The real Adam and Eve story.

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostTue Jan 15, 2013 8:04 pm » by Lowsix


Too bad Emoto was 100% full of crap, because on a first and un-researched read,
the theory is absolutely beautiful.

However..

It was revealed that he chose his representative (photographic) samples based solely on the aesthetics of the samples, and further refused to participate in any verifiable double blind studies. Meaning he couldn't reproduce his own astounding results and a double blind would have revealed this.

Every single independent attempt to recreate his gorgeous sampling...failed.
It was found that unsightly and asymmetrical structures were found in all samples, but his photographic "proof" was derived by samples handpicked by him BASED on their pleasing structures, and not based on a random, objectively based selection.

But an emotional attachment to positive energy,
or even water for that matter, shouldn't rely on science anyhow.
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

PostTue Jan 15, 2013 9:04 pm » by Seriouscitizen


Lowsix wrote:Too bad Emoto was 100% full of crap, because on a first and un-researched read,
the theory is absolutely beautiful.

However..

It was revealed that he chose his representative (photographic) samples based solely on the aesthetics of the samples, and further refused to participate in any verifiable double blind studies. Meaning he couldn't reproduce his own astounding results and a double blind would have revealed this.

Every single independent attempt to recreate his gorgeous sampling...failed.
It was found that unsightly and asymmetrical structures were found in all samples, but his photographic "proof" was derived by samples handpicked by him BASED on their pleasing structures, and not based on a random, objectively based selection.

But an emotional attachment to positive energy,
or even water for that matter, shouldn't rely on science anyhow.



There has been a positive double blind, and a triple blind by the Institure of Noetic Science.
From what i have read. The catch is that the double blind had Emoto as co-author. And the tripple blind which according to Dean Radin has had the (positive) results but were intepreted differently so the final outcome is somewhere in the middle.

The only thing we can derive from this is that it isn't 100% bullshit. But we can't say it is valid either. The truth is still in the middle.

Also taken the dramatic impact on our knowledge of reality if his claims are true. Both scientifically as economically. I have to consider that forces behind the curtain could direct conclusions in favour of the one institute considered most 'important' (money/science).

Just like in quantum mechanics the environment and the researched object are not possible to fully control, therefore the results will deviate from the 'ideal'. Whatever is true.

http://noetic.org/blog/wikipedia-reader-beware-when-it-comes-psi-research/

Conspirator
Posts: 6364
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:57 pm

PostTue Jan 15, 2013 9:09 pm » by Zer0


Seriouscitizen wrote:Also taken the dramatic impact on our knowledge of reality if his claims are true. Both scientifically as economically. I have to consider that forces behind the curtain could direct conclusions in favour of the one institute considered most 'important' (money/science).


That sounds like a conspiracy theory.. what the fuck is your problem!
Master Raphael wrote:what you call the law of attraction was missing a vital aspect to the theory that I call the law of repulsion ...it is clear I drove the two of you together...using my repulsion not attraction

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostTue Jan 15, 2013 9:16 pm » by Lowsix


lmao@ oto

@ serious..

The "forces behind the curtain" didnt have anything to do with any of those studies or their debunking.
There are no "forces at work" in the data point driven research results.

Although I do give Dean Radin some cred points.
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

PostTue Jan 15, 2013 9:37 pm » by Seriouscitizen


Lowsix wrote:lmao@ oto

@ serious..

The "forces behind the curtain" didnt have anything to do with any of those studies or their debunking.
There are no "forces at work" in the data point driven research results.

Although I do give Dean Radin some cred points.


If you read the article, it says the outcome of the study was positive. According to Dean Radin in both the tripple and double.


Tripple blind:

An experiment tested the hypothesis that water exposed to distant intentions affects the aesthetic rating of ice crystals formed from that water. Over three days, 1,900 people in Austria and Germany focused their intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. Water samples located near the target water, but unknown to the people providing intentions, acted as ‘‘proximal’’ controls. Other samples located outside the shielded room acted as distant controls. Ice drops formed from samples of water in the different treatment conditions were photographed by a technician, each image was assessed for aesthetic beauty by over 2,500 independent judges, and the resulting data were analyzed, all by individuals blind with respect to the underlying treatment conditions. Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p = 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.

There were, however, potential problems with the “triple-blind” follow up. As the study explains:

Yes, as I explained. Empirical studies regularly contain sections discussing the limitations of the design.


