Forums > Social Discussion > Messages from Water
Login/Join to ParticipateSee my vest.... see my vest...
693 posts
Location: Adelaide - South Australia
693 posts
Location: Adelaide - South Australia
Posted:
Ok, if you have seen the movie 'what the bleep do we know' then you will know where I got this from. By the way, it's a really thought provoking movie. I think everyone should see it. You may not like it, but it still stimulates some interesting concepts about the philosophy and reality of life as we know it, and as we don’t know it.
But anyway. I found this part of the movie the most interesting. As a 'scientist' I am trying to work out if this is 'true'. For example, did he replicate his experimental results, did he use fair testing etc....
What do you think?
Dr. Masaru Emoto has undertaken the research of water around the planet not so much as a scientific researcher, but more from the perspective of an original thinker. He realized that it was in the frozen crystal form that water showed us its true nature. He continues with this experimentation and has written a variety of well-received books in Japanese, as well as the seminal "Messages from Water" books published bilingually.
https://www.wellnessgoods.com/messages.asp
.......I do think water is amazing though. And I also wouldn't be surprised if this was true.
But what do you think??
k8
Ok, if you have seen the movie 'what the bleep do we know' then you will know where I got this from. By the way, it's a really thought provoking movie. I think everyone should see it. You may not like it, but it still stimulates some interesting concepts about the philosophy and reality of life as we know it, and as we don’t know it.
But anyway. I found this part of the movie the most interesting. As a 'scientist' I am trying to work out if this is 'true'. For example, did he replicate his experimental results, did he use fair testing etc....
What do you think?
Dr. Masaru Emoto has undertaken the research of water around the planet not so much as a scientific researcher, but more from the perspective of an original thinker. He realized that it was in the frozen crystal form that water showed us its true nature. He continues with this experimentation and has written a variety of well-received books in Japanese, as well as the seminal "Messages from Water" books published bilingually.
https://www.wellnessgoods.com/messages.asp
.......I do think water is amazing though. And I also wouldn't be surprised if this was true.
But what do you think??
k8
Love and Light
~*~ Katinca ~*~
Its a bum with an afro...
223 posts
Location: Newcastle NSW
223 posts
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posted:
water is spakely and wet....
-there's my words of wisdom
water is spakely and wet....
-there's my words of wisdom
Racism is a weapon of mass destruction
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
water has a "true nature"?
i love his experiment of taping the names "Mother Theresa" and "Adolph Hitler" (sic) onto bottles of water, freezing them, then seeing which one makes prettier ice crystals
if you're gonna replicate an experiment, i think that one's the funniest.
water has a "true nature"?
i love his experiment of taping the names "Mother Theresa" and "Adolph Hitler" (sic) onto bottles of water, freezing them, then seeing which one makes prettier ice crystals
if you're gonna replicate an experiment, i think that one's the funniest.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
SILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
Posted:
It's really interesting, but maybe the way crystals form are more, well, random? The idea of water picking up 'vibrations' or patterns from things around it is prolific in homeopathy also, there's another thread about it somewhere debating how that's possible/impossible.
It's really interesting, but maybe the way crystals form are more, well, random? The idea of water picking up 'vibrations' or patterns from things around it is prolific in homeopathy also, there's another thread about it somewhere debating how that's possible/impossible.
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
I heard about this on the radio the other day. I was laughing about it for a while.
He couldn't even argue his point.
I heard about this on the radio the other day. I was laughing about it for a while.
He couldn't even argue his point.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
member
34 posts
Location: London, United Kingdom
member
34 posts
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posted:
It is a very interesting piece, but unsure how rigorous he has been. it would be cool to see his data and any repeats. It could be down to you Katinca to reproduce tese experiments and show the world the power of water. I am all for the memory of water theory personally, so it is not much of a stretch to Masaru's work.
It is a very interesting piece, but unsure how rigorous he has been. it would be cool to see his data and any repeats. It could be down to you Katinca to reproduce tese experiments and show the world the power of water. I am all for the memory of water theory personally, so it is not much of a stretch to Masaru's work.
*are those my feet?!*
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
'But its physical appearance is not
the only thing that changes; its molecular shape also changes. The energy or vibrations of the environment will change the molecular shape of water.'
This strikes me as false.
I'm sceptical about the rest.
The experiment of growing ice between two speakers I find plausible: obviously there are significant vibrations, which differ between music types, which might affect ice formation.
The 'stick some labels to the jars' experiment is completely wrong-headed. Words don't have 'energy' - they are just black marks on a piece of paper. Properties such as 'meaning' are not physical properties as such, and nor can they have any impact on the physical world.
Plus the website is chock-full of pseudoscientific nonsense. My usual objections to this apply.
'But its physical appearance is not
the only thing that changes; its molecular shape also changes. The energy or vibrations of the environment will change the molecular shape of water.'
This strikes me as false.
