Thread: Love is all that matters

Originally Posted by juroara

All experience is personal. It doesn't matter if you're reading a scientific journal, your experience of the journal, and your understanding of the information being presented to you has been and always will be subjective.

Regardless of whether or not we live in an objective reality, you only ever experience reality subjectively. Why fight your subjective experience by not trusting it? Everyone needs to follow and listen to their own intuition. There is a science to intuition.

I'm not talking about some deep philosophical view of perception and human experience, I'm talking about simple, well-known illusions. Seeing stuff that isn't there, hearing stuff that isn't there, etc. The brain is not a reliable instrument, it always tries to connect the dots and turn shapes into familiar patterns, it is a master of confirmation bias.

Long story short, your senses lie.

Speaking about love. . . . while Emoto hasn't bothered to take his research to the next step, at Heart Math Institute they take the science of the heart and love seriously. And much like Emoto, they have come to more or less the same conclusions. The Heart Math Institute believes we should aim to feel positive emotions, and that our positive emotions have a DIRECT effect on the world around us. In short laymans, their hypothesis is based on the EM field of the heart, the EM field of the brain, and the EM field of planet earth, and the relationships between the three. The earth's fields for example very much resemble our own brain waves (Schumann resonance). Our brain waves are then in turn influenced by the rhythms of our heart.

Global Coherence Initiative Project Videos

YouTube - Science of the Heart

http://www.glcoherence.org/templates...initiative.pdf

de-stress, stress survey, well-being, stress solutions, lower stress, stress management tools, Institute of HeartMath

Intuition Research, Energetics Research, Heart Brain Interactions, Science of Coherence, Institute of HeartMath

The Physics of 'Alternative Medicine'

Originally Posted by mowglycdb

Spartiate: No one is going to believe you if you don't bring facts and proof that this is fake.

mowglycdb: No one is going to believe you if you don't bring facts and prove that this is real.

In science, there is a very simple rule that says that it is up to the person claiming something to explain and prove his reasoning. Otherwise people could make all sorts of ridiculous claims that wouldn't be able to be disproved. For instance, if I told you there was a teapot floating in space, but it was too small to be seen from Earth, would you believe me? How could you disprove me? It's not like you can search all of space.

This is a very old example called Russell's teapot that was originally used against creationists who told atheists it was up to them to disprove god.

If you can't conduct your own experiment and showing the evidence to us, I assume you just want people to use something "you" call common sense so you can feel better about yourself cause you "proved" someone wrong, each person chooses what is true or not, not you. Proving (with out facts) people wrong is totally EGO based.

If I did do the experiment, you would say that I did it wrong, or that my doubt somehow affected the experiment. If we're gonna get into psychology, I'd say that your reluctance to conform with the "established order", preferring to believe in unsubstantiated fringe theories while showing little rationality indicates a need to feel more "special" than others, either to cope with an existence that is not as special as you would have hoped or to fulfill a sense of rebellion against authority.

does that make what you are saying is true????

I said that you don't need evidence to deny something's existence.

I'm denying the existence of the subject of this thread.

So yes.

Originally Posted by juroara

As for HOW it could possibly work, we have to get quantum. Have you heard of the theory of the Field? That's a good place to start.

Gonna repost because I bet you didn't read it:

The Physics of 'Alternative Medicine'

If science should ever conflict with your intuition, you follow your intuition.

Graveyard spiral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol you guys argue forever and get no where

Spartiate, I offered you something that I think is important and genuine. I didn't offer it to argue or debate. If you're not interested, fine. But I'm not continue the conversation with you.

I'm not going to believe in something just because I want it to be true, I can't lie to myself like that.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Graveyard spiral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can testify to the graveyard spiral. It is so freaking weird. It actually does feel exactly like straight and level flight...and then you see the ground and sky twisting erratically outside your window. I've got the personal experience to back this up, too.

But being open minded means you open yourself to a possibility. And I already said, prepared to be wrong. But you could also be right. I hold intuition higher than book smarts. If science should ever conflict with your intuition, you follow your intuition.

