isn't there some proof as well that if you talk to plants they grow better?
i too am incredulous about the water thing. i'd like to see it replicated scientifically bby 'scientists' rather than 'spiritualists as seems to be the case. has anyone heard or read about the 3 rice cups? seems if you wrap a cup of rice in a 'kind' word (written on paper) and a cup in a 'harsh' word and don't wrap a control cup in any words, the kind cup ferments, the harsh cup blackens and the conrtol blackens even faster! don't shoot the messenger, just saying . . . 😬
i wonder though -- what if it IS true? what would the implications suggest and what might it lead to?
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd FlooAh haaaaa...yet, no no......It's more special than than 😉 ...It was a healing flower.........a flower that grew.........also did it with an animal that was wounded.......... 😉
Are you refering to the plant known as the debbiejo flower? The one with the oh-so-pretty eyes? Did you abuse it? Naughty flower...
Also, did it with a twerp to make him make a fool of himself............... 😂 😂 😂
Originally posted by leonidas
isn't there some proof as well that if you talk to plants they grow better?i too am incredulous about the water thing. i'd like to see it replicated scientifically bby 'scientists' rather than 'spiritualists as seems to be the case. has anyone heard or read about the 3 rice cups? seems if you wrap a cup of rice in a 'kind' word (written on paper) and a cup in a 'harsh' word and don't wrap a control cup in any words, the kind cup ferments, the harsh cup blackens and the conrtol blackens even faster! don't shoot the messenger, just saying . . . 😬
i wonder though -- what if it IS true? what would the implications suggest and what might it lead to?
Ok, so maybe Emoto's water experiments haven't been verified via traditional scientific peer review methods, but his ideas are still noble and good and may even be true. His intentions, I think, are truthful and at least he wants people to create a better, more humane world free of evil and suffering.
One cannot categorically simply reject any claim that has not been scientifically verified, simply because of the fact, because that suggests that science is the one and only absolute of truth. The real truth is not somehing that anyone can truely lay claim to by any means - nobody really knows anyway and we must be humble like the great Socrates said: "The wise man is the one who knows he knows nothing.", right?
Originally posted by Wonderer
Ok, so maybe Emoto's water experiments haven't been verified via traditional scientific peer review methods, but his ideas are still noble and good and may even be true. His intentions, I think, are truthful and at least he wants people to create a better, more humane world free of evil and suffering.One cannot categorically simply reject any claim that has not been scientifically verified, simply because of the fact, because that suggests that science is the one and only absolute of truth. The real truth is not somehing that anyone can truely lay claim to by any means - nobody really knows anyway and we must be humble like the great Socrates said: "The wise man is the one who knows he knows nothing.", right?
are you saying then that we should just accept what he claims blindly? i'm not arguing his intentions. but it is a wild claim that could have enormous implications in many areas. if someone says -- i've cured cancer, take this pill and you'll never get it! should i just take the pill?
intentions have nothing to do with it, i did not reject the notion categorically, and science is not absolute truth but it does attempt to ascertain what the truth is. if these claims ARE truthful, why should they not be subject to more rigorous testing?
Originally posted by leonidas
are you saying then that we should just accept what he claims blindly? i'm not arguing his intentions. but it is a wild claim that could have enormous implications in many areas. if someone says -- i've cured cancer, take this pill and you'll never get it! should i just take the pill?intentions have nothing to do with it, i did not reject the notion categorically, and science is not absolute truth but it does attempt to ascertain what the truth is. if these claims ARE truthful, why should they not be subject to more rigorous testing?
I think Masaru Emoto is not interested in scientific proof or any kind of point that he's trying to make - he doesn't seek recognition like other scientists, which also helps to affirm his pure intentions and spiritual interest. Some things are not about testing and proof, but more for the spiritually enlightened person who knows life is about the simple principles of goodness and happiness, not about theoretical meaninglessness and material gain, vanity, intellectualism, etc.
It's about simple, good, energised vibrations and about what you put in, you'll get out : good in = good out.
With all the scienctific proofs and technological advancements, elaborate scientific theories, etc, humans have not become happier or more mature spiritually and emotionally, that's why it's more important to train your spirit to become more balanced, if happiness and peace is what you're after.
There seems to be this idea that science and a spiritual orientation toward life are mutually exclusive. Not so! Many of history's greatest scientists have been very spiritual people; indeed, what they learned through scientific investigation only strengthened their spiritual perspective. Science does not automatically disavow or negate a spiritual POV. What it does do, however, is help people to not fool themselves into believing their own wish-fulfillment.
As I mentioned in prior posts, this water experiment is loaded with contaminating variables. Eg, it should be done where the water is isolated from sound waves and set-up as a blind procedure.
Then again, to paraphrase Lucifer, it would appear that many people prefer to "rule in fantasy than serve in truth."
jerry
Originally posted by Mindship
There seems to be this idea that science and a spiritual orientation toward life are mutually exclusive. Not so! Many of history's greatest scientists have been very spiritual people; indeed, what they learned through scientific investigation only strengthened their spiritual perspective. Science does not automatically disavow or negate a spiritual POV. What it does do, however, is help people to not fool themselves into believing their own wish-fulfillment.As I mentioned in prior posts, this water experiment is loaded with contaminating variables. Eg, it should be done where the water is isolated from sound waves and set-up as a blind procedure.
Then again, to paraphrase Lucifer, it would appear that many people prefer to "rule in fantasy than serve in truth."
jerry
😉
Originally posted by Mindship
There seems to be this idea that science and a spiritual orientation toward life are mutually exclusive. Not so! Many of history's greatest scientists have been very spiritual people; indeed, what they learned through scientific investigation only strengthened their spiritual perspective. Science does not automatically disavow or negate a spiritual POV. What it does do, however, is help people to not fool themselves into believing their own wish-fulfillment.