I'm sceptical about the rest.
The experiment of growing ice between two speakers I find plausible: obviously there are significant vibrations, which differ between music types, which might affect ice formation.
The 'stick some labels to the jars' experiment is completely wrong-headed. Words don't have 'energy' - they are just black marks on a piece of paper. Properties such as 'meaning' are not physical properties as such, and nor can they have any impact on the physical world.
Plus the website is chock-full of pseudoscientific nonsense. My usual objections to this apply.
ture na sig
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
i thought his point was more that the structure of the ice crystals was affected by an emotional response to the words from a reader, rather than the label itself.
Still not enormously convincing. i can't shake the feeling that Dr Emoto is just having a laugh.
Written by: quiet
The 'stick some labels to the jars' experiment is completely wrong-headed. Words don't have 'energy' - they are just black marks on a piece of paper. Properties such as 'meaning' are not physical properties as such, and nor can they have any impact on the physical world.
i thought his point was more that the structure of the ice crystals was affected by an emotional response to the words from a reader, rather than the label itself.
Still not enormously convincing. i can't shake the feeling that Dr Emoto is just having a laugh.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
The movie you speak of, and the 'scientist' you cite, have both won awards for being the some of the worst research ever seen. In short the movie is complete b@llocks. It looks to me like a bunch of cultists trying for a quick buck and new members. I find it very sad that people have allowed fiction to replace fact in their lives when it becomes an inconvienience. Perhaps we are aproaching a day when all the books are burned and all the scientists and teachers are put to the sword...
Sorry for that little rant but this kind of thing really gets me depressed.
The movie you speak of, and the 'scientist' you cite, have both won awards for being the some of the worst research ever seen. In short the movie is complete b@llocks
. It looks to me like a bunch of cultists trying for a quick buck and new members. I find it very sad that people have allowed fiction to replace fact in their lives when it becomes an inconvienience. Perhaps we are aproaching a day when all the books are burned and all the scientists and teachers are put to the sword...Sorry for that little rant but this kind of thing really gets me depressed.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
hey kate
really nice to see you posting
i have to say though, like many here, i don't follow the logic in a lot of parts of this research either.
to me, it very much smacks of the kabbalah water fiasco - compare with this story of a visit to toronto by dr emoto
i'm quite intrigued by the movie you mentioned though - will have to track it down and have me a gander
and this looks *really* interesting too...
cole. x
hey kate
really nice to see you posting
i have to say though, like many here, i don't follow the logic in a lot of parts of this research either.
to me, it very much smacks of the kabbalah water fiasco - compare with this story of a visit to toronto by dr emoto
i'm quite intrigued by the movie you mentioned though - will have to track it down and have me a gander
and this looks *really* interesting too...
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Dr EMOTO?
Am I the only one in this thread who thinks that's slightly ironic?
e
Dr EMOTO?
Am I the only one in this thread who thinks that's slightly ironic?
e
ture na sig
See my vest.... see my vest...
693 posts
Location: Adelaide - South Australia
693 posts
Location: Adelaide - South Australia
Posted:
Hey Cole *huG* Nice to see you too.
Yeah what can I say. I am a lurker. I'm around but I don't post that much. Find I don't have that much to say. I also get the Josh digest as well. It's very good.
I am a tad lazy as well.... and busy trying to 'teach' teenagers science.
Quiet - Yes that is ironic that his name is Dr. Emoto...
Hey Cole *huG* Nice to see you too.
Yeah what can I say. I am a lurker. I'm around but I don't post that much. Find I don't have that much to say. I also get the Josh digest as well.
It's very good. I am a tad lazy as well.... and busy trying to 'teach' teenagers science.
Quiet - Yes that is ironic that his name is Dr. Emoto...
Love and Light
~*~ Katinca ~*~
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
Science has a perfectly good explaination of paranormal occurences, depending on your interpretations of quantum theory.
For example there have been well documented and independantly repeated studies into astrology, that are pretty conclusive, in that the probability of people having specific occupations changes, depending on the position of the planets. (Michel Gauquelin, original researcher)
So you're just going to ignore his theories because he doesn't speak english well enough to defend them in your language?
It's sad that as soon as anything remotely paranormal crops up on the forums the same group of people all jump in and start mocking it and filling the thread up with so much negativity that anyone with an interest and the ability to have a reasonable, non-biased discussion is put off from posting, when it's quite obvious the contempt isn't just for the theories, but also those who show the slightest interest in them.
On behalf of anyone who might have posted here, but may be too insecure to do so after seeing the initial response;
If you don't have the common decency to respect the opinions of others, no matter how strange they may appear to you.
off.
Science has a perfectly good explaination of paranormal occurences, depending on your interpretations of quantum theory.
For example there have been well documented and independantly repeated studies into astrology, that are pretty conclusive, in that the probability of people having specific occupations changes, depending on the position of the planets. (Michel Gauquelin, original researcher)
Written by: Sym_
I heard about this on the radio the other day. I was laughing about it for a while.
He couldn't even argue his point.
So you're just going to ignore his theories because he doesn't speak english well enough to defend them in your language?
It's sad that as soon as anything remotely paranormal crops up on the forums the same group of people all jump in and start mocking it and filling the thread up with so much negativity that anyone with an interest and the ability to have a reasonable, non-biased discussion is put off from posting, when it's quite obvious the contempt isn't just for the theories, but also those who show the slightest interest in them.
On behalf of anyone who might have posted here, but may be too insecure to do so after seeing the initial response;
If you don't have the common decency to respect the opinions of others, no matter how strange they may appear to you.
off. You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
having never met either of you before, I can safely say I think you Polarity, and you Sym, are very similar.
I think what Sym meant was that even though he probably can speak english very well, he wasnt able to argue his point as there was no scientific reasoning behind them (IMHO). Not due to his lack of English.
"If you don't have the common decency to respect the opinions of others, no matter how strange they may appear to you." - I dont see why you should automaticaly have to respect someones opinion. If I believe something to be utter rubbish, I wouldnt be able to respect it. I could repect their belief in what they are saying, but i couldnt respect what they are saying.
having never met either of you before, I can safely say I think you Polarity, and you Sym, are very similar.
I think what Sym meant was that even though he probably can speak english very well, he wasnt able to argue his point as there was no scientific reasoning behind them (IMHO). Not due to his lack of English.
"If you don't have the common decency to respect the opinions of others, no matter how strange they may appear to you." - I dont see why you should automaticaly have to respect someones opinion. If I believe something to be utter rubbish, I wouldnt be able to respect it. I could repect their belief in what they are saying, but i couldnt respect what they are saying.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I not being condescending to anyone. I'm simply pointing out that most of what your talking about is wrong and I can give evidence that it's wrong. I'm not sure why 'believers' are so closed minded about the truth but they appear to sieze upon every madcap piece of rubbish research done by some idiot charlatan that they find. (O.K that last sentence was condescending).
Please, the world is a beutiful place if you will only open up your mind. Quantum mechanics is a majestic theory but your misinterpratation of it is hideous. Water is capable of doing things that you could never dream of but it can't read words written on it's side. A tree is a beutiful thing but it's even more beutiful when you're aware of the shear complexity of what's going on inside it, and how such a thing could come about without intervention.
Personally I think that the best way of worshiping nature is by understanding her. Perhaps there is nothing worst than people spreading misconceptions and superstitions about somthing as amazing and incredible as the world we find ourselves in. Mabey that's why I get so uptight when people start misrepresenting science in such a way as to distort nature to try and 'prove' their superstitions. Mabey I'm evangelical about these views because I want other people to be able to appreciate the unmitagated beuty of the cosmos. Mabey, just mabey, I'd like to end with a plea to everyone to try and listen to what nature is trying to tell us, unclouded by their preconceptions.
I'll fell bad if this post offends anyone, but I won't apologise for it. I know that I am going to get a tirade about how I am 'closed minded' and unable to appreciate the beuty of nature. I am passionate about science and the search for the truth. If I can get just one more peson to share that passion I think it would be a wonderful thing.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1117192541)
I not being condescending to anyone. I'm simply pointing out that most of what your talking about is wrong and I can give evidence that it's wrong. I'm not sure why 'believers' are so closed minded about the truth but they appear to sieze upon every madcap piece of rubbish research done by some idiot charlatan that they find. (O.K that last sentence was condescending).
Please, the world is a beutiful place if you will only open up your mind. Quantum mechanics is a majestic theory but your misinterpratation of it is hideous. Water is capable of doing things that you could never dream of but it can't read words written on it's side. A tree is a beutiful thing but it's even more beutiful when you're aware of the shear complexity of what's going on inside it, and how such a thing could come about without intervention.
Personally I think that the best way of worshiping nature is by understanding her. Perhaps there is nothing worst than people spreading misconceptions and superstitions about somthing as amazing and incredible as the world we find ourselves in. Mabey that's why I get so uptight when people start misrepresenting science in such a way as to distort nature to try and 'prove' their superstitions. Mabey I'm evangelical about these views because I want other people to be able to appreciate the unmitagated beuty of the cosmos. Mabey, just mabey, I'd like to end with a plea to everyone to try and listen to what nature is trying to tell us, unclouded by their preconceptions.
I'll fell bad if this post offends anyone, but I won't apologise for it. I know that I am going to get a tirade about how I am 'closed minded' and unable to appreciate the beuty of nature. I am passionate about science and the search for the truth. If I can get just one more peson to share that passion I think it would be a wonderful thing.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1117192541)
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Hey polarity!
