The mind creates what we call reality

reply to post by tgidkp


Who do you think you are?

All I said was the movie "What the bleep do you know" is full of pseudoscience; Any conclusions regarding science, reality, etc. that people get from it is Quantum Mysticism.

I didn't say anything negative regarding Quantum Mysticism; I didn't say anything negative at all.

If me saying "The problem with applying quantum physics on an macro scale is that quantum physics / mechanics specifically deals with the micro." evokes such a response from you, than you have issues.

Just because you have personal issues, doesn't give you the right to channel that anger towards a person who did you no harm. You nitwit

Originally posted by taws6

Originally posted by Confusion42

If a tree falls and nobody is there to observe it, it still makes a sound.

No it doesn't

When a tree falls it creates a vibration, you need a human or an animal with ears to interpret this frequency in your mind into sound, otherwise it's just vibration.

When you take DVD and stick it in a DVD player and play it with the TV off, can you see the movie. No it only creates an electrical impulse, but you need to have the TV on to see.

Our mind is like a TV that plays movies and our ears are the DVD player that interpret the disc.

edit on 11/9/2011 by taws6 because: (no reason given)

Good point.

Would you agree that,

Having a viewer has no effect on the vibration a falling tree causes?

reply to post by Confusion42


nowhere in this thread have I seen it revealed that the OP has seen this movie.

so, while you are pretending to be innocent, your reference to the movie is an obvious indication that your intent was not clarification of scientific misunderstandings, but rather, petty name calling.


do you often use science in an effort to reinforce your sense of superiority?

The idea of this thread reminds me of an humor a physiological neurosurgeon once told me.

A British man boards a jet in France to go home, (insert any mix here), as the jet reaches cruising altitude the stewardess asks the gentleman if he would like a tea or something else. The man replied 'I think not'
AND POOF!
he vanished.

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Confusion42

 

nowhere in this thread have I seen it revealed that the OP has seen this movie.

so, while you are pretending to be innocent, your reference to the movie is an obvious indication that your intent was not clarification of scientific misunderstandings, but rather, petty name calling.


do you often use science in an effort to reinforce your sense of superiority?

Which part of the movie do you agree with?

Programming water crystals with you mind?

Fake chanelling based on cultism?


Just because unrelated issues are not fully understood does not mean that they are related.

You started the name called.

I just mentioned the fact that this is Quantum Mysticism ; It may be true, a version of it may be true, it may not be true, etc.

I definitely advocate the study of such things, the more scientific inquiry the better.

But only thoroughly studied, experimented, independently confirmed finding should be called fact or truth.

A group of people thinking doesn't effect water crystal structure; Believing that everything that exists, form things we see to things we record, photograph, witness, all the different ways we have of observing reality from red-shift to the detectors on the LHC; if you believe it all only exists in YOUR mind, that's fine; But it's no more (or less) true than Christ, Budda, Allah, etc.

reply to post by Confusion42

A group of people thinking doesn't effect water crystal structure;

eeeehhh, not sure if you are asking or stating... but either way, I'm going to have to disagree with this statement.

There is evidence that thought does in fact produce an energy. (duh, as everything is energy based) Electrical impulses. You can measure the difference of a positive thought, and a negative one. We know Positive energy and negative energy effects biological cells differently. (Stress/negativity makes us physically ill, Positive thoughts release endorphins,,, etc..) So to say that thought (energy) has no effect on another non-biological object (which is still a form of energy) is kind of silly...

Originally posted by nopeitwasntme
reply to post by Confusion42

 

A group of people thinking doesn't effect water crystal structure;

eeeehhh, not sure if you are asking or stating... but either way, I'm going to have to disagree with this statement.

Care to provide evidence?

reply to post by john_bmth


what, evidence that I disagree? ;o)

Thoughts are electric impulses in the brain. Energy. Energy is constant and any disruption of that energy effects its surroundings. Quantum Physicist could explain it better than me. Are there any on ATS?

Whether you think it's a theory or proven, you cannot deny that thoughts have an effect.

Originally posted by nopeitwasntme
reply to post by john_bmth

 

what, evidence that I disagree? ;o)

Thoughts are electric impulses in the brain. Energy. Energy is constant and any disruption of that energy effects its surroundings. Quantum Physicist could explain it better than me. Are there any on ATS?

Whether you think it's a theory or proven, you cannot deny that thoughts have an effect.

No, I'm asking for empirical evidence that thought affects water crystal structure.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by nopeitwasntme
reply to post by john_bmth

 

what, evidence that I disagree? ;o)

Thoughts are electric impulses in the brain. Energy. Energy is constant and any disruption of that energy effects its surroundings. Quantum Physicist could explain it better than me. Are there any on ATS?

Whether you think it's a theory or proven, you cannot deny that thoughts have an effect.

No, I'm asking for empirical evidence that thought affects water crystal structure.

if you want experimental proof, that is moot. Anyone can denounce that it was either not conducted correctly therefore disproves it, or they can simply blow it off and pseudoscience,. (as many do re: that Emoto guys experiments.)

I'm stating in general "what we know" terms.. A water molecule, chemical/potential energy.... A thought, kinetic energy... kinetic meets potential energy and that water molecule is altered. Even if it happens on such a small minute scale we cannot measure it, that doesn't mean it does not occur. Obviously, the mount of energy released by a single molecular reaction is super tiny.... Are you saying because you cant see it, it's does not happen?

Originally posted by nopeitwasntme
if you want experimental proof, that is moot. Anyone can denounce that it was either not conducted correctly therefore disproves it, or they can simply blow it off and pseudoscience,. (as many do re: that Emoto guys experiments.)

Empirical evidence would prove your point. Without it, your argument is unsubstantiated conjecture. Masaru Emoto's claims alone won't suffice as not only did he not use scientific method (he's also not a scientist) but no one has been able to repeat them under controlled conditions:

Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls,[8] and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community.[9] In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings.[10] 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.[11] Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist,[12] and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.[13] In 2003, James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.[14] In 2005, Kristopher Setchfield from the Natural Science Department at Vermont published a paper[15] that analyzed deeper motives regarding Emoto's study. In his paper, Kristopher writes, Unfortunately for his credibility with the scientific community, Dr. Emoto sells products based on his claims. For example, the products page of Emoto's Hado website is currently offering "geometrically perfect" "Indigo water" that is "highly charged hexagonally structured concentrate," and supposedly creates "structured water" that is "more easily assimilated at the cellular level" for $35 for an eight-ounce bottle. Without providing scientific research references for the allegedly amazing qualities of his Indigo Water, Emoto's commercial venture calls to mind ethical concerns regarding his intent and motivation—questions that would not be present if any scientist had published research supporting his claims. In 2006, Emoto published a paper together with Dean Radin and others in the journal Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing. They describe that in a double blind test approximately 2000 people in Tokyo could increase the aesthetic appeal of water stored in a room in California, compared to water in another room, solely through their positive intentions.[16]

Triple-blind study
A better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration did not yield positive results. More than 1,900 of Mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls in a very elaborate protocol. Crystals from all three groups were not, on average, considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). Crystals from the experimental group were also rated slightly less beautiful than a set of controls. An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples.[17] There were, however, potential problems with the "triple-blind" follow up. As the study explains: In any experiment involving intention, the intentions of the "investigators" cannot be cleanly isolated from those of the nominal participants and this in turn constrains how one should properly interpret the results. In addition, there were many uncontrolled degrees of freedom in this experiment which may have allowed ‘‘unintended intentional’’ effects to creep in. They all involve human decisions, e.g. selecting six specific bottles of water from a huge population of available bottles, randomly assigning those bottles to three conditions, selecting and preparing the water drops, placing the water drop samples inside the freezer, searching for and photographing ice crystals on the frozen water drops at different magnification levels, choosing one of a large possible set of image processing algorithms to provide an objective measure of image contrast, and so on."[18] Physician Harriet A. Hall writes, about the ideas of Emoto, that "This watery fantasy is all very entertaining and imaginative, full of New Age feel-good platitudes, holistic oneness, consciousness raising, and warm fuzzies; but it's hard to see how anyone could mistake it for science."

I'm stating in general "what we know" terms.. A water molecule, chemical/potential energy.... A thought, kinetic energy... kinetic meets potential energy and that water molecule is altered. Even if it happens on such a small minute scale we cannot measure it, that doesn't mean it does not occur. Obviously, the mount of energy released by a single molecular reaction is super tiny.... Are you saying because you cant see it, it's does not happen?

edit on 10-11-2011 by nopeitwasntme because: spell check

None of this actually has anything to do with thoughts affecting water crystal structure. If you wish to demonstrate this specific claim, you would have to provide empirical evidence that thoughts affect water crystal structure. Innuendo will not do, that is not how scientific claims are made.

Originally posted by nopeitwasntme
Even if it happens on such a small minute scale we cannot measure it, that doesn't mean it does not occur. Obviously, the mount of energy released by a single molecular reaction is super tiny.... Are you saying because you cant see it, it's does not happen?

John Bmth is right, you can support any idiotic claim with this type of false logic.

For example, I can claim that a gang of invisible leprechauns just took a stroll through my garden.

Are you saying that just because nobody saw it, it didn't happen?

See how that works?

We have to be able to measure something to verify its existence. Sure our inability to measure something doesn't conclusively prove its non-existence, however keep in mind that people could make a million claims with this assertion, and if 999,999 of them are false and only one is true, you have no way of knowing which is which.

That's why we have science, to separate verifiable claims from unverifiable claims.

reply to post by john_bmth


you win. i have no "proof" other than the unknown possibility. And not being a scientist I cannot back up my claim. (althought it is my opinion, not a claim.... I probably should have chosen better words, like "it's been said to have been proven". rather than a "hey, guess what I did in my basement! I gots proof!" sounding statement) In my defense, energy is fact, not pseudo... And energy is the one thing that is everything and connected as such. how can one object not have an effect on the other?

I will choose to believe that it is possible for thought to have a more physical impact on our surroundings. Until it is proven, I am sure you will think otherwise. Thankfully I'm not guided strictly by fact. That leaves no room for What If. Everything that has been scientifically proven, mainstream or otherwise, was originally a "what if", was it not? Even scientists daydream about possibilities. Otherwise they would be out of a job.

Originally posted by Confusion42
reply to post by tgidkp

 

Who do you think you are?

All I said was the movie "What the bleep do you know" is full of pseudoscience; Any conclusions regarding science, reality, etc. that people get from it is Quantum Mysticism.

I didn't say anything negative regarding Quantum Mysticism; I didn't say anything negative at all.

If me saying "The problem with applying quantum physics on an macro scale is that quantum physics / mechanics specifically deals with the micro." evokes such a response from you, than you have issues.

Just because you have personal issues, doesn't give you the right to channel that anger towards a person who did you no harm. You nitwit

Well with the dvd's "what the bleep" "down the rabbit hole" and "The secret" They've mixed a bit of Quantum Mysticism with Quantum fact and aimed it strait at a target audience. Those dvd's are just about making money.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


you are so arrogant. Dont overestimate yourself. When you die, the world will still exist. When humans go extinct, the universe will still remain unchanged. Im amazed (in a negative way) at how people are trying so hard to convince themselves that they are controling everything when in fact, they are tiny egotistic powerless insects. Keep dreaming, you are a god, suuuuuure! New age religion ftw!

reply to post by _damon


F-ing yeah.
We don't Create reality.

We only individually perceive it differently. That doesn't change reality.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by _damon

 

F-ing yeah.
We don't Create reality.

well, technically we do create reality, by our actions. There is a common reality we share., but maybe we all live in different realities based off that one common reality?

kinda like an operating system. That is the reality, and the applications are our own individual realities the co-exist, but cannot function without the common denominator? I have no idea what I just said. babble rabble. serisouly. not sure if that even made sense. theoretically speaking overworks my brain.

What The Bleep Do We Know: Down The Rabbit Hole

It is impossible to find out what produces this so called universe by studying it.

The Universe is the end product and Not the Cause.

Its a bit like trying to find out how a "3rd person video game" is produced, by watching the game on screen, as it does Not tell you how it was made.

The Universe you believe to be a part of is similar to a Video 3rd person game being played on a network.

What produces the Video Game is Nothing like the Game itself...

Our body is only one of the "Components" of the Program, but the Observer, that is your Mind, is NOT inside the game but instead is "Non-Dimensional" and observes from outside the Game.

But as the Program has been made so well it makes us feel that the Universe and our body is the only Reality... LOL.

It is only the Quality and sophistication of the Game that makes us believe the Universe is the ONLY Reality when in fact All has been Produced by the Real Self which is both Non Dimensional
and consists of nothing at all like this little Universe which includes Energy or Matter or anything else the Species can contemplate.

The Flesh is the "Experience" and NOT the one Experiencing....

If "Awareness" looses connection with the "Species" (Our Body) the body is said to be dead, because the body Lacks LIFE.

Today we believe the Universe is the World we are a part of, but this is as wrong as believing the Earth is a flat table.... that is if this was the belief in past history ?? Which I doubt anyway but that's another story.

The Universe is generated from a "Memory Map", which is able to be scrolled across your field of Vision and interactivity, producing the Illusion of a 3D universe. (Without getting into how many dimensions the species can dream up.)

We each have our own Copy of the Universe in our real selves and are part of a network.

Our real self looks nothing at all like what is found in this little universe...

So each of our real worlds, only involves our field of Vision and interactivity. (Not that of the Primate)

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Prove that what you say is fact.

As it stands, what you say is belief, at best.

Just because there are unknowns in quantum physics, and unknowns about why we as humans are here, doesn't mean they are connected.

This is called Quantum Mysticism. Read the wiki

I am not saying specifically that "your wrong." I actually like your belief. But I can't view it as truth because it's not something that has been thoroughly tested and experimented and independently proven. It's similar to religion (minus the cultism that religion sometimes is) in that it's a belief.