The Science behind Intention-Manifestation.

[HumbleBeginnings]

From what I've heard of science in intention-manifestation, it seemed to revolve around the quantum field and the natural energy of the universe.

Who else has heard similar?

By the way, ActinglikeGodot? That water crystal research - does anyone know of this? It's extremely interesting. Masaru Emoto is the author of quite a few books on the subject. I've read "Hidden Messages in Water" and "The True Power of Water". Very cool stuff.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by HumbleBeginnings

That water crystal research - does anyone know of this? It's extremely interesting. Masaru Emoto is the author of quite a few books on the subject. I've read "Hidden Messages in Water" and "The True Power of Water". Very cool stuff.

Before you're becoming too enthusiastic, I suggest you read the Wikipedia article about Masaru Emoto.
Here are two extracts:

Emoto graduated from Yokohama Municipal University with courses in International Relations, and in 1992 he received certification as a Doctor of Alternative Medicine from The Open International University for Alternative Medicine in India, an unaccredited institute with minimal academic requirements.

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. Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist, and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs. This is an implicit admission of confirmation bias.

James Randi, founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation, has publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.

[Acting Like Godot]

Basically you're attacking his academic credentials, not his experimental results. Poor Masaru.

If it's any comfort, I guess Thomas Edison would have received even more flak in his day. After all, Masaru beats Thomas Edison hands-down as far as academic credentials are concerned.

Nevertheless, even if Masaru had impeccable academic qualifications, he would still get flak. After all, Fred Alan Wolf has PhDs in Theoretical Physics from world-renowned universities but still gets flak for his views on IM.

Use your brain .... And look at the pictures.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Basically you're attacking his academic credentials, not his experimental results.

It seems you didn't read the last quote of my previous post:

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. Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist, and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs. This is an implicit admission of confirmation bias.

James Randi, founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation, has publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.

(emphasis in blue text of mine)

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Use your brain .... And look at the pictures.

I would add: never forget to use a healthy dose of common sense.

[Acting Like Godot]

Basically they select the photos that show the water crystals best.

In a sense, it's like a wildlife researcher who goes to the forest, takes hundreds of pictures of birds, and then selects the best photos, those which show most clearly the plumage, the feathers etc.

[Frans]

Apparently, not only the quality of the photo, but also the creativity of the photographer is important:

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.

How do you interpret that, Acting Like Godot?

[Hilary]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Basically they select the photos that show the water crystals best.

In a sense, it's like a wildlife researcher who goes to the forest, takes hundreds of pictures of birds, and then selects the best photos, those which show most clearly the plumage, the feathers etc.

It's not just a question of which photograph of the same crystal they select. It's a question of which crystal from a sample they choose to photograph. Is there any reason to suppose that the crystals in a single sample all look alike?

[Acting Like Godot]

I don't know. I haven't actually bothered to read his books. Have you?

[Hilary]

Absolutely. Exactly. Agreeing with you all the way. So then you ask - has this experiment actually proven that thought alters the molecular structure of water?

And with the best will in the world (and speaking as someone whose living relies on miracles happening every day), I can't see that it has. Just logically speaking - you've got to see images of every crystal in the sample to discover whether the differences are consistent. Or at the very least, you've got to see a random sampling of a good few, not just one. Otherwise, on the same logic I could prove that living in Oxfordshire makes all cats black and white.

This seems so weirdly obvious to anyone with a logical mind that it's hard to believe Dr Emoto hasn't thought of it. Naturally he'd choose the best-looking crystals for popular books, but somewhere there should be thousands of photographs available for comparison. I really hope there are. Anyone?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by HumbleBeginnings

From what I've heard of science in intention-manifestation, it seemed to revolve around the quantum field and the natural energy of the universe.

Who else has heard similar?

Absolutely.
I'll just add a very intelligent statement is:

The universe mirrors your beliefs. (From that book I'm reading "Before you think another thought."

[infinitethoughts]

Frans as far his credentials you're nitpicking.

Emoto's "sub standard" and "atrocious" credentials have no bearing on his discovery.
I don't give a rats ass if he didn't finish Jr. High

The discovery is what's important.

Did he weed thru thousands and thousands of pics to fit his "agenda"?

I don't know. I wasn't there.

There's such a thing as "first impressions". They exist and it works.

My first impression, or intuiton was this guys onto something. Is he thetype of guy looking for a quick buck or fame.
My "first impression" is no.

So everything I know about this universe tells me, (telepathy exists, remote viewing exists, the observer effect in quantum physics, etc, etc, etc.)
Yes, at the molecular level, thought can affect water makes sense.

Before I get strung up and hog tied, NO this is not a scientific assumption.
This is my personal view.

NOTE: I reread my original post and decided to change it, and Frans must have been answering my old post.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

The fact remains that Emoto, stumbled upon something major. Everyone agrees on this. If you don't agree with this, that's fine. Your opinion. A strange one....but yours nevertheless.

No amount of nitpicking will "remove" or "discount" this discovery.

I'm not attacking anybody, I'm not nitpicking, I only provide information.

Mind you, the quotes I offered are not MY words, they come from Wikipedia.
What will be your next reply? Saying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Frans

I'm not attacking anybody, I'm not nitpicking, I only provide information.

Mind you, the quotes I offered are not MY words, they come from Wikipedia.
What will be your next reply? Saying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source?

My next reply is so simple it's mind boogling.

You. YOU are the one that brought this up.

Wikipedia didn't magically put the post here.

So yeah. You ARE nitpicking.

[Hilary]

FWIW, I was glad of the link to Wikipedia and the opportunity to follow further links from there. I find the world tends to get more exciting with more robust information, so I welcome it.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Hilary

FWIW, I was glad of the link to Wikipedia and the opportunity to follow further links from there. I find the world tends to get more exciting with more robust information, so I welcome it.

Very True.

But, he's trying to make the point that there's nothing to this discovery, or putting doubt into this discovery.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Hilary

Absolutely. Exactly. Agreeing with you all the way. So then you ask - has this experiment actually proven that thought alters the molecular structure of water?

I haven't read his book, only googled around. I would say that his experiment reminds me of scientific research on topics like AIDS, genes or nutrition.

In those words, plenty of experimental results, many questions still left open, lots of intriguing evidence pointing in particular directions, but so very little conclusively proven.

Even Vitamin C has its controversial areas. Did you know that? I still take Vitamin C every day.

I don't think I can afford to wait for science to conclusively prove or disprove IM (if it will ever be possible). As it is, I could mentally visualise my dream house or my mother's face or the Statue of Liberty, and no scientist could ever know, even if he used the most sophisticated equipment available. I could be doing addition and substraction in my head, and once again no scientist could ever know.

My dream house looks nothing like my mother's face which looks nothing like the Statue of Liberty which looks nothing like a maths equation - but science absolutely cannot tell the difference based on my thoughts.

That is how utterly backward science is, as far as human thinking processes are concerned. It can't even tell what we're thinking at any given moment. How do you expect it to conclusively prove anything about the effects of those thoughts?

It's like trying to prepare a good dessert, based on a chemical analysis of the molecular structure of the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen molecules comprising your ingredients (let's not forget the trace elements of sodium and potassium).

Me, I suggest using a recipe book. And let your taste buds be the guide. The proof is the pudding. Take a bite, and you'll know. You really don't need to wait for the laboratory analysis of the chemical bonds of the C12H22011 molecules in the dessert.

[Hilary]

Smiling, here, as I don't expect science to prove anything about my mental or spiritual life any time soon. It would be fascinating if it did, but it doesn't make any difference to the reality of the experience if it doesn't. Like you, I'm not postponing these things until the world of science gives them its stamp of approval: life is too short for that, and too good!

What gets my goat a bit (not the whole goat, but maybe a few hairs) is when people make unfounded claims about what 'modern science shows', when in fact it shows nothing of the kind.

An example would be the claim that the 'observer effect' in qm 'shows' that we can create our own reality. In fact the majority scientific opinion is that this is a measuring effect that doesn't require a conscious observer. And in any case, there is absolutely no question of the observer's choices in the two-slit experiment affecting the outcome at all; it's just that things always come out the same way when the observation/measurement is made.

Of course, this doesn't prove that our choices and intentions don't affect reality, either.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Hilary

Smiling, here, as I don't expect science to prove anything about my mental or spiritual life any time soon.

I'm reminded of a story in the 1970s where a scientist was researching yoga in India.

The yogi says, "When I meditate, I can enter a mental state where it is as if I am sleeping, yet I am awake."

The scientist says, "I have a machine, and if I attach its wires to your head, I can scan your brain waves and see if what you claim is true or not."

So they do the experiment. At the end of it, the scientist gasps in amazement and says, "I can hardly believe it but it's true! The machine really shows that you did those things to your brain!"

The yogi gasps in amazement and says, ""I can hardly believe it but it's true! Your machine can really find out what's happening in my brain!"

[HumbleBeginnings]

Fellow minds? I have read good old Masaru's books, and I recommend you do as well. He and his translator did an excellent job - the writing has a kind of gentle and worldly style about it, making it easy to read and agreeably (with Frans) easy to believe.

But going with the theory of subjective reality, whatever I believe to be true is! And for me it just makes sense.

So there you have it.

[Ati]

Actually, has any looked into PET scans and what scientists are doing with these? PET = Positron Emission Tomography.

A PET scan is able to measure what part of the brain is using glucose at a given moment of time, how much glucose etc. The idea is that the use of glucose identifies just what part of the brain is active. As we have heard, much of our brain is not being used most of the time.

One fascinating example from PET scan research is that when people who have panic attacks, depression and obsessive compulsive disorder improve in terms of their symptoms, their PET scans change. What's really fascinating to me is that the same changes seem to occur when the improvement comes after taking drugs, drugs and cognitive behavioural psychotherapy and cog-beh psychotherapy alone.

Now that last part is especially interesting. If a person gets rid of or significantly improves their symptoms with a disabling disorder of their psyche, through psychotherapy alone, is that not something like IM? I mean in psychotherapy, generally people learn different ways to think about aspects of their lives and different ways to act from day to day.

So, maybe, should research moneys be available, PET research could actually be done with IM.

In the meanwhile, I agree with all who feel that analyzing the how and the why is interesting, but actually getting into the process is likely to be much more fun, much more interesting and much more improving of various aspects of life than the analysis alone. Just my 2c on that!

[infinitethoughts]

Here's a little from the strictly scientistic point of view.

Dr. Bruce Lipton, Ph.d Research scientist gives a lecture and marries biology with quantum physics and points out the glaring fact that medicine is practicing 75 years in the past using Newtonian physics, which believes the universe is "mechanistic".

Fascinating.
In the second part he reminds us, that the basis of matter, the atom, is not matter. It's energy.

In the video he says, Aging is a belief.

He shows how our perceptions affects our genes.
Cells pick up signals from the environment and
Biology is a stimulus response.

Check it out.

the new biology - where mind and matter meet 1 of 2 - Google Video

the new biology - where mind and matter meet 2 of 2 - Google Video

[mtrimpe]

I-M: The science of aligning neurons in one's brain in such a way that as many parts of the brain collaboratively work towards the manifestation of the intention (or achievement of the goal as it once was called).

Note: This doesn't mean I believe we don't have a hidden faculty in our brain that is capable of seeing what's inside and/or moving stuff around a cave in Uranus.