Beyond Belief 2006

surferdude · March 2007

angelica wrote:

This is the stuff of quantum philosophy--how we alter any experiment we approach depending on what we are looking to find. Until scientism is willing to accept it's blindness and it's biases, we will keep perpetuating this imbalance, just like imbalanced religion. Two sides of the same coin, my friend. It's the shadow side of human nature.

Excellent post. One of the most fascinating things I ever learned is that some matter only seems to exist when we look for it. Wierd, fascinating and awesome all at the same time. Kinda like 'if a tree falls in a forest when no one is around does it make a sound' but at the quantum physics level.

angelica · March 2007

surferdude wrote:

Excellent post. One of the most fascinating things I ever learned is that some matter only seems to exist when we look for it. Wierd, fascinating and awesome all at the same time. Kinda like 'if a tree falls in a forest when no one is around does it make a sound' but at the quantum physics level.

Yes! The tree falling in the forest has different ramifications looking through quantum physics paradigms.

It happens on a physical level in quantum physics, and then philosophically we can trace the same principle in our environment. If a scientist looks to find something in an experiment, or looks to not find something, they will set things up to influence an outcome towards what they are expecting based on unconscious forces they don't realize are there. Until the observer effect is widely acknowledged and prepared for, we will continue personally influencing what we falsely tell ourselves is 'objective'. Everything is relative and the observer is relative to the experiment.

PJPOWER · March 2007

angelica wrote:

Yes! The tree falling in the forest has different ramifications looking through quantum physics paradigms.

It happens on a physical level in quantum physics, and then philosophically we can trace the same principle in our environment. If a scientist looks to find something in an experiment, or looks to not find something, they will set things up to influence an outcome towards what they are expecting based on unconscious forces they don't realize are there. Until the observer effect is widely acknowledged and prepared for, we will continue personally influencing what we falsely tell ourselves is 'objective'. Everything is relative and the observer is relative to the experiment.

Damn, this started me thinking about a recent conference I was at. One of the speakers talked briefly about an experiement done (by a Japanese scientist if I remember right). Anyways, the experiment was done to see if molecules are changed depending on our emotional states as we look at them. It turned out that they did, which brought up a lot of questions regarding the mind effecting the body and even the outside world.........I don't have time to find a link right now because I'm about to get off work. Try doing a search for "molecules of emotion" maybe.........I'll try to find something later as well. It was some very interesting research that brought to question some of the fundamentals of our current understanding of physics.

rigneyclan · March 2007

Scientific theories are different from the regular use of the word theory in that they don't really describe something as a guess. The theory of gravity is an example of a scientific theory.

surferdude · March 2007

rigneyclan wrote:

Scientific theories are different from the regular use of the word theory in that they don't really describe something as a guess. The theory of gravity is an example of a scientific theory.

Scientific theory really got bastardized with the advent of computer modelling. Theories were then based not on observances but predicted observances based on the model. Accuarcy of the model used is not rally taken into account when judging the merit of the theory.

angelica · March 2007

rigneyclan wrote:

Scientific theories are different from the regular use of the word theory in that they don't really describe something as a guess. The theory of gravity is an example of a scientific theory.

Yes, they describe the framework we give to the facts. A framework includes interpretation which depends on the influence of the person doing the interpretation or theory construction. Or depending on the going level of awareness in the field at that time. Such variables are independent of "truth" and there is room for distortion. Different perspectives have different frameworks. That is why old frameworks become expanded upon as we evolve.

Basically the theory is the structure that supports the practical applications. The practical applications are what we can deem as "real" and testable. Math is as made up as "God" is. We have derived numerous practical applications for math. And when the old structures no long meet all of our needs, we conceive of new structures--we invent new math. In a similar way, God, or your spiritual icon of choice, is what people use to conceptualize the practical outcomes that are understood on a more abstract, yet practical level.

angelica · March 2007

PJPOWER wrote:

Damn, this started me thinking about a recent conference I was at. One of the speakers talked briefly about an experiement done (by a Japanese scientist if I remember right). Anyways, the experiment was done to see if molecules are changed depending on our emotional states as we look at them. It turned out that they did, which brought up a lot of questions regarding the mind effecting the body and even the outside world.........I don't have time to find a link right now because I'm about to get off work. Try doing a search for "molecules of emotion" maybe.........I'll try to find something later as well. It was some very interesting research that brought to question some of the fundamentals of our current understanding of physics.

Is that Dr. Masaru Emoto, the guy with the water crystals? I don't know a lot about him except what I saw in the movie "What the Bleep" but the idea was fascinating. Here's a link:

http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm

angelica · March 2007

PJPOWER wrote:

Damn, this started me thinking about a recent conference I was at. One of the speakers talked briefly about an experiement done (by a Japanese scientist if I remember right). Anyways, the experiment was done to see if molecules are changed depending on our emotional states as we look at them. It turned out that they did, which brought up a lot of questions regarding the mind effecting the body and even the outside world.........I don't have time to find a link right now because I'm about to get off work. Try doing a search for "molecules of emotion" maybe.........I'll try to find something later as well. It was some very interesting research that brought to question some of the fundamentals of our current understanding of physics.

