Thread: Thoughts Affect Water

Currently Living in Japan, I've seen those books about the water crystals many times. I think it's pretty cool, but not all too surprising.

It's kind of like the idea in quantum physics of the sub-atomic particles that make up our reality which are collapsed by waves of probability simply by the act of observation.

Originally Posted by M

Yes they do. As Seeker said, your brain is composed of water, so thinking must affect water.

Ouch. Burned.
[/b]

Um... don't be so sure. Just because the brain is made from water, and thoughts are "made" in the brain, doesn't mean it has anything to do with the water.

Rather the basic component of thought are voltage changes in the cells and electronic signals between the synapses of neurons. Water is a medium for the carriage of these signals, yes, but water need not be (and IS not) affected by these "thoughts" other than conducting the electricity. Anyway "throughts" are abstract; only thing real is the electrical machanisms behind them.

The Japanese scientist has only produced anecdotal evidence based on subjective interpretations. He has not "proved" anything, rather he has reaffirmed my disgust of most pseudosciences.

By adherence to the scientific method, I hereby declare: Water is not affected by thoughts.

Really, you guys should think more clearly before you say anything is "proved", that something is "true", that you are "right", and that the sane are "wrong".

Originally Posted by Eonnn

hmm seems there are a lot of non-believers... this is true guys... its actually proven by science that thoughts affect water...
[/b]

Like I said before, the guys running this experiment outright ignored ALL of the basic tenets of the scientific method.
They have not isolated their variables, therefore you CANNOT definitively say that thoughts caused those crystals.
As a matter of fact, I KNOW thoughts did not cause those crystals--because they exactly match an already known phenomenon called a STANDING WAVE.
Standing waves are caused by sound/vibrations, and since this guy hasn't isolated the water from its surrounding environment, it's a pathetic flight of fancy to say that thoughts created those patterns.
The whole thing is ridiculous and laughable, really.

Originally Posted by Tsen

As a matter of fact, I KNOW thoughts did not cause those crystals--because they exactly match an already known phenomenon called a STANDING WAVE.
[/b]

Can you post some links to where I can compare the "thought" crystals to crystals created by a standing wave?

I'm trying to find a decent picture for ya' O.
In the meantime, further reasons why the claim is bogus

Originally Posted by Tsen

I'm trying to find a decent picture for ya' O.
In the meantime, further reasons why the claim is bogus
[/b]

While that puts severe skepticism in my mind, and shows that his work is inconclusive at best, I don't think you can dismiss this guy as wrong yet, as no one has (to my knowledge), disproved it in a double blind study which isolates variables. There is a lot of reason to believe that it is bogus, but just as he doesn't have scientifically verifiable conclusive evidence, people who say it is wrong don't either to my knowledge. I would like to see a side-by-side of it with standing waves though, as that would be a better convincer for me. As the saying goes, seeing is believing.

In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto.[7] Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist,[8] and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.[9] Emoto says that he selects the photos that he wishes for consistency [citation needed]. This is an explicit admission of observer bias.[/b]

So he's not a scientist (not being scientific), he actually admits to having observer bias in his tests quite cheerfully, and he doesn't actually use double blind tests and would rather the photos that "looked nice" went up? Nice one.

Um... don't be so sure. Just because the brain is made from water, and thoughts are "made" in the brain, doesn't mean it has anything to do with the water.

Rather the basic component of thought are voltage changes in the cells and electronic signals between the synapses of neurons. Water is a medium for the carriage of these signals, yes, but water need not be (and IS not) affected by these "thoughts" other than conducting the electricity. Anyway "throughts" are abstract; only thing real is the electrical machanisms behind them.

The Japanese scientist has only produced anecdotal evidence based on subjective interpretations. He has not "proved" anything, rather he has reaffirmed my disgust of most pseudosciences.

By adherence to the scientific method, I hereby declare: Water is not affected by thoughts.

Really, you guys should think more clearly before you say anything is "proved", that something is "true", that you are "right", and that the sane are "wrong".[/b]

rofl.

Originally Posted by Eonnn

hmm seems there are a lot of non-believers... this is true guys... its actually proven by science that thoughts affect water... watch the following:

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid...=water+crystals

skip to about 3:30 minutes
[/b]

That's actually a good movie. Though the science behind it may be flawed, as was stated, the message it carries is a powerful one.

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

So he's not a scientist (not being scientific), he actually admits to having observer bias in his tests quite cheerfully, and he doesn't actually use double blind tests and would rather the photos that "looked nice" went up? Nice one.
[/b]

Wait, he picks photos that are consistent? Like, he picks the ones that fit his hypothesis; 'they will look pretty if something nice is done, nasty if something mean is done'? Doesn't that defy the whole point in what he's trying to prove?

Doesn't that defy the whole point in what he's trying to prove?[/b]

Exactly.

Yes. At the very least scientifically.

Hrmm..

i personally think this is all bull.