As I mentioned in prior posts, this water experiment is loaded with contaminating variables. Eg, it should be done where the water is isolated from sound waves and set-up as a blind procedure.
Then again, to paraphrase Lucifer, it would appear that many people prefer to "rule in fantasy than serve in truth."
jerry
2. Even so, why is there a consistency in the test results? - the consistency that all negative words produce ugly crytals or none at all, and all positive words produce beautiful crystals? If the 'contaminating' factors, as you call them really had an influence, then shouldn't the results have been more random?
3. I'm sorry, but your rebuttal doesn't have logical support.
4. Even Einstein (and he was very spiritual and praised Buddhism as the religion of the future) said:
"The only real valuable thing is intuition." "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.".
5. So, are you saying that science is our only probe? Well, my friend, if things are truely spritual and metaphysical, then science won't be able to tell you the truth.
Originally posted by Wonderer
1. How do you know the experiments wasn't conducted in the absence of sound waves?
2. Even so, why is there a consistency in the test results? - the consistency that all negative words produce ugly crytals or none at all, and all positive words produce beautiful crystals? If the 'contaminating' factors, as you call them really had an influence, then shouldn't the results have been more random?
3. I'm sorry, but your rebuttal doesn't have logical support.
4. Even Einstein (and he was very spiritual and praised Buddhism as the religion of the future) said: .
5. So, are you saying that science is our only probe? Well, my friend, if things are truely spritual and metaphysical, then science won't be able to tell you the truth.
1. What makes you think they might have been? That aside, an honest experiment states all procedures and factors involved, trying to account for contaminating variables. These experiments fail on that count.
2. I don't know there's that consistency. Just because someone wrote that? Not good enough: experimental fraud happens all the time, especially when someone is looking to make a name for him/herself. Again, the experimental procedures should have been spelled out clearly so that others--especially those with a neutral stance (hence, the reason for a blind set-up)--can replicate the experiment and have the results reviewed by peers. I am not against the results on principle, but I do understand what a powerful influence wish-fulfillment can be.
3. This empty statement is beneath you. This is usually what someone says when They are the ones feeling unsure of their position. It's so overused by so many, it's becoming cliche.
For what it's worth, I've read other posts of yours--intelligently written--in other threads, and like you, I tend to believe there is more to the universe than meets the eye or mind. Apparently, though, I am more judicious about drawing conclusions.
4. I am a big believer in intuition, but clearly, if Einstein felt it was the primary means to acquire reliable (and perhaps valid) knowledge, he would not have bothered with equations and experiments. He did not mean intuition should replace scientific method, but that it is a valuable part of it; indeed, scientific inquiry often begins with a "hunch." It's what got him going on his relativity ideas.
5. Not at all, at least not empirical science. May I refer you to a thread I started a few months ago, in the Philosophy forum, entitled "Science and God." It asks, among other things, is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof? The bigger question is, can Scientific Method be used to prove the existence of a spiritual/metaphysical dimension to reality? Keeping in mind that Science is "applied common sense," I would argue it can, as long as one is fair about it, ie, operationally defining terms and having the tools used and data collected reflect the domain being studied.
In any event, no one ever said science is perfect, but it is the least imperfect, thus far, of any other approach (again: "applied common sense"😉. It does not necessarily have to negate intuition or any higher faculty of knowing humans may well possess. Higher consciousness does not substitute for lower; it subsumes it, so that more and more of a person's entire being can be engaged in the quest for Truth.
Originally posted by Wonderer
I think Masaru Emoto is not interested in scientific proof or any kind of point that he's trying to make - he doesn't seek recognition like other scientists, which also helps to affirm his pure intentions and spiritual interest. Some things are not about testing and proof, but more for the spiritually enlightened person who knows life is about the simple principles of goodness and happiness, not about theoretical meaninglessness and material gain, vanity, intellectualism, etc.
and yet . . . he published a book about his findings and has a website dedicated to them . . .? 😕
fact is, if you make the kind of assertions he has made, you had best be ready to answer skepticism. to reply with something like -- i wasn't trying to be scientific because all i was really interested in was purity of intention and a hope of seeing something spiritual -- undermines you own results. regardless of whether you agree, for something to be fully accepted by most, it needs to stand up to testing. and again i ask -- what is he afraid of? if his results are in fact as real as he claims, what harm in submitting them to a more rigorous body of tests?
i would love to think he is correct, but before i believe it, i need to see more proof. to simply accept blindly, and on faith, seems, imo, a little naive.
Originally posted by Mindship
1. What makes you think they might have been? That aside, an honest experiment states all procedures and factors involved, trying to account for contaminating variables. These experiments fail on that count.2. I don't know there's that consistency. Just because someone wrote that? Not good enough: experimental fraud happens all the time, especially when someone is looking to make a name for him/herself. Again, the experimental procedures should have been spelled out clearly so that others--especially those with a neutral stance (hence, the reason for a blind set-up)--can replicate the experiment and have the results reviewed by peers. I am not against the results on principle, but I do understand what a powerful influence wish-fulfillment can be.
........
Happy water consumption everyone!👆 And remember: it's not about the truth, but about how you get to it that matters. When you quit looking for the meaning of life, meaning will be self-revealing every living moment.
Ok, Masaru Emoto was invited to speak at Harvard University, Princeton, etc, etc. and at places and conferences all over the world. I don't think universities of that caliber would invite a quack to speak on scientific discoveries. Other people and other professionals do take his experiments seriously, only you people on this pseudo-forum are sceptic. What's there to be sceptic about? This guy came to some great discoveries and confirmations of water and the need to respect it.