Have you seen either of the "What the Bleep" movies? If not, you might be interested in them.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

Is that Dr. Masaru Emoto, the guy with the water crystals? I don't know a lot about him except what I saw in the movie "What the Bleep" but the idea was fascinating. Here's a link:

http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm

The James Randi Educational Foundation offered Dr. Emoto one million dollars to reproduce his results in a controlled double-blind experiment. Emoto hasn't accepted the challenge.
http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html

Some high-school kids did try to reproduce Emoto's results and received inconclusive results.
http://66.201.42.16/viewitem.php3?id=910&catid=510&kbid=ionsikc

Dr. Emoto admits he's not a scientist
http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/etruth.html#23

You can also play... Dr. Emoto's... "cloud-vanishing game"

(11) Play the “cloud- vanishing game”

The clouds in the sky wish easily with your thoughts. Instruction is as follows:

a) Believe firmly that the cloud will vanish, without any trace of doubt

b) Relax. If you have too much tension, your energy will not fly effectively.

c) Imagine that your energy laser beam emits straight from your heart to the cloud.

d) Say “The cloud has vanished”, in past tense.

e) And simultaneously, say thank you in a past tense tone to your energy.Following the above instruction, clouds in the sky will vanish without exception

Ahnimus · March 2007

I still think Quantum Mechanics is entirely new territory and it's too early to make any claims about philosophical implications. It could be that it's deterministic or probabilistic. But I still think there is a classical limit where two objects consisting of atomic consitency such as a human and a baseball, interact with classical newtonian physics. I don't see any reason to believe that our minds could affect the probable outcome of quantum mechanics.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I still think Quantum Mechanics is entirely new territory and it's too early to make any claims about philosophical implications. It could be that it's deterministic or probabilistic. But I still think there is a classical limit where two objects consisting of atomic consitency such as a human and a baseball, interact with classical newtonian physics. I don't see any reason to believe that our minds could affect the probable outcome of quantum mechanics.

It's called complementarity and quantum physics fully embraces this principle. The observer alters the experiment. This principle is not debated.

Quantum mechanics discovered some new principles that changed the face of science over 100 years ago. These concepts stretch our very perceptions and "Man's mind, stretched to a new idea, never goes back to its original dimension". As we stretch our philosophical parameters we stretch our ability to perceive new discovery. And through increased perception, we can see old discovery in new light that changes the very scope of our knowledge. It's very exciting.

PJPOWER · March 2007

angelica wrote:

Is that Dr. Masaru Emoto, the guy with the water crystals? I don't know a lot about him except what I saw in the movie "What the Bleep" but the idea was fascinating. Here's a link:

http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm

Yes, that was exactly what I was refering to, thank you

There are so many things that we don't understand yet! Maybe if we all stopped thinking negatively about global warming the earth would heal itself, lol.

angelica · March 2007

PJPOWER wrote:

Yes, that was exactly what I was refering to, thank you There are so many things that we don't understand yet!

You completely hit the nail on the head.

We are compelled to explain things as best we can, and really, all we can do is understand what we know now, as best we can, which is a far cry from saying that science has absolute truths. This is why science is a great tool, but to limit myself to what science believes, well, I would still be limiting myself.

MakingWaves · March 2007

thanks for the links, this is some interesting stuff.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

The James Randi Educational Foundation offered Dr. Emoto one million dollars to reproduce his results in a controlled double-blind experiment. Emoto hasn't accepted the challenge.
http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html

Some high-school kids did try to reproduce Emoto's results and received inconclusive results.
http://66.201.42.16/viewitem.php3?id=910&catid=510&kbid=ionsikc

Dr. Emoto admits he's not a scientist
http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/etruth.html#23

You can also play... Dr. Emoto's... "cloud-vanishing game"

Cloud busting IS fun, they say!

angelica · March 2007

It's interesting, PJPOWER, how your theory is playing out in this thread alone.

The theory that non-believers may be just as biased as believers, and I'm not sure if you said this part, but in case you did not, I'll add it in as well: the position one takes determines the outcome of the conclusion that one receives.