There is one way to obvious control the scientific field, and that is a very simple one. The scientist itself doesn't control the funding of their project. The funding comes from government or private foundations. And most of the time only 'popular' subjects are being funded. No funding means no experiment. And most designs require funding. Empirical participation, reviews and controlled environmental set-ups don't come free.

My sister for example is a psychologist, and she is contributing to a study that has ethnic minorities as their subject. Because this is a very political interesting subject these researches get funded. But she knows of many other designs that have been rejected because of the economical/political/social popular insignificance of the subject.


And aside from that obvious control factor in the scientific field. I do believe in the possibility of a conspiracy behind the curtains, definitely. And the pretty thing about it being behind the curtain is that you can't proof it is true. But you can't proof it ISNT either.

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostTue Jan 15, 2013 9:41 pm » by Lowsix


Well, since the government isnt spending a single penny on "Emotional Water" studies..
They would have no way whatsoever to control the outcomes. Or influence data points.

So to apply your sisters real world examples of interference
to this Independently funded experiment is a logical fallacy.

I will try to read up more on Radins results.
Yes, i understood you said he characterized them as positive.
I consider him reasonably credible.
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

PostTue Jan 15, 2013 9:50 pm » by Seriouscitizen


Lowsix wrote:Well, since the government isnt spending a single penny on "Emotional Water" studies..
They would have no way whatsoever to control the outcomes. Or influence data points.



Its not about influencing data points or controlling the outcomes. It is about being able to carry out a peer reviewed experiment at all.

Sure there are independent researched being done. And aside from that there is corporate science. In which we in some cases don't see the result at all. But the point I was making is that in general, researches that require a certain amount of funding, especially above average funding (think CERN) are vulnerable for financial manipulation. There are many theories for example but it has to be carried out in a approved design to be valid, that needs funding.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3320
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:56 am

PostTue Jan 15, 2013 10:30 pm » by kentrb


concious and emotional are two completely different points of view in my opinion.
dr emoto,i think has made a mistake in his work.
by defining concious as emotional,he is applying a mans idea of what it means to be concious.
personally,i can roll with the concious aspect of water.not a big stretch in my opinion.
but thinking that a concious water,applies emotion in the same way that man does,hmmmm,i dont know about that.
man hates hitler.i doubt water does.mozart or metalica,again mans preference.
musical tastes of man dont dictate conciousness.
where i live,is a way bigger lab than any funded lab in the world.
i film snow flakes and ice crystals quite abit.
the beautiful symetry is present in the flakes and ice,whether im aware of it or not.
two feet of the stuff outside as i post,lol.

a really cool expirement i think,would be to love your nieghbor in the same way one projects thier emotions or intent on these water drops.
maybe being aware that your emotions and intents do get projected,whether aware or not.
at least one can verify results without being reliant on a lab or thesises

:cheers:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

PostTue Jan 15, 2013 11:33 pm » by Seriouscitizen


Fossileyesed wrote:concious and emotional are two completely different points of view in my opinion.
dr emoto,i think has made a mistake in his work.
by defining concious as emotional,he is applying a mans idea of what it means to be concious.
personally,i can roll with the concious aspect of water.not a big stretch in my opinion.
but thinking that a concious water,applies emotion in the same way that man does,hmmmm,i dont know about that.
man hates hitler.i doubt water does.mozart or metalica,again mans preference.
musical tastes of man dont dictate conciousness.
where i live,is a way bigger lab than any funded lab in the world.
i film snow flakes and ice crystals quite abit.
the beautiful symetry is present in the flakes and ice,whether im aware of it or not.
two feet of the stuff outside as i post,lol.

a really cool expirement i think,would be to love your nieghbor in the same way one projects thier emotions or intent on these water drops.
maybe being aware that your emotions and intents do get projected,whether aware or not.
at least one can verify results without being reliant on a lab or thesises

:cheers:


Good point Fossil, I agree with you that emotions and conscious are two different thing.
I think conscious is the merge of feeling and thinking, in a lack of better explanation.
And emotions are the chemical reaction that comes out of this, produced by triggers coming out of the consciousness or subconsciousness. :think:

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:31 pm

PostTue Jan 15, 2013 11:44 pm » by Trip


Interesting thread.


A thing that stayed with me was when an old member named Old soul said Adam = Atom , does any one know if there is any truth there?
"There was madness in any direction, at any hour. You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning"


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook