Thread: The Power of Perception and Intention

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

I expect nothing less from the biggest fomenter of negativity on DV...

Negativity is the cult of the weak.

Negativity is the cult of the weak

Atleast I don't quote mine Max Planck.

I expect nothing less from the biggest fomenter of negativity on DV...

My point still stands, you see yourself a rejection of TV and other forms of stuff that you label negative. However, instead of forming your own ideas you take stuff from self help guru and start quote mining real scientist.

Originally Posted by wendylove

My point still stands ...

Does it, now?

If you actually had a valid point to stand on you'd be standing not sinking...

I suggest taking the time to look beneath your feet...

Stop sinking in the swamp of sadness...

It's quite simple...

All you need to do is stop thinking so hopelessly and critically...

The first video in the OP's post.. About plant communication.... Would anyone happen to know which scientific journal this was posted in? Or at least what television program aired that information? I find it absolutely remarkable. It would mean proof even for telepathy, let alone the fact that plant life possesses consciousness. There's far too much to gain from this, and nothing to lose.

You're looking for Cleve Backster and his work. But Sir Jagadis Chundra Bose researched it about a hundred years ago. Mr. Theroux has conducted a series of plant sensitivity experiments also.

http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/...h/plantsas.htm

You might want to get hold of the book or documentary 'The Secret Life Of Plants'. That was an except from Cyclic13 you watched.

Would anyone happen to know which scientific journal this was posted in?

I'm pretty sure that is not in any peer reviewed scientific journal.

I would watch the myth buster episode when they recreated Backsters experiment and showed it to be wrong.

Does it, now?

Yes it does. You can quote Einstein, however that doesn't make you Einstein.

Originally Posted by wendylove

I would watch the myth buster episode

It's not just Backster that has done this the work is there to be done and recorded, and the results so far are worthy of even more study. While myth busters is entertainment for children but also trying to convince them of stuff that isn't true. For example magnetic propulsion they purposefully mislead people among other things. At a 5th grade level it has to be entertaining enough to hold the attention span of someone with a fair amount of sugar in their system. So a few explosions and silly experiments try and capture the imagination of a twit.

The last episode I saw they were testing if a firefighting helicopter could pick up a scuba diver from the ocean and drop him into the forest by accident. They went to a lot of trouble and then that myth was busted. Not that it mattered.

I expect nothing less from the biggest fomenter of negativity on DV...

Me? I'm not really sure who this thread was referring to, but I'll respond anyway.

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

However, I beg one to show me how it does anything more than simply providing one with a temporary mask to wear and some water cooler talk where they stagnate, wade, and wallow in the casting of judgement onto others from their point in infinity...

If you never do anything with that knowledge, then no, it isn't useful for much. Well, I'd actually disagree with that since I think understanding the world is something worthwhile in itself, and reading and becoming aware of the events surrounding you certainly help in that regard. You don't need to form any opinions at all, save a dynamic set of theories on the various points of interest. They're pieces in the puzzle, and although they can tend to be distorted, they still have their place. I'll take any pieces I can find, and these are just set out there for the taking, although they require a good bit of thought and consideration of course.

But, beyond pure intellectual curiosity, the information gained can be used to alter the course of events. I do enjoy a detached view of the world, but also I like to be active, and in this sense knowing what's happening is a prerequisite to being an intelligent actor. Now, of course, you can argue that it's a single perspective, but it's still a perspective, and there's no way of really knowing which perspective is right, if there even is such a thing as a "correct perspective" (I guess that would be the sum of all perspectives, if such a limit exists). Regardless, knowledge is needed before action.

I would say the real negativity is assuming that the only point in keeping up on the news is to discuss it.

Anything you experience through third party sources will most likely never affect you directly or positively, anyway...

Well, I would disagree with that, as my personal experience has been different.

Chances are it will stop you dead in your tracks from whatever you were thinking of doing long enough to drag you down with the negativity of decay that surrounds all life on earth ever so slightly where your intention or hope gets drained just a little more...

The loss of hope is a personal problem. The news can certainly be a hurdle in terms of hope, but if that hope is never put to the test, like all untested things, one must question its real worth. Not to mention there is actually positive news in the world. It can all be quite positive with the right mindset.

It's only ever there to allow one to wade in pools of stagnation and self-deprecation...

Well, I'd say I've grown personally quite a bit regardless of my news watching.

I understand that not seeing things with your own eyes is an issue, but then again there's a lot you just don't get a chance to see. At least with the news you can hear about it.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

It's not just Backster that has done this the work is there to be done and recorded, and the results so far are worthy of even more study. While myth busters is entertainment for children but also trying to convince them of stuff that isn't true. For example magnetic propulsion they purposefully mislead people among other things. At a 5th grade level it has to be entertaining enough to hold the attention span of someone with a fair amount of sugar in their system. So a few explosions and silly experiments try and capture the imagination of a twit.

I would say Minervas hit it on the head: Mythbusters is pop science, junk science, not really science. It's not a credible source for anything save entertainment.

Mythbusters is pop science, junk science, not really science. It's not a credible source for anything save entertainment.

I think Feynman would disagree http://xkcd.com/397/
the point is there are showing what the spirit of science is. Which, is good.

It's not just Backster that has done this the work is there to be done and recorded, and the results so far are worthy of even more study.

Backster is just a new age quack. He hasen't published in any peer reviewed scienctific journals.

Backster's claims were refuted by Horowitz, Lewis, and Gasteiger (1975) and Kmetz (1977). Kmetz summarized the case against Backster in an article for the Skeptical Inquirer in 1978. Backster had not used proper controls in doing his study. When controls were used, no detection of plant reaction to thoughts or threats could be found. These researchers found that the cause of the polygraph contours could have been due to a number of factors, including static electricity, movement in the room, changes in humidity, etc.

http://www.skepdic.com/plants.html

Backster is wrong. Atleast Mythbuster actually use the Scienctific method.

Do the experiment yourself and you will see. But you would get upset at the instruments and debunk them. Like I already said many have done it with the same results. The documentary on it is a good place to start. Not the skeptic dictionary which will debunk anything.

Originally Posted by skepdic

http://www.skepdic.com/

This distorted index has little credibility look what it says about UFOs which are already proven.

Originally Posted by http://www.skepdic.com/

There are as many photographs of UFOs as there are of the Loch Ness Monster

Originally Posted by Skeptic.com on UFOs

It is the product of the creative imagination. It serves a poetic and existential function

Originally Posted by skeptic.com on UFOs

there is no physical evidence in support of either a UFO flyby or landing.

For one thing released footage of UFOs by the Mexican military which tracked them on radar say they chased them.

This index also attacks subjects like astrology, alchemy, Transcendental Meditation, the unconscious mind, hypnosis. And distorts subjects like science, memory, psychology and more.

It has all the important subjects listed except it attacks them all. What a surprise. Those that it doesn't attack it distorts the meaning of.

Originally Posted by wendy

the point is [they] are showing [mythbusters] what the spirit of science is. Which, is good.

Wendy this is not the spirit of science. This is the spirit of insanity.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Reality: That which exists independent of the observing person.



TL;DR for this thread


[Insert quotes by random scientists and other smart people here]

Click me

Best post over.





I seem some more bit of that Australian program. Real funny, true, and putting bullshit to the test.



Anyhow. Seriously, some people need to lay off the new-age nonsense and read some books about evolution, science, sociology, psychology and be a bit more self-reflective about how wrong they might just be with the amount of evidence (an amount you can't divide by) they actually have.

(You can't divide by zero, lol)

Now that is funny.

Books books books, and new age nonsense.

Originally Posted by wendylove

I think Feynman would disagree http://xkcd.com/397/
the point is there are showing what the spirit of science is. Which, is good.

The spirit of science is to approach everything with absolutely no sincerity? To try to answer complex questions with poor experiment design and no real rigor? It does teach the spirit of bad science, something we have far too much of. I have no respect for the show because of that.

Why would Feynman agree? There's a difference between injecting humor into science and subverting science with humorously bad experiments on cultural myths.

Humor is always subversive. You have to ask yourself what is the target of that subversion in Mythbusters. I'll give you a head start: the two "scientists" running the show are Hollywood special effects artists.

This man, Wayne Dyer, is incredibly wise.

Also, I just finished watching the Science of Intention Pt.1. They were talking about the placebo effect but they failed to mention that it's just a band-aid. Also they failed to mention that it works - and this is why any drug works - is that we already have these receptrors in our brain and subsequently, the respective substances.

Positive thinking cannot alter the outcome of an event; however, a consistently coherent positive attitude results in the positive perception of any event - that is, subjectively one may well appear to alter the outcome of an event, but objectively the only thing one actually alters is him/herself.

Originally Posted by Quark

Positive thinking cannot alter the outcome of an event; however, a consistently coherent positive attitude results in the positive perception of any event - that is, subjectively one may well appear to alter the outcome of an event, but objectively the only thing one actually alters is him/herself.

Some of this is true, but overall I think you'd be surprised. We live in a unified universe, and what we hold in mind tends to manifest. Contrary to popular belief, this has nothing to do with causality, but the nature of consciousness itself.