If you expect people whose mind works scientifically to respect your opinion, or the opinion of anyone who believes in paranormal stuff, please in turn respect theirs and their "negativity". This thread is open discussion, and Kate was asking for people's opinions. Tolerance is to respect opinions different from yours even if you think they're wrong, not just respect those opinions that go along with yours or those that respect yours. So if you "don't have the decency" to respect opinions of scientists, don't tell them to fxck off, that's being just as close-minded as you don't want them to be.
I know Jeff and he is very much able (just like me) to marvel at nature and the beauty of it. And I agree that being a scientist can even increase that marvel.
Also, assuming that we (I'm one of those jumping in paranormal threads sometimes so I feel you adressed me) have contempt for people who believe in paranormal or spiritual things or alternative medicine is not justified at all. Where do you get that opinion from? (on a side-note, lots of contempt on this site seems to go out to Christians, who have a different kind of spirituality from lots of spiritual people on here and have to regularly take abuse from people who want their own beliefs respected)
I see how it is very difficult for you to make your beliefs plausible to us "cynicals". In my opinion, that is because your beliefs are very probably wrong and therefore easier to disprove than to support with evidence. In your opinion it's because I'm close-minded and only believe in things I see. So we probably won't find a compromise to agree on and can go arguing on forever, or we can just accept that there won't be an agreement and leave it there and be friendly. But please don't accuse people of being disrespectful just because they don't share your views and express that opinion.
Hey polarity!
If you expect people whose mind works scientifically to respect your opinion, or the opinion of anyone who believes in paranormal stuff, please in turn respect theirs and their "negativity". This thread is open discussion, and Kate was asking for people's opinions. Tolerance is to respect opinions different from yours even if you think they're wrong, not just respect those opinions that go along with yours or those that respect yours. So if you "don't have the decency" to respect opinions of scientists, don't tell them to fxck off, that's being just as close-minded as you don't want them to be.
I know Jeff and he is very much able (just like me) to marvel at nature and the beauty of it. And I agree that being a scientist can even increase that marvel.
Also, assuming that we (I'm one of those jumping in paranormal threads sometimes so I feel you adressed me) have contempt for people who believe in paranormal or spiritual things or alternative medicine is not justified at all. Where do you get that opinion from? (on a side-note, lots of contempt on this site seems to go out to Christians, who have a different kind of spirituality from lots of spiritual people on here and have to regularly take abuse from people who want their own beliefs respected)
I see how it is very difficult for you to make your beliefs plausible to us "cynicals". In my opinion, that is because your beliefs are very probably wrong and therefore easier to disprove than to support with evidence. In your opinion it's because I'm close-minded and only believe in things I see. So we probably won't find a compromise to agree on and can go arguing on forever, or we can just accept that there won't be an agreement and leave it there and be friendly. But please don't accuse people of being disrespectful just because they don't share your views and express that opinion.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
I'm going to address the issue of Dr Emoto's credibility via the (admittedly cheap) medium of extracting quotes from a talk that he gave, and pointing out their horribly evident falsity.
'Positive energy corresponds/responds to Positive energy.
Negative energy corresponds/responds to Negative energy.
Example: Sars. If you have a constant fear of it, then it will be your friend and respond to you.
The more 'pure' the sound of energy is, the further it reaches. With satellites, the energy frequency is so 'pure' it reaches far in to the earth. . . .
in Figure (2) --- he shows the Vibration of the Earth, which is a result of the increase in population. More people mean more energy --- more vibration. As the vibration increases, the temperature increases. Temperature is vibration.
Vibration can be suppressed only by water. Therefore, the 21st century is the century of water. . . .
Example, with Breast cancer: If one can measure the frequecy of the wave of the breast cancer --- if we can create a wave to offset it --- the breast cancer goes away.'
Where to begin?
1. You don't make SARS into your friend by being afraid of it; nor is fear going to make a difference to global prevalence (except insofar as it makes you inclined to avoid travel, people who cough, etc.)
2. The reason that satellite 'waves' penetrate deep into the earth is due to their nature (that is, EM waves) and wavelength (i.e. long). It's nothing to do with their purity.
3. Temperature isn't vibration.
4. And if you think that only water cancels vibration, you must have some pretty funny ideas about car suspension systems.
5. Furthermore, breast cancer doesn't get cured like this. Do you think it's some strange coincidence that breast cancer is dealt with by radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, rather than chanting?
-----------
Polarity (and others): there's a general point to be made here. Some theories *deserve* contempt, like:
i) 'The world is flat'
or
ii) 'Evolution did not, and does not, happen'
Why do these deserve contempt? Because they go against all the (scientific) evidence. There is *no* reason to believe these theories, other than 'hey, I like the idea'. And *that* is a massive vice: people who believe crazy stuff, against the evidence, and for no particularly good reason, deserve censure, although perhaps not contempt. Though I personally think that, for instance, those Americans who want to push Darwin out of schools deserve contempt.
I'm going to address the issue of Dr Emoto's credibility via the (admittedly cheap) medium of extracting quotes from a talk that he gave, and pointing out their horribly evident falsity.
'Positive energy corresponds/responds to Positive energy.
Negative energy corresponds/responds to Negative energy.
Example: Sars. If you have a constant fear of it, then it will be your friend and respond to you.
The more 'pure' the sound of energy is, the further it reaches. With satellites, the energy frequency is so 'pure' it reaches far in to the earth. . . .
in Figure (2) --- he shows the Vibration of the Earth, which is a result of the increase in population. More people mean more energy --- more vibration. As the vibration increases, the temperature increases. Temperature is vibration.
Vibration can be suppressed only by water. Therefore, the 21st century is the century of water. . . .
Example, with Breast cancer: If one can measure the frequecy of the wave of the breast cancer --- if we can create a wave to offset it --- the breast cancer goes away.'
Where to begin?
1. You don't make SARS into your friend by being afraid of it; nor is fear going to make a difference to global prevalence (except insofar as it makes you inclined to avoid travel, people who cough, etc.)
2. The reason that satellite 'waves' penetrate deep into the earth is due to their nature (that is, EM waves) and wavelength (i.e. long). It's nothing to do with their purity.
3. Temperature isn't vibration.
4. And if you think that only water cancels vibration, you must have some pretty funny ideas about car suspension systems.
5. Furthermore, breast cancer doesn't get cured like this. Do you think it's some strange coincidence that breast cancer is dealt with by radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, rather than chanting?
-----------
Polarity (and others): there's a general point to be made here. Some theories *deserve* contempt, like:
i) 'The world is flat'
or
ii) 'Evolution did not, and does not, happen'
Why do these deserve contempt? Because they go against all the (scientific) evidence. There is *no* reason to believe these theories, other than 'hey, I like the idea'. And *that* is a massive vice: people who believe crazy stuff, against the evidence, and for no particularly good reason, deserve censure, although perhaps not contempt. Though I personally think that, for instance, those Americans who want to push Darwin out of schools deserve contempt.
ture na sig
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
yuk
just read that article and it seems that confusing mental perception with measurable reality is being touted as a logical extension of the copenhagen interpretation of qm!
the superposition of realities idea is an acceptable theory.
but stating that "what we feel is what is real in our universe" is *not* a logical extension of this theory
on one hand he says "you don't need intelligence to be a quantum observer" and that he finds the many worlds "a bit ridiculous".
yet by the end of the article he is claiming that each sentient observer exists within their own universe constructed solely from "what they feel (and will?)".
which reads a lot like a many worlds theory that only applying to sentient observers...?
the article is both contradictory and badly argued imho.
i actually like some of the ideas but for me, this is just another in a long line of dismally failed attempts to combine physics and metaphysics.
cole. x
EDITED_BY: coleman (1117196260)
Written by: polarity
Science has a perfectly good explaination of paranormal occurences, depending on your interpretations of quantum theory.
yuk
just read that article and it seems that confusing mental perception with measurable reality is being touted as a logical extension of the copenhagen interpretation of qm!
the superposition of realities idea is an acceptable theory.
but stating that "what we feel is what is real in our universe" is *not* a logical extension of this theory
on one hand he says "you don't need intelligence to be a quantum observer" and that he finds the many worlds "a bit ridiculous".
yet by the end of the article he is claiming that each sentient observer exists within their own universe constructed solely from "what they feel (and will?)".
which reads a lot like a many worlds theory that only applying to sentient observers...?
the article is both contradictory and badly argued imho.
i actually like some of the ideas but for me, this is just another in a long line of dismally failed attempts to combine physics and metaphysics.
cole. x
EDITED_BY: coleman (1117196260)
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Oh My God quiet, these quotes just so reminds me of a New Age magazine someone gave me a few years ago, that said the ozone layer wasn't dissolving, but that it was just made up by industry to sell products without fluoro-chloro-carbohydrates (dunno the proper English word, that's translated from German, but I'm sure you know what I'm on about!), and that you can't get HIV/AIDS if you eat healthy food. Sounds like that guy could've been editor-in-chief... No comment necessary I think
Oh My God quiet, these quotes just so reminds me of a New Age magazine someone gave me a few years ago, that said the ozone layer wasn't dissolving, but that it was just made up by industry to sell products without fluoro-chloro-carbohydrates (dunno the proper English word, that's translated from German, but I'm sure you know what I'm on about!), and that you can't get HIV/AIDS if you eat healthy food. Sounds like that guy could've been editor-in-chief... No comment necessary I think
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
I completely agree. The Universe is an utterly amazing thing and the more I understand about it the more amazing I find it. Science for me just shows how amazing it is that such a complex place filled with galaxies, stars, planets, people, cows and trees can be built up from such simple rules and pieces.