For example, referring to Mr. Emoto and his water crystals, some choose to believe him, some choose to believe he's not for real. All I know is that he's presented a case and shown some results. And yet, as a counter argument, in the link provided by Ahnimus, the article points out that Mr. Emoto is not a traditional scientist and yet Mr Emoto doesn't claim to be one. The article uses much mockery, and more "proof-of-what-you-can't-prove: that-being-a-negative", saying he did not provide double blind tests. While a good deal of attempted discrediting went on, nothing at all was proven contrary to Mr. Emoto's assertions. Unfortunately the argument in the link, coming from the the old "you-can't-prove-a-negative" view is ineffective in trying to prove a negative. While it's entirely ineffective on it's own, because in case I've not said this enough: you can't prove a negative, it IS effective with it's use of "scientism" and scientific terms, couched in before-mentioned mockery, in convincing people they are seeing the scientific view. So while it's an inaccurate method, it sure is an effective one in swaying "logical" people in a "logical society" to a "socially acceptable" point of view, whether inaccurate or not.

It reminds me of the technique of cloud-busting pertaining to the practise of inaccurate skeptism and scientism taken as truth.

a)You must have a blind faith that Mr. Emoto is going to be revealed as a fraud, since an "authority" is implying such.

b)Relax: if you actually exercise your own brain muscle, you must face the reality that mockery aside, alternate views stand until they are proven otherwise. And hence you ruin the scientism effect.

c)Imagine that all things in science including spinoffs such as scientism and scientific words used are more valid than the truth.

d)Say to yourself that the "authoritarian" and mocking pseudo-logical voice is valid enough times, and you will receive your "truth".

e)And in the past tense, thank scientism for your sense of egoistically holding the market on what we must admit we don't yet understand.

The cool thing about the cloud-busting phenomena, similar to the complementarity principle in quantum physics is that it demonstrates how depending on how we look at things, we will end up with our personal worldview being validated in our perception.

Ahnimus · March 2007

Clouds disappear all the time on their own.

I'd like to see someone "bust" a chair.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Clouds disappear all the time on their own.

I'd like to see someone "bust" a chair.

And people try to pass off their skepticism as a valid alternative to an assertion all the time. I'd likewise like to see those skeptics bust a chair with their skepticism....or better yet, actually prove what you cannot prove: a negative argument. Oh, but that's right, they are not trying to disprove an argument, they are trying rather to discredit someone with public humiliation.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

And people try to pass off their skepticism as a valid alternative to an assertion all the time. I'd likewise like to see those skeptics bust a chair with their skepticism....or better yet, actually prove what you cannot prove: a negative argument. Oh, but that's right, they are not trying to disprove an argument, they are trying rather to discredit someone with public humiliation.

No, the skeptics are just asking for proof to begin with. Dr. Tilly from the "What the BLEEP do we know?" movie is also a skeptic of Dr. Emoto's work.

The burden of disproof is not on the scientific community. The burden of proof is on Dr. Emoto to reproduce his experiments in a controlled environment, provide instructions to reproduce his results and open up his research for peer review. He has done nothing of the sort. He is not a scientists, and his results are not scientific.

I mean, if you are going to just believe anything, look up vortexes and laylines, Evlis isn't dead, Aliens from Cyphertron are anal probing people, Bigfoot is a being of superior intellect from an alternate reality that opens a portal to our universe to walk around in the woods naked, psychics really do read minds - even when the results are inconclusive, and the world is ruled by an elite group called the Illuminati.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

No, the skeptics are just asking for proof to begin with. Dr. Tilly from the "What the BLEEP do we know?" movie is also a skeptic of Dr. Emoto's work.

The burden of disproof is not on the scientific community. The burden of proof is on Dr. Emoto to reproduce his experiments in a controlled environment, provide instructions to reproduce his results and open up his research for peer review. He has done nothing of the sort. He is not a scientists, and his results are not scientific.

I mean, if you are going to just believe anything, look up vortexes and laylines, Evlis isn't dead, Aliens from Cyphertron are anal probing people, Bigfoot is a being of superior intellect from an alternate reality that opens a portal to our universe to walk around in the woods naked, psychics really do read minds - even when the results are inconclusive, and the world is ruled by an elite group called the Illuminati.

Ahnimus, I'm all for real skepticism. I am for something not being considered scientifically proven until it meets the approval of scientific methods within the science community. To meet this standard, there is not room for mockery, and public humiliation. I'm not a fan of parading out the old social ostracization in the guise of skepticism. I prefer real skepticism. Social ostracization methods are unacceptable, imo because they give science--which is not to be confused as scientism--a bad name. People can disbelieve what they want, but when they try to trump another's belief with their own belief, using underhanded methods, I take issue.

Mr. Emoto is not under any pressure to do anything within the parameters of the scientific community, anymore than I am. Or anymore than you are held to the tenets of the Catholic religion. He can choose to do whatever he wants. If that bothers you and you think an appropriate response is to react with scientism, ostracization, public shaming, and maybe a red letter of shame pinned to him, due to your own feelings, that is not about Mr. Emoto. Just know that your scientism cannot trump pseudo-science.

Beyond Belief 2006

Comments

Categories