Scientific Proof Thoughts & Intentions Can Alter The Physical World Around Us

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/01/scientific-proof-thoughts-intentions-can-alter-physical-world-around-us.html



Dr. Masaru Emoto, a researcher and alternative healer from Japan has given the world a good deal of evidence of the magic of positive thinking (http://themindunleashed.org/2013/06/using-your-thoughts-to-better-your.html). He became famous when his water molecule experiments (http://themindunleashed.org/2013/07/the-power-of-our-thoughts-on-water.html) featured in the 2004 film, What The Bleep Do We Know? His experiments demonstrate that human thoughts and intentions can alter physical reality, such as the molecular structure of water. Given that humans are comprised of at least 60% water, (http://themindunleashed.org/2013/07/new-research-supports-theory-that-water.html) his discovery has far reaching implications… can anyone really afford to have negative thoughts or intentions?
The rice experiment is another famous Emoto demonstration of the power of negative thinking (and conversely, the power of positive thinking.) Dr Emoto placed portions of cooked rice into two containers. On one container he wrote “thank you” and on the other “you fool”. He then instructed school children to say the labels on the jars out loud everyday when they passed them by. After 30 days, the rice in the container with positive thoughts had barely changed, while the other was moldy and rotten.


Not sure I can buy this, but it is quite interesting.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Er... the fact that I am typing this is evidence that intentions and thoughts can "affect the world around us". But if you're looking for evidence of magic, this Emoto person is not a researcher; he has a degree in international relations, but that's about it, and he doesn't publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[motion denied]

yea let's imagine private property away

[Tenka]

How widely have these results been reproduced? Are my negative thought-waves hindering their acceptance by mainstream science?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Real trusty source on that shit, too. Fucking idiot quacks.

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

Ehh, fair enough.
I've never heard of the researcher or site before, just something I saw scrolling though.

[reb]

Can we ban this bullshit? If people have an objection then they can just think really hard about it and maybe they can change our minds.

[Tenka]

I first encountered this line of "research" in 2006 with the water, and the same doctor. It's amusing how widely circulated in certain circles are these extremely isolated "studies" with no signs of replication, and how they live on for years. I once moved in a circle that promoted this quack, and also loved using quantum physics to legitimise fallacies (because, obviously, anything that is possible for a sub-atomic particle must be possible for a human being!; e.g., passing through walls and such magick tricks).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think it's enough that we can point out that Emoto's results haven't been reliably replicated, and dismiss it thusly.

Sure, this kind of pseudoscientific New Age bullshit is annoying as fuck, but censorship is not the same thing as refutation.

[Tenka]

I'm just glad our friend DSTC is rightly incredulous and open to our sinister materialist swaying. Someone who earnestly promoted this sort of stuff would not be easily distinguished from a troll, so...

edit: I dunno how to strikethrough text so I put my erroneous statement in spoiler tags. I just remembered we have some legit. members who hold to some of these wacky ideas. It's not against the rules! Sadly...

[reb]

Next we'll be getting articles about energized water.

[argeiphontes]

Not sure I can buy this, but it is quite interesting.



It is interesting, but it's a one-off and hence not as interesting as experiments that show that trained meditators can collapse quantum interference patterns by mentally observing the double-slit from another location, for example. There's a lot of good scientific work that's been done that's pretty much confirmed some forms of mind-matter interactions as well as a limited form of precognition/presentiment.

If you're interested, good overviews and discussions of the science can be found in the Google TechTalks by Dean Radin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew) and Rupert Sheldrake (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY).

Don't fall for the mistake of thinking that this type of thing is incompatible with materialism or somehow "supernatural." If it exists, then it is not supernatural and can be described by physics eventually.

[Mather]

Not sure I can buy this,

Don't.


but it is quite interesting.

It really isn't.

I also saw the words "positive thinking" in that article. Positive thinking is the quack psychology equivalent of right-wingers and libertarians telling poor people to pull themselves up from their own bootstraps and that if they are poor, then it is their own fault. It attempts to fool people into thinking that there are no societal or structural causes for their predicament and that they alone have the power to change their own situation.

Positive thinking has been heavily promoted in the US (and now seems to be seeping into Europe) by many employers for obvious reasons.

[Sinister Intents]

I do personally believe that our thoughts and intentions can alter the physical world around us, but that is my belief in the paranormal/supernatural, I will only elaborate via PM on this, not here.

[Marshal of the People]

Someone’s been to crazy town!

[Sinister Intents]

Someone’s been to crazy town!

Is that directed at me?

[Marshal of the People]

Is that directed at me?
No, the man/woman who made the video.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Breaking news: magic isn't real.

[Sinister Intents]

No, the man/woman who made the video.