All of this pseudo-science annoys me because it's reintroducing ignorance, saying that we can only appreciate things if we don't know how they work. Which strikes me as being completely the opposite of human nature...
Written by: jeff(fake)
Please, the world is a beutiful place if you will only open up your mind. Quantum mechanics is a majestic theory but your misinterpratation of it is hideous. Water is capable of doing things that you could never dream of but it can't read words written on it's side. A tree is a beutiful thing but it's even more beutiful when you're aware of the shear complexity of what's going on inside it, and how such a thing could come about without intervention.
I completely agree. The Universe is an utterly amazing thing and the more I understand about it the more amazing I find it. Science for me just shows how amazing it is that such a complex place filled with galaxies, stars, planets, people, cows and trees can be built up from such simple rules and pieces.
All of this pseudo-science annoys me because it's reintroducing ignorance, saying that we can only appreciate things if we don't know how they work. Which strikes me as being completely the opposite of human nature...
"Moo," said the happy cow.
SILVER Member
mischeivious pixie
291 posts
Location: Sydney, Australia
mischeivious pixie
291 posts
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posted:
all seems a bit far fetched to me...nice idea and nice photographs though!
all seems a bit far fetched to me...nice idea and nice photographs though!
"I dont want no fatty bumbum, i want a lean mean shagging machine" anon
"I'm sweet and wholesome with a little bit of filth thrown in"
What would you do if you knew you could not fail?
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I'm sorry...
But that is the biggest load of BULL HONKEY I've ever seen.
Oh sure, I can freeze water and take pretty pictures of pretty crystals that form (they always do...) and attribute it to whatever and then take pictures of impurity and attribute it to whatever, as well.
Is there anything he can quantitate here? No. Is there any reason Beethoven should be better than Metallica for water? No.
Are there people willing to believe this because it's all very new-age and spiritual-sounding? Yeah...
I'm sorry...
But that is the biggest load of BULL HONKEY I've ever seen.
Oh sure, I can freeze water and take pretty pictures of pretty crystals that form (they always do...) and attribute it to whatever and then take pictures of impurity and attribute it to whatever, as well.
Is there anything he can quantitate here? No. Is there any reason Beethoven should be better than Metallica for water? No.
Are there people willing to believe this because it's all very new-age and spiritual-sounding? Yeah...
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'll come into this thread as someone who is 'in the middle' when it comes to the science vs. 'new-age' debate; being someone who has repeatedly and frequently oscilated between those two extremes for most of my life.
And who has now found a happy place between the two, in which the positives and negatives of both are acknowledged, and in which there is reconciliation.
Firstly, concerning 'pseudo-science', I fully understand why the 'scientific' types are annoyed- much of it is quite laughable.
IMO, the sincere 'new-age/spiritual' community does itself, and its beliefs; harm, by constantly trying to validate them through, for example, quantum physics/other little understood scientific doctrines.
1. because most of those who try to do so are in no position to do so to the incredibly strict standards/procedures of science
2. in many cases it's not actually possible- for example, alternative health remedies are generally unlikely to be able to be tested in the way that pharmacutical stuff is- the pharmacutical companies will not invest the vast amounts of $ to fund research into stuff that will not make a profit
3. new-age doctrines that are good, are good for reasons which aren't necessarily scientifically testable- to me it's a little sad that good and effective doctrines are brought down by those feeling the need to validate them using the latest obscure branch of science
===============================
Polarity has said something here which is worth listening to.
He's spoken elsewhere about his 'aspie' nature. I suspect that many of those who get deeply into spiritual systems and alternative world views are also people who see the world differently, who are often diagnosed with aspergers, autism, borderline personality etc etc.
Some of these conditions involve seeing/feeling things which, scientifically speaking, are not real; or seeing meaning and patterns where 'normal' people can't.
I think that these days it is becoming obvious that the view that such people are in a tiny minority is incorrect- they form a substantial minority and one of the reasons this is not more obvious is due to such stuff as them being less confident socially, tending to spend time alone, and being less vocal etc.
ie they're more sensitive.
I suspect that polarity is right in thinking that there has been some bullying here; then again, IMO, that's not so unusual on HOP.
Neither is it intentional; 'normals' have their perception of what constitutes 'bullying' and tend to assume they're right.
I think it could be worth reflecting on the fact that those who are more sensitive will often set the line of what constitutes bullying, considerably lower; as always feedback is the key- if someone says they feel bullied, often it is because they are being bullied.
Additionally, to the 'scientific' types, I'd point out that it's pretty much been scientifically shown that the worst way to get your point across is to force it, be insulting, or ridicule the people you're trying to convince.
(and what's important here isn't whether you judge your behaviour to be 'reasonable'- if they feel ridiculed, then you've lost the opportunity to get your point across).
==============================
IMO, if an alternative world-view makes some people feel better anout their lives, or makes them feel 'healed'; then that is good.