Originally Posted by PenguinLord13

While that puts severe skepticism in my mind, and shows that his work is inconclusive at best, I don't think you can dismiss this guy as wrong yet, as no one has (to my knowledge), disproved it in a double blind study which isolates variables. There is a lot of reason to believe that it is bogus, but just as he doesn't have scientifically verifiable conclusive evidence, people who say it is wrong don't either to my knowledge.
[/b]

As much as I agree with this (and I do)....

In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto.[7] Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist,[8] and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.[9] Emoto says that he selects the photos that he wishes for consistency [citation needed]. This is an explicit admission of observer bias.[/b]

That (assuming, so far, that it's true) puts a huge dent in the claim.

Alone, it's not enough to unequivocally "prove" the claim false, to me, but the scales have tipped.

Ok, biology 101:

Water is not an active component in the transmission of data in the human nervous system (this includes the brain). This means that it is not water which is 'conducting' the changes in voltage, nor is it water which is setting these changes up.

The charges are set up either side on a neurone's membrane due to the distribution of charged particles - namely Na+ (sodium) ions (outside the cell) and K+ (potassium) ions (inside and outside of the cell) through the presence of cation pumps and K+ channels in the membrane. When the neurone receives a stimulus the charges either side of the membrane flip, sending an impulse down the length of the neurone like so:


++++----------------------------+++++++++++++++++++++
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::<[membrane]
-------+++++++++++++++--------------------------------------

direction of impulse --&#62;
_____________/&#092;_____________________________________

After an impulse has passed the charge builds up again ready for the next set of information.

Different frequencies of impulses equate to different meanings to be interpreted by the relevant part/s of the brain.

Throughout this whole process the water is there purely as a suspensory medium for the ions.

So unless this scientist is physically able to fire Na+ particles from the neuones in his brain at the water while it crystallizes (without the ions reacting with other particles in the air and therefore aquiring a neutral charge) then there is no conceivable way that he could be altering their shape with his thoughts.

Rant over.

PS. This stuff is taught to 17-18 year old biology students.

Originally Posted by Lemonsoul

PS. This stuff is taught to 17-18 year old biology students. [/b]

No, you are wrong.

The argument is rock solid.

A) Words are made in the brain

B) The brain is made of water

C) Words must affect water.

A much simpler way to have put it would&#39;ve been that "the water in your brain has nothing to do with the thoughts" (and you don&#39;t really need to be a Biology student to figure that one out, do you?), because apparently they don&#39;t need scientific grounding to believe that water affects thoughts so we don&#39;t need scientific grounding for retaliatory statements either.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

No, you are wrong.

The argument is rock solid.

A) Words are made in the brain (1)

B) The brain is made of water X

C) Words must affect water. X
[/b]

It would be nice if it were that simple, but:

A) Words are made in the brain

B) The brain is made out of proteins and houses various minerals and ions which are merely &#39;supported/suspended&#39; by water so that it does not collapse in on itself like a bouncy castle with it&#39;s air cut off.

C) Therefore words cannot effect water.

Saying that water has anything to do with a thought process is like saying that the walls inside the White House could run the country.

Saying that water has anything to do with a thought process is like saying that the walls inside the White House could run the country.[/b]

Well, they might do a better job.

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

Well, they might do a better job.
[/b]

Might? With the Bush-Cheyney government in power my shoe could do a better job.

Originally Posted by Lemonsoul

It would be nice if it were that simple, but:

A) Words are made in the brain

B) The brain is made out of proteins and houses various minerals and ions which are merely &#39;supported/suspended&#39; by water so that it does not collapse in on itself like a bouncy castle with it&#39;s air cut off.

C) Therefore words cannot effect water.

Saying that water has anything to do with a thought process is like saying that the walls inside the White House could run the country. [/b]

Notice I was kidding, thus how ridiculous my "argument" was. I was simply mocking the "logic" that the other people used.

If you really wanna start going that literal, then you might as well say that taking a walk affects the movement of the trees around you, due to air currents and your gravitational pull.

But then that would be just as insane.

The reason nobody has disproved this is because no respectable scientist would waste their time (or money) with silly subjects such as this, or basically any other area of psionics.

Originally Posted by PenguinLord13

Might? With the Bush-Cheyney government in power my shoe could do a better job.
[/b]

Wouldn&#39;t be able to comment, what with being English and not knowing a lot about American politics outside of Blair being Bush&#39;s little puppet on a string, but I fear that me previous analogy may not have put the intended point across if this is how you feel .

Originally Posted by PenguinLord13

Notice I was kidding, thus how ridiculous my "argument" was. I was simply mocking the "logic" that the other people used.
[/b]

As for that I&#39;m sorry, but you can undersatnd me not picking up on the sarcasm since that seems to be a pretty accurately condensed form of the original argument.

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

Well, they might do a better job.
[/b]

ROFL
I like your sense of humour