Ahhhh alright, I was gonna say its not the first time I've been called crazy for the things that I believe haha

[Marshal of the People]

Ahhhh alright, I was gonna say its not the first time I've been called crazy for the things that I believe haha
It is just that it is obvious to viewers that they could have switched the rice when the cameras were off.

[Sinister Intents]

It is just that it is obvious to viewers that they could have switched the rice when the cameras were off.

Indeed, so many different things can be done to prove a point that isn't there. It's like when the marketers make advertisements targeting people perceived inadequacies.

[ckaihatsu]

The Living Matrix - Film on the New Science of Healing (2010) - Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/21432874


THE_LIVING_MATRIX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47WBh--ez_Q


---


Structured Water, The Future of Medicine part 1 - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taBWLJ9mrZQ


Structured Water: Future of Medicine? 3/8 - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiaZ3pFfCfI


Structured Water: Future of Medicine? 5/8 - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVjSKsdRE6U


Structured Water: Future of Medicine? 6/8 - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQme3zISnLI


Structured Water: Future of Medicine? 7/8 - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC1uvR6sMQQ


Structured Water: Future of Medicine? 8/8 - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzptpMiVL1s

[helot]

Structured Water, The Future of Medicine part 1 - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taBWLJ9mrZQ




Come on, homeopathy is fucking bullshit. It's pseudoscience.

[sosolo]

As much as I hate this New Age nonsense, I don't want to write off everything that science doesn't yet understand. A hundred and twenty years (or so) ago, most scientists found the idea of the universe having a beginning as ridiculous nonsense. Nowadays many, if not most, scientists accept the Big Bang.

-sosolo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[helot]

As much as I hate this New Age nonsense, I don't want to write off everything that science doesn't yet understand. A hundred and twenty years (or so) ago, most scientists found the idea of the universe having a beginning as ridiculous nonsense. Nowadays many, if not most, scientists accept the Big Bang.

-sosolo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)


It's not a matter of understanding it's a matter of evidence.

Your analogy is really dishonest. It's not foolish to reject a 'theory' that lacks evidence.

[argeiphontes]

Lots of this stuff is looked at with extreme prejudice rather than the curious skepticism that sosolo was recommending.

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." -- Prof. Jessica Utts, statistician, University of California

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do." -- Richard Wiseman, skeptic, psychologist, University of Hertfordshire

(From Radin's blog at http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/09/skeptic-agrees-that-remote-viewing-is.html)

Whether or not homeopathy works is a subject for empirical investigation. That there is no known mechanism for it working is a different matter. Scientists always think they've reached the end of science, until another revolution comes along.

Anyone interested in the science might want to check out the Google TechTalks I posted above, as well as Radin's group, the Institute of Noetic Sciences: http://noetic.org/research/overview/ . There's also the Society for Scientific Exploration: http://www.scientificexploration.org/ .

As far as I can tell, there is compelling scientific evidence for telepathy, presentiment, and other mind-matter interactions. Telepathy has been shown to work by both ganzfeld experiments and functional MRI. Presentiment by experiments with physiological response to images that will be displayed in the future. The effect sizes (Z) are generally small but the probability of chance results (p) is extremely low. Just because something can't currently be explained, doesn't mean it's not empirically real.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Lots of this stuff is looked at with extreme prejudice rather than the curious skepticism that sosolo was recommending.

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." -- Prof. Jessica Utts, statistician, University of California

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do." -- Richard Wiseman, skeptic, psychologist, University of Hertfordshire

(From Radin's blog at http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/09/skeptic-agrees-that-remote-viewing-is.html)

Whether or not homeopathy works is a subject for empirical investigation. That there is no known mechanism for it working is a different matter. Scientists always think they've reached the end of science, until another revolution comes along.

Anyone interested in the science might want to check out the Google TechTalks I posted above, as well as Radin's group, the Institute of Noetic Sciences: http://noetic.org/research/overview/ . There's also the Society for Scientific Exploration: http://www.scientificexploration.org/ .

As far as I can tell, there is compelling scientific evidence for telepathy, presentiment, and other mind-matter interactions. Telepathy has been shown to work by both ganzfeld experiments and functional MRI. Presentiment by experiments with physiological response to images that will be displayed in the future. The effect sizes (Z) are generally small but the probability of chance results (p) is extremely low. Just because something can't currently be explained, doesn't mean it's not empirically real.

Radin is a fucking quack who selectively quote mines stuff out of context to support his idiotic theories. There is no evidence supporting anything of the shit that Radin is promoting. The fact that he manages to take quotes of a statistician and a psychologist to defend his idea that telepathy/ESP is real is a classic quack method. Whether homoeopathy works has been the subject of empirical research, and there is no doubt that the conclusion is that it does not. Just because a few nutters will misinterpret things or talk out of their arses doesn't mean anything. Subjective interpretations of anecdotal references are irrelevant.

Radin's group is a self-promoting nonsense institute.

[argeiphontes]

Radin is a fucking quack who selectively quote mines stuff out of context to support his idiotic theories. There is no evidence supporting anything of the shit that Radin is promoting. The fact that he manages to take quotes of a statistician and a psychologist to defend his idea that telepathy/ESP is real is a classic quack method. Whether homoeopathy works has been the subject of empirical research, and there is no doubt that the conclusion is that it does not. Just because a few nutters will misinterpret things or talk out of their arses doesn't mean anything. Subjective interpretations of anecdotal references are irrelevant.

Radin's group is a self-promoting nonsense institute.

Well, if you just want to gainsay it, that's your right. But it doesn't really address the statistical significance of the research. You can read the research yourself, which I have no doubt you will not do. Maybe email the statistician and call her a liar?

If you'd bother to check those quotes, they are not taken out of context. Wiseman is really a skeptic.

[Skyhilist]

This "researcher" reminds me of my mother. My mother believes that she can verbally communicate with plants and even mold and that good things happen if you "ask your guardian angels" and "put good thoughts into the universe."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

34% is a shockingly bad performance for supposed "remote viewing", and seems entirely consistent with chance. You wouldn't get those results with any of the scientifically recognised senses under regular conditions.

[Sinister Intents]

34% is a shockingly bad performance for supposed "remote viewing", and seems entirely consistent with chance. You wouldn't get those results with any of the scientifically recognised senses under regular conditions.

I completely agree, but personally I believe remote viewing is possible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That isn't saying much. Pretty much anything that hasn't been ruled out is possible. It's possible that I might find a suitcase stuffed full of unmarked £50 notes, but I'd be foolish to act like that's a likely possibility.

[Sinister Intents]

That isn't saying much. Pretty much anything that hasn't been ruled out is possible. It's possible that I might find a suitcase stuffed full of unmarked £50 notes, but I'd be foolish to act like that's a likely possibility.

Indeed, but this thread is compelling me to attempt remote viewing and other stuff so I can see for myself, my mother is a medium and I've witnessed her do things like this with pretty good accuracy actually, these seem kind too personal so if you want to talk more we'll talk over PM. I have been learning the processes of how to do these things, I'll post things maybe if people are interested in seeing if their is really anything to it.

[Marshal of the People]

Come on, homeopathy is fucking bullshit. It's pseudoscience.
Yes but it does have results. Due to the placebo effect.

[Sinister Intents]

Yes but it does have results. Due to the placebo effect.

Can I give you a reading?

[Marshal of the People]

Can I give you a reading?

Okay;

http://psychology.about.com/od/pindex/f/placebo-effect.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528812.300-evolution-could-explain-the-placebo-effect.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/placebo-effect.htm

If you want more links: https://encrypted.google.com/#q=explanation+of+the+placebo+effect

EDIT: Did you mean you want me to give you links?

[Sinister Intents]

Okay;

http://psychology.about.com/od/pindex/f/placebo-effect.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528812.300-evolution-could-explain-the-placebo-effect.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/placebo-effect.htm

If you want more links: https://encrypted.google.com/#q=explanation+of+the+placebo+effect

EDIT: Did you mean you want me to give you links?

I meant like a spiritual reading for sake of experiment, comrade, not links haha, but I will read those because this fascinates me :)

[Marshal of the People]

I meant like a spiritual reading for sake of experiment, comrade, not links haha, but I will read those because this fascinates me :)
Oops, I just read it too fast and thought you wanted reading materials.

[argeiphontes]

34% is a shockingly bad performance for supposed "remote viewing", and seems entirely consistent with chance. You wouldn't get those results with any of the scientifically recognised senses under regular conditions.

The effect size alone doesn't say anything about whether or not the results are consistent with chance, which also has to do with the number of trials and is reported as the p-value. It is entirely possible for an effect size to be small but the likelihood of a chance result to be extremely small.

Look at this aspirin study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15753114

The reduction in cardovascular risk was 9%, but it is not statistically significant because the p-value is 0.13, meaning that you can expect a chance result of that size 13 out of 100 times the experiment is run. The reduction in risk of stroke was 17%, and this was statistically significant because p=0.04, meaning that only 4 of 100 trials would end this way by chance. The usual standard is p=0.05.

The paper containing Utts' analysis is HERE (https://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf). In section 3.3, she reports the p-value for the experiments at the Stanford Research Institute as < 10^-20. That means that the likelihood of chance is 1 in 10^20 experiments.

That's quite impressive by scientific standards. The effects, though small, are either real or a hoax. There is no requirement that remote viewing give the same accuracy of information as vision for it to be real. You can shrug your shoulders and say it's not that impressive, of course. I still think it's cool and am curious as to how it works.

edit: Also, I don't see how 34% is "shockingly bad". That's just a subjective judgment. If low-dose aspirin would reduce your chance of a second heart attack by 34%, would you take it?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

the Stanford Research Institute

Let's just say that it is no surprise you'd be into that tripe... It sure was a clever thing to name their little quack operation though, gets all gullible people easily convinced by the authority of - supposedly - Stanford. Oh my.

