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

[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

[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

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/2009/0...iewing-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/2009/0...iewing-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/pinde...ebo-effect.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...bo-effect.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/lif...ebo-effect.htm

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

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

[Sinister Intents]

Okay;

http://psychology.about.com/od/pinde...ebo-effect.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...bo-effect.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/lif...ebo-effect.htm

If you want more links: https://encrypted.google.com/#q=expl...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. 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?