his various maladies, and not - as one would expect - about astronomy, or 'trees on Mars' or the fact that he practically 'invented' Comsats. Or that he had made one of the greatest movies of all time.

Being both openly homosexual, and atheist, Arthur was not one to beat around the bush, burning or otherwise - and when he said something I would take it seriously - and this brings me to the next piece of the puzzle. Arthur verified the next piece of the puzzle for me; he peer-reviewed and approved Lynne McTaggart's work The Field and said of its content: "This makes a good case that we are on the verge of another revolution in our understanding of the Universe - perhaps even greater than the one that heralded the Atomic Age."

That kind of blew me away. The Field reads like a book on magic - postulations about human consciousness, some evidence that can be verified, and quite often attacks on western medicine (though not too different from the daily attacks on the pharma-giants most of us are familiar with in one publication or another, attacks more often than not opposed by some pharma-giant sponsored blogger.)

Let's look at an excerpt from Wiki:

In her book The Field, McTaggart discusses scientific discoveries that she says support the theory that the universe is unified by an interactive field. The book has been translated into fourteen languages. In a later book, The Intention Experiment, she discusses research in the field of human consciousness which she says supports the theory that "the universe is connected by a vast quantum energy field" and can be influenced by thought. This book has been translated into eighteen languages.

What? Things can be influenced by thought? Because everything is 'connected'? Hello? Unbelievable. Sounds like sheer hocus-pocus, or to put it another way - sheer magic. But weren't we just talking about that a moment ago, right in this discussion?
So how come I have to buy wine? Shouldn't it just be available with but a thought? Then again, probably I'm not an adept. And if I was, I may not be interested in wine.

Do please acquire and go through this book if you wish to examine another piece of evidence about 'Human consciousness affecting . . . stuff'. And if you find stuff in there that you can shoot down and prove Arthur a fool, be my guest.

But while I have my buddy Arthur (whom I knew personally and whose opinion I respected devoutly) support Lynne's thesis and evidence for it, I have others (that I don't know personally) who are critical about Lynne's claims - and obviously, to be fair, and not let Artie prejudice me, I must review these critics and their critiques:
Who are they - and what do they say?

Well there's Mark Henderson, for instance, from the Times, obscure, (no books yet translated into eighteen languages) yet self-qualified enough to take on Lynne - what does he do? Attack Lynne's postulations on western medicine, blowing up her weakness for exaggerating the dangers of vaccines.
But, yes, Mark, even if I am in agreement that Lynne can go overboard in her enthusiasm to quash the pharma-giants and highlight the side-effects of their chemical romances, it still doesn't take away from the rest of her work. The body of her work is not merely that. It talks about human consciousness as an effective tool, and provides sufficient evidence that humans, albeit only some, and documented, are capable of of using it effectively.
Not everybody is an adept. We can talk, we can't do.

Then let us give Margaret McCartney, another detractor, ear, and listen to what she has to criticise (again from Wiki):

In an interview on BBC Radio 4, GP and author Dr. Margaret McCartney stated: "The problem with evidence is that it can tell you things that you'd rather not know. A lot of the time medicine does do harm but that's why doctors and scientists are duty-bound to put their research findings out there and to stop doing things that cause harm. What we shouldn't do is abandon medicine and the scientific method and go straight for alternative medicine with no good evidence that that works either." She criticised stories in the magazine as "absolute rubbish" and "ridiculously alarmist".

Again I'm not sure that Marge (a doctor, no less, defending western medicine) has really made up her mind:

The problem with evidence is that it can tell you things that you'd rather not know.

WTH are you saying, Margie?

A lot of the time medicine does do harm ...

Yes, that's what Lynne (albeit too vociferously) is also saying while trying to prove her point about that old fabled 'mind over matter' shtick.

. . ."absolute rubbish" . . . "ridiculously alarmist".

Give me some hard evidence, Doctor, something I can work with, not just angry opinions that, while I can respect, cast no real doubt.

Let's put Lynne's puzzle pieces aside for the moment now, like we did Emoto's, and start delving into some other scientific peer-reviewed papers (if we are to trust scientists at all) on any related matter that involves Consciousness (Good attention, Bad attention, No attention) affecting Water (the Hydrogen/Oxygen bond.)

Bernard Grad, an associate professor of Biology at Montreal's McGill University chemically analysed via infrared spectroscopy water that had been worked on by a group of healers. (The water was then used to irrigate plants.) Basically what happened here was a bunch of water was given Consciousness by some humans, then checked for changes.
What happened to the water?
It had undergone a fundamental change in the hydrogen-oxygen bond. In fact, it had lessened much like what happens to water exposed to magnets. (Source: Dimension in Holistic Healing: New Frontiers in the Treatment of the Whole Person - pp 199- 212.)

Same thing happened in similar research carried out by Russian scientists, showing that the hydrogen-oxygen bonds in water molecules underwent distortions in the crystalline microstructure during healing. (Source: L. N. Pyatnitsky and V.A. Fonkin. "Human Consciousness influence on water structure." Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1995; 9(1):89.)

Now, when I check the stats on the above experiments, it really baffles me; there seems to be no getting away that Human Consciousness affects Water. Makes me wonder whether we affect the weather. I should hope not, considering that the consciousness of the world more or less borders on the paranoid - at least when it comes to the weather. (As in - I better take my brolly.)

More pieces of the puzzle that show that when people hold a focused thought and transmit it towards water it changes the molecular structure of water:
When a group of experienced meditators sent an intention to affect the molecular structure of water samples they were holding during the meditative process, and the water was later examined by infrared spectrophotometry, many of its characteristics (especially its light absorbance) had drastically changed. Basically again - the molecular structure of the water had changed because people were thinking about it. (Source: G. Rein and R. McCraty, "Structural changes in Water and DNA associated with new physiologically measurable states", Journal of Scientific Exploration; 8(3): 438 -9.)

Holy Water! This should make us sit up, right? Should we be looking at Lourdes Water, now? How does that work? I'll save that 'magic' for another day, but for now let's look another 'scientific' piece from dozens I've gathered of such experiments:

Herbert Benson is a cardiologist from Harvard Medical School who, for years, had been exploring the effects of meditation (again focused consciousness) on the brain. Together with a team of scientists they were involved in monitoring the strange activity of a group of monks in the Himalayas who seemed to be able to control temperature. He even videotaped them, and as well the monks were wired to machines that measured a great amount of different scientific data. The result? The monks were able to boil water - at will. (Source: H.Benson et al., 'Three case reports of the metabolic and electroencephalographic changes during advanced Buddhist meditation techniques.,' Behavioral Medicine, 1990: (16:2) 90-5.)

All these hidden experiments that prove that the structure of water is alterable, that in fact it is conscious and reactive in some strange unexplained way to our attention . . . the what that happens is explained, even the how . . . though not the why.

Did I say the 'how'?

Well, yes. If it has been proved that when we give attention to water it changes, then when we give attention to water it should change.
If I give good attention to something that is predominantly water, whether weather, plant, or person, then such attention-receiving structures should change, either constructively or destructively, from it.

If I compliment you, I should make you feel better, stronger, nicer - changing the structure of your water into a more constructive, rather than destructive state. If I send 'bad vibes' (curses) at you, then it should make your 'blood boil'.

If I ignore you, it should then send no energy to you, making you lack-lustre, rotting, decaying, dying . . . all you would do is cause a stink.
Is it any wonder that people don't like to be ignored, don't like to be alone?
Is it any wonder that some people will do anything to get attention, doesn't matter even if its the bad sort, and will go hunting for other people, pestering them for any kind of attention?

Is it any wonder then that young people who are neglected, branded as 'loners', get a gun or a knife and go touching other people with them clamouring for attention even to the point of death?

Is it any wonder that 12 year old girls can lure another 12 year old girl into the woods and attempt to kill her so they can paste the creepy story into Creepypasta and get attention from a mythical Slenderman?

I look forward to all your thoughts, opinions, and sources of proof for and against - and I assure you, I will give it all my full attention.

Be well. Above all - give yourselves and each good attention.


Harry.