Say, Uri Geller's a legit psi master, isn't he, Mr. Marketsock?

[The Jay]

The effect size alone doesn't say anything about whether or not the results are consistent with chance, which also has to do with the number of trials and is reported as the p-value. It is entirely possible for an effect size to be small but the likelihood of a chance result to be extremely small.

Look at this aspirin study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15753114

The reduction in cardovascular risk was 9%, but it is not statistically significant because the p-value is 0.13, meaning that you can expect a chance result of that size 13 out of 100 times the experiment is run. The reduction in risk of stroke was 17%, and this was statistically significant because p=0.04, meaning that only 4 of 100 trials would end this way by chance. The usual standard is p=0.05.

The paper containing Utts' analysis is HERE (https://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf). In section 3.3, she reports the p-value for the experiments at the Stanford Research Institute as < 10^-20. That means that the likelihood of chance is 1 in 10^20 experiments.

That's quite impressive by scientific standards. The effects, though small, are either real or a hoax. There is no requirement that remote viewing give the same accuracy of information as vision for it to be real. You can shrug your shoulders and say it's not that impressive, of course. I still think it's cool and am curious as to how it works.

edit: Also, I don't see how 34% is "shockingly bad". That's just a subjective judgment. If low-dose aspirin would reduce your chance of a second heart attack by 34%, would you take it?


If you want to be a skeptic you should disbelieve before evidence to the contrary is up, good evidence, which there is not for the BS in this thread.

[argeiphontes]

Say, Uri Geller's a legit psi master, isn't he, Mr. Marketsock?

Uri Geller is a 7th Level Wizard of Psi. Can't get enough of the guy! The avatar of Xenu told me not to trust him though. I'll consult the I-Ching to see who I should believe, it's all up for grabs right now since Bigfoot is silent on the matter.

[argeiphontes]

If you want to be a skeptic you should disbelieve before evidence to the contrary is up, good evidence, which there is not for the BS in this thread.

I did disbelieve. I was heavily into that JREF/Scicop dogma until I started to actually look into it. edit: I'm still skeptical, more skeptical than with "regular" science, but at some point it doesn't do to just gainsay something and jump up and down saying it's impossible using ridiculous arguments that are obviously prejudicial. If the research is correct, then the effect exists. That doesn't mean I accept anything except what the particular research shows, as less generous members of the forum are implying. People are ready to accept dark matter, big crunches, multiple dimensions, etc, but not a small effect that there's actually decent evidence for. We have computers and guided missles so it's suddenly the End of Science? No way...

[helot]

Yes but it does have results. Due to the placebo effect.

lol yeah you're right but most people who rave about homeopathy don't rave about sugar pills.

[argeiphontes]

lol yeah you're right but most people who rave about homeopathy don't rave about sugar pills.

I don't personally think homeopathy is real. But the reasoning here is wrong, as it is in Choms*ky's post above. Just because an effect doesn't work by the means put forth to explain it, doesn't mean that it can't work by other means. You can have 11 theories of gravity, and none of them can be correct, but gravity will still be real.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

edit: Also, I don't see how 34% is "shockingly bad". That's just a subjective judgment. If low-dose aspirin would reduce your chance of a second heart attack by 34%, would you take it?

Then why isn't remote viewing being used by military intelligence? The ability to peek into enemy territory would be genuinely useful.

[TheCommunistManifestor]

seems legit. I am gonna hope for a proletariat revolution

[argeiphontes]

Then why isn't remote viewing being used by military intelligence? The ability to peek into enemy territory would be genuinely useful.

Because it's not good enough, apparently.

[The Jay]

I did disbelieve. I was heavily into that JREF/Scicop dogma until I started to actually look into it. edit: I'm still skeptical, more skeptical than with "regular" science, but at some point it doesn't do to just gainsay something and jump up and down saying it's impossible using ridiculous arguments that are obviously prejudicial. If the research is correct, then the effect exists. That doesn't mean I accept anything except what the particular research shows, as less generous members of the forum are implying. People are ready to accept dark matter, big crunches, multiple dimensions, etc, but not a small effect that there's actually decent evidence for. We have computers and guided missles so it's suddenly the End of Science? No way...

No. The evidence is bullshit and I don't understand why you don't see that.

[argeiphontes]

No. The evidence is bullshit and I don't understand why you don't see that.

I just haven't run across any convincing claims as to why it's bullshit, and I've seen it all by now. Or most of it. IMO, it's either a complicated hoax/scam or its real. I could be mistaken, it could be a hoax. I can't deny that possibility either.