I'm very aware that some alternative health systems are grossly exploitative, and that people have died through following them; as always, I'll point out that the same holds for orthodox medicine.
=============================
Concerning the 'beauty of the scientific world'- it's great for those of you who can see it and marvel at it.
But there's a lot of people to whom the pure scientific world is a empty, lonely and meaningless place; perhaps most especially for those with the personality conditions mentioned above.
For those people 'spirituality' can literally save their lives; it's not an easy option, and it will for many require a lot of time and searching; but it can make the difference between them commiting suicide, and living a fruitfull life.
There's a fine line between spiritual greatness/genius and mental disfunction/mental illness; my opinion is that where one falls on that line is not down to the 'scientific reality' of any perceptions resulting from the condition (whether the condition is a spiritual one or a mental disfunction), but, rather, is down to how one handles it.
Crowley died a miserable drug addict; the buddha created a beautiful spiritual system which changed the world.
Was one a spiritual genius and the other mentally disfunctional? Or was it simply that they handled their 'strange' ideas in different ways.
I think Jung had the right idea when he said that the 'reality' of spirit entities was of no relevance when compared to the value of what their insights brought into ones life.
ie if a 'spirit guide' points you in directions that give great benefit, the question of whether it is a 'real' being in a spiritual realm, or instead is merely an aspect of your own subconscious, is of no great importance.
The very visions and 'strange' thoughts that once kept me suicidely depressed for two years, are the same as the ones that now give my life meaning.
====================
To the scientific types I'd say, endevour to present your views with sensitivity, don't rip the piss out of those who seem to hold naive views about the world.
The 'sensitives' contribute to this world in ways that you can no more understand, than they can understand you.
To the new-age/spiritual types, I'd say stop the attempts at scientific validation- it's not necessary and it just winds the scientists up; if you have a doctrine that makes your world beautiful then that's good enough, use it freely and share it with those who are open to it; don't waste your energy and credibility by hijacking quantum physics.
(of course, I don't mean by that, that there is no place for scientific exploration into 'alternative systems'- it's just got to be done properly, and currently there's little incentive for orthodox science to invest the considerable resources necessary)
I'll come into this thread as someone who is 'in the middle' when it comes to the science vs. 'new-age' debate; being someone who has repeatedly and frequently oscilated between those two extremes for most of my life.
And who has now found a happy place between the two, in which the positives and negatives of both are acknowledged, and in which there is reconciliation.
Firstly, concerning 'pseudo-science', I fully understand why the 'scientific' types are annoyed- much of it is quite laughable.
IMO, the sincere 'new-age/spiritual' community does itself, and its beliefs; harm, by constantly trying to validate them through, for example, quantum physics/other little understood scientific doctrines.
1. because most of those who try to do so are in no position to do so to the incredibly strict standards/procedures of science
2. in many cases it's not actually possible- for example, alternative health remedies are generally unlikely to be able to be tested in the way that pharmacutical stuff is- the pharmacutical companies will not invest the vast amounts of $ to fund research into stuff that will not make a profit
3. new-age doctrines that are good, are good for reasons which aren't necessarily scientifically testable- to me it's a little sad that good and effective doctrines are brought down by those feeling the need to validate them using the latest obscure branch of science
===============================
Written by: polarity
It's sad that as soon as anything remotely paranormal crops up on the forums the same group of people all jump in and start mocking it and filling the thread up with so much negativity that anyone with an interest and the ability to have a reasonable, non-biased discussion is put off from posting, when it's quite obvious the contempt isn't just for the theories, but also those who show the slightest interest in them.
On behalf of anyone who might have posted here, but may be too insecure to do so after seeing the initial response;
If you don't have the common decency to respect the opinions of others, no matter how strange they may appear to you.
Polarity has said something here which is worth listening to.
He's spoken elsewhere about his 'aspie' nature. I suspect that many of those who get deeply into spiritual systems and alternative world views are also people who see the world differently, who are often diagnosed with aspergers, autism, borderline personality etc etc.
Some of these conditions involve seeing/feeling things which, scientifically speaking, are not real; or seeing meaning and patterns where 'normal' people can't.
I think that these days it is becoming obvious that the view that such people are in a tiny minority is incorrect- they form a substantial minority and one of the reasons this is not more obvious is due to such stuff as them being less confident socially, tending to spend time alone, and being less vocal etc.
ie they're more sensitive.
I suspect that polarity is right in thinking that there has been some bullying here; then again, IMO, that's not so unusual on HOP.
Neither is it intentional; 'normals' have their perception of what constitutes 'bullying' and tend to assume they're right.
I think it could be worth reflecting on the fact that those who are more sensitive will often set the line of what constitutes bullying, considerably lower; as always feedback is the key- if someone says they feel bullied, often it is because they are being bullied.
Additionally, to the 'scientific' types, I'd point out that it's pretty much been scientifically shown that the worst way to get your point across is to force it, be insulting, or ridicule the people you're trying to convince.
(and what's important here isn't whether you judge your behaviour to be 'reasonable'- if they feel ridiculed, then you've lost the opportunity to get your point across).
==============================
IMO, if an alternative world-view makes some people feel better anout their lives, or makes them feel 'healed'; then that is good.
I'm very aware that some alternative health systems are grossly exploitative, and that people have died through following them; as always, I'll point out that the same holds for orthodox medicine.
=============================
Concerning the 'beauty of the scientific world'- it's great for those of you who can see it and marvel at it.
But there's a lot of people to whom the pure scientific world is a empty, lonely and meaningless place; perhaps most especially for those with the personality conditions mentioned above.
For those people 'spirituality' can literally save their lives; it's not an easy option, and it will for many require a lot of time and searching; but it can make the difference between them commiting suicide, and living a fruitfull life.
There's a fine line between spiritual greatness/genius and mental disfunction/mental illness; my opinion is that where one falls on that line is not down to the 'scientific reality' of any perceptions resulting from the condition (whether the condition is a spiritual one or a mental disfunction), but, rather, is down to how one handles it.
Crowley died a miserable drug addict; the buddha created a beautiful spiritual system which changed the world.
Was one a spiritual genius and the other mentally disfunctional? Or was it simply that they handled their 'strange' ideas in different ways.
I think Jung had the right idea when he said that the 'reality' of spirit entities was of no relevance when compared to the value of what their insights brought into ones life.
ie if a 'spirit guide' points you in directions that give great benefit, the question of whether it is a 'real' being in a spiritual realm, or instead is merely an aspect of your own subconscious, is of no great importance.
The very visions and 'strange' thoughts that once kept me suicidely depressed for two years, are the same as the ones that now give my life meaning.
====================
To the scientific types I'd say, endevour to present your views with sensitivity, don't rip the piss out of those who seem to hold naive views about the world.
The 'sensitives' contribute to this world in ways that you can no more understand, than they can understand you.
To the new-age/spiritual types, I'd say stop the attempts at scientific validation- it's not necessary and it just winds the scientists up; if you have a doctrine that makes your world beautiful then that's good enough, use it freely and share it with those who are open to it; don't waste your energy and credibility by hijacking quantum physics.
(of course, I don't mean by that, that there is no place for scientific exploration into 'alternative systems'- it's just got to be done properly, and currently there's little incentive for orthodox science to invest the considerable resources necessary)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
newbie
1 post
1 post
Posted:
When Siddhartha fell silent, there was a long stillness. And then Vasudeva said: "It is as I thought. The river spoke to you. It is your friend too, it speaks to you too. That is good, that is very good. Stay with me Siddhartha, my friend. I once had a wife, her pallet was next to mine, but she died long ago, I have long lived alone. Live with me now, there is room and food for both of us."
"I thank you," said Siddhartha, "I thank you and accept. And I also thank you, Vasudeva, for listening to me so well! Rare are the people who know how to listen, and I have never net anyone who knew it so well as you. This too I will learn from you."
"You will learn it," said Vasudeva, "but not from me. It was the river that taught me how to listen; you too will learn how from the river. The river knows everything, one can learn everything from it. Look, you too have already learned from the river that it is good to strive downward, to sink, to seek the depth. The rich and noble Siddhartha is becoming an oarsman, the learned Brahmin Siddhartha is becoming a ferryman. This too was told to you by the river. You will learn the other thing from the river too."
Siddhartha said, after a long pause: "What other thing, Vasudeva?"
Vasudeva stood up. "It is late, " he said, "let us go to bed. I cannot tell you what the 'other' thing is, my friend. You will learn it, perhaps you know it already."
....
Siddhartha remained with the ferryman and learned how to handle the boat,
...
But more than Vasudeva could teach him, the river taught him. He learned incessantly from the river. Above all, it taught him how to listen, to listen with a silent heart, with a waiting, open soul, without passion, without desire, without judgment, without opinion.
He lived amiably next to Vasudeva, and at times they exchanged words, few and long-pondered words. Vasudeva was no friend of words; Siddhartha could seldom get him to speak.
"Did the river," he once asked, "also teach you this secret: that time does not exist?"
Vasudeva's face lit up with a bright smile.
"Yes, Siddhartha," he said. "Is this what you mean: that the river is everywhere at once, at its source and at its mouth, at the waterfall, at the ferry, at the rapids, in the sea, in the mountains, everywhere at once, and only the present exists for it, and not the shadow of the future?"
"That is it," said Siddhartha. "And when I learned that, I looked at my life, and it was also a river, and the boy Siddhartha was separated from the adult Siddhartha and from the old man Siddhartha only by a shadow, not by substance. Nor were Siddhartha's earlier births the past, and his death and his return to Brahma are no future. Nothing was, nothing will be; everything is, everything has being and is present."
Siddhartha spoke ecstