Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot  Scott suggests that there may be such a thing as "objective reality", but that "objective reality" is far more complex than what our five senses suggest it to be. There is a very limited range in which our senses can receive input, and it is this limited input that our brain processes into what we perceive as "objective reality". |
Sounds similar to what Kant said. Someone else probably said it before him too
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot (Of course the fact that you cannot, through your normal senses, perceive those processes also does not mean that those processes are happening - but here, as Scott commonsensically says, all you have to do is to experiment with LOA and you'll see the effects for yourself when they translate into effects perceptible within your normal range of sensory perception - eg the new job, the extra money, the good health or whatever else you are manifesting for). |
While it's quite true that processes we can't observe may be occurring, it doesn't help to understand those processes to simply call it common sense that the effect is linked to the apparent cause. Though arguably that
is "common" sense, in terms of being common, but not in terms of being accurate. It's the good old correlation vs. causation misunderstanding.
Also, if effects translate from something imperceptible into something we can percieve, isn't it reasonable to expect that we can observe them as they become perceptible? I.e., if something changes from immaterial to material, we should be able to observe that transition, or at least the latter half.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot Also your understanding of the experiment is wrong. The control samples were not in Tokyo. The controls were also in the US, but in a different location. |
Ahh yes. None the less the same questions apply. Were the conditions identical?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot Oh, Radin was much more ambitious than you. He was not merely content to show that the thoughts affected the shape of the crystals. His experiment showed that positive thoughts affected the shape of the crystals in an aesthetically pleasing way. |
Of course. I was only referring to part of the experimental setup which would confirm that the differences between the treated samples and the controls were in fact due to the treatment, and not to differences in the environmental conditions etc. I.e., if samples were taken from both the treatment room and the control room, and were judged (by the same process as for the treatment trial) for aesthetic appeal, and a statistically significant effect was also found, it would clearly demonstrate that the effect that was found was not due to the positive thoughts directed at the water during the treatment trial.
All of that
on top of the rest of the experiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot For those who forgot their statistics in high school, this means that there is only a 0.01 per cent chance that the survey conclusion was a fluke. |
Even better than that. 0.001% according to
Dean's blog. Interesting stuff, and I hope someone gets the funding to attempt to replicate it (and study
how the effect occurs).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot IF you subscribe to the quantum entanglement theory, it DOES mean that every electron moving in my brain as I think thoughts is simultaneously influencing EVERY subatomic particle which each of those electrons has EVER collided with, REGARDLESS of when this collision took place and WHERE in the universe each of those subatomic particles currently is.
I think my above statement is quite precise btw. It sounds pretty awesome, but that's quantum physics for you. |
Right. Different interpretations of the phrase "clearly indicates." I took it to mean "has demonstrated conclusively" rather than "predicts"