The brain is fallible. Senses are inexact. For all we know, there really aren't any universal laws because the entire universe as you know it is a hallucination. But, for the sake of argument, assume it is. It is stable enough, and the most probable explanation. So, assuming this, and taking into account the fallibility of intuition and senses, why is it therefore more reasonable to hold one personally collected experience of a phenomena over a much larger, carefully examined, peer-reviewed collection of experiences?

On the matter of being open-minded: a person can be open to something without believing in it, or believing that it doesn't exist. Could the ice crystal thing be true? Certainly. But the lack of compelling evidence a believable theory does not make.

I used to be skeptic of almost everything and always tried to find ways to debunk things and always asking for a scientific answer but then i realized that i was not trying to debunk anything, i was looking for a way to not believe in what i was asking. Instead of figuring it out myself, i tried to get answers like "no" all the time just so i can no longer believe in it. I'm not saying thi to anyone in this thread, just saying something in this thread. Anyway, i really have no idea how to think or believe in because i'm always changing my thinking all the time.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Ahem...

This is stupid. First of all: mold is not a bacteria, it is a fungus. That is like confusing an elephant with a tree. Second of all: of course if both the jars are kept sterile mold will not grow, no matter what thoughts are projected. The REAL experiment would be to allow the mold spores free access (not sterile) and THEN see if thoughts affect the rice's resistance to mold. That is exactly what Dr. Emoto did. This guy who made two whole videos "debunking" the rice experiment is an idiot and anyone who is fooled by these videos is an idiot. Unfortunately this is the mentality of too many people who value logic and rationality as the only avenue of truth: they just don't get the point to begin with, and they build their whole argument on a false point and draw wrong conclusions from it to support their own bias. Nothing was debunked in these videos. It is like trying to prove that antibiotics don't cure infections like pneumonia by taking two completely healthy people who don't have pneumonia and giving one antibiotics and not giving it to the other. "Antibiotics have the same effect on one person as no antibiotics has on the other if we make sure that none of them have an infection to begin with. Voila! I just debunked antibiotics!"

I would suggest that people who oppose a skeptical mindset are afraid of being wrong. In that they're afraid that something they like to believe will be exposed to themselves as false by a "skeptic" where it would otherwise go unexamined by a less critically minded person.

Apparently skeptics are not as critically minded as they would like to think they are, as I just pointed out. This is the ego, feeling good by being right, when in fact there is no evidence that there is anything debunked in the rice experiment, yet skeptics are "convinced" that it isn't real. Show me the critical thinking that lead to the assumption that the rice experiment is false. Or is it just a bias? I will admit that I am biased to agree with Mr. Emoto, and at least he did an experiment. I even did the same experiment as a child but with bean sprouts.

What specifically requires more examination?

Well, Mr. Emoto has done a rice experiment that apparently proves a hypothesis. If you disagree with the results, then you need to examine further. Why do you disagree? Did he do the experiment wrong? No, he didn't. The guy who sterilized the jars and the rice did it wrong. His own self-importance got the best of him and he ended up looking like an asshole.


Now I know how to make Sake! Just love the rice.

So what is the claim, then? Thought's don't magically manifest mold but they can magically entice it to grow, but only under conditions in which it could have grown by itself anyway?

Not sure how "looking like an asshole" equates to "doing the experiment wrong." I think Mr. Emoto needs to repeat the experiment, except the two jars need to be sterilized, filled, and setup by someone who is a real scientist. If he is among the 1% of people who do these things who aren't quacks, then he needs to set himself apart by setting experimental conditions that prevent all the obvious quackery that can take place.

Same goes for that ice crystallization thing. Any random container of water that you freeze will have patterns that are both "nice and symmetrical" and "ugly and demonic" so once again, he fails to impress anyone, by leaving too much room for potential quackery.

I'm not saying he's not for real. I'm just saying he fails to do his experiments in conditions that are convincing enough to set him apart from all the quacks, regardless of whether or not he really is one.

I don't know about the water crystals, but the rice experiment is fine. You need the rice to be exposed to the air, to see which one ferments, which one molds, and which one rots. You can do the rice experiment yourself and see for yourself. I am going to make some amasake and some sake. I will start this tomorrow. I am not going to do it as an experiment, I am going to do it just to make some sake. I will post the results here.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I don't know about the water crystals, but the rice experiment is fine. You need the rice to be exposed to the air, to see which one ferments, which one molds, and which one rots. You can do the rice experiment yourself and see for yourself. I am going to make some amasake and some sake. I will start this tomorrow. I am not going to do it as an experiment, I am going to do it just to make some sake. I will post the results here.

you also need to remove as many variables as humanly possible. That includes sterilizing the jars to remove any chance of preexisting mold spores, bacteria, dirt, or whatever that could have any conceivable impact on the final outcome of the experiment. The jars must receive identical moisture, light, and air circulation. They cannot influence one another, or be significantly influenced by nonidentical environmental conditions. Assuming you have success, you must be able to repeat it, over and over, in a laboratory setting. The paper will be peer-reviewed, tested, and retested using similar but different experiments designed to further reduce environmental variables. If finally the very last variable is human thought, and it is found that this variable has significant and reliable impact, then you have finally proven the incredible as best you can within our collective body of knowledge. Congratulations. You've just proven your hypothesis to the entire scientific community, where it will stand as theory until someone either proves it false, finds and interprets the true meaning of the theory and the data collected, or proposes and proves an alternative hypothesis.

^Do this, then we talk.

Sterilization is not necessary. All that is necessary is that all three jars be treated in the same manner, except for the tested variable, and that many trials be done. Either way, you didn't read very thoroughly; he said that he just wanted to make some sake. Why don't you perform the experiment, Mario?

I hope I get this right, because memory too is often fallible .
I seem to recall an episode of Myth Busters where they exposed plants to different types of music and speech.
The plants that were vocally interacted with did better. One train of thought (perhaps it was just my own and not in the show) was that perhaps the plant was responding- not to the energy necessarily- but to whatever it is we breathe out (carbon monoxide/dioxide? I can never keep it straight).

I'm skeptic about printed words having any effect on anything in the experiments. I'm open to the belief that our projected emotions can be implanted on other living things. So, I can believe- without doubt- in the validity of the rice experiment. But the crystal one, not so much. I don't think there's any inherent "power" in words alone but in the emotions behind them. Anyone who has had a dog can understand that. "Who's a stupid dog? You are! Why are you so lazy and .........." If said in a loving, upbeat voice, the dog will wag its tail, jump, kiss you etc. If you say them cruelly, it will lower its head, whine, shrink away.


As for making Sake, lol. I wish I was brave enough to try my hand at it, but the whole process of fermentation confuses and scares me. Whose to say I just wont end up poisoning myself

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Sterilization is not necessary. All that is necessary is that all three jars be treated in the same manner, except for the tested variable, and that many trials be done. Either way, you didn't read very thoroughly; he said that he just wanted to make some sake. Why don't you perform the experiment, Mario?

Without sterilizing, one jar could be full of bacteria/fungi before starting the experiment and the other could be relatively clean, there would be no way of knowing.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Without sterilizing, one jar could be full of bacteria/fungi before starting the experiment and the other could be relatively clean, there would be no way of knowing.

Hmm... the extreme circumstance of one jar inexplicably being full of bacteria while the two other identically treated jars remain clean would be insignificant after a sufficient number of trials, especially since there would be equal chance that the positive intention jar, negative intention jar, and control jar would be contaminated by something.

This reminds me of a story I read somewhere a long time ago. I don't even know if it's a true story or not, or where I heard it.

This guy, living in a rather cold environment, would routinely go to the store to buy ice cream. He sometimes got chocolate, and sometimes got vanilla. Strangely, whenever he got chocolate, his car wouldn't start. After noticing this odd fact, he tried eliminating variables, one at a time. Still, he could repeat the result over and over, with enough consistency that it was more than just random. In fact, the more he made it consistent, and the more variables he eliminated, the more consistently would he get the result (vanilla --> car starts... chocolate --> the car fails to start).

It eventually turned out that the last variable had directly to do with the choice of ice cream. The two flavours were at different locations in the store. With all else being equal, the extra time it took to get one was enough time that the car would cool a bit more, and cause it to go over the threshold of not starting.

Or something like that hehe.

I don't understand how thats related to this but thats an interesting story!

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Why don't you perform the experiment, Mario?

Because as much fun as watching rice mold is, I have better things to do. Also take into consideration my inherent skeptical nature (read: experiment bias), as well as the difficulty of any results I obtain being taken seriously by anyone, and it's pretty clear that I'm not anywhere close to being an ideal person to conduct this experiment.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Because as much fun as watching rice mold is, I have better things to do. Also take into consideration my inherent skeptical nature (read: experiment bias), as well as the difficulty of any results I obtain being taken seriously by anyone, and it's pretty clear that I'm not anywhere close to being an ideal person to conduct this experiment.

The only person that you would need to convince is yourself. Who is more ideal for that task? Isn't that what science is all about; everyone having the opportunity to see for themselves and know what is true and what is not?

I got some organic white basmati rice soaking in a glass bowl of spring water. I blessed it and let myself feel love for it. We will see. I just hope that it doesn't go and sprout on me.

Edit: Actually, I think that the enzymes and chemical reactions involved in sprouting may be the catalyst for fermentation. During the sprouting stage, starches are converted into sugars, which can be digested by yeasts (a type of fungi) to form alcohol. I will start a second bowl in a minute because I realized that I want some amasake and some sake. The amasake is the first stage when the rice water becomes a sweet syrup! Yum! Then the sugars become the alcohol in the sake. Here we go.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The only person that you would need to convince is yourself. Who is more ideal for that task? Isn't that what science is all about; everyone having the opportunity to see for themselves and know what is true and what is not?

The problem is that to convince myself this holds water, I'd need to repeat it reliably and with as few variables removed as possible. Even then, there is always the possibility of some other variable I hadn't considered affecting the outcomes of my experiments. A negative result would prove little, as it could easily be my own personal bias, and a positive result would likewise mean little. No, I prefer to leave this to the professionals with laboratory-grade equipment before wasting some perfectly good rice.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Hmm... the extreme circumstance of one jar inexplicably being full of bacteria while the two other identically treated jars remain clean would be insignificant after a sufficient number of trials, especially since there would be equal chance that the positive intention jar, negative intention jar, and control jar would be contaminated by something.

I agree with this 100%. To the others who want to sterilize all the jars, well, mold can't magically sprout where there was none before. It's akin to sticking someone with a failing immune system in a sanitized, sterilized room. No matter how bad their immune system gets, they should in theory remain healthy. Therefore, you can't simply leave that person in the chamber for a week and then declare he has a healthy immune system again. It's simply not the proper way of testing that.

Before anyone asks, I would gladly conduct this experiment myself, but I currently live in a college campus. I don't think the janitors (or my roommate) would be very happy with rotting rice being left around. There's also the issue of how I would boil rice when they barely let us have microwaves.

Originally Posted by Singularity125

I agree with this 100%. To the others who want to sterilize all the jars, well, mold can't magically sprout where there was none before. It's akin to sticking someone with a failing immune system in a sanitized, sterilized room. No matter how bad their immune system gets, they should in theory remain healthy. Therefore, you can't simply leave that person in the chamber for a week and then declare he has a healthy immune system again. It's simply not the proper way of testing that.

Oh god the fail.

The idea behind sterilizing the jars is not to inhibit bacterial or fungal growth, but to remove the possibility of existing contaminants affecting the final outcome of the experiment. If you wanted to further reduce the influence of environmental variables, you could go as far as to "seed" each jar with the same amount of the same kind of fungus taken from the same lab-grown fungal culture. Otherwise, you're playing a game of probability.

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

I don't understand how thats related to this but thats an interesting story!

We were talking about repeatable macro experiments with weird results, and how hard it is to really eliminate all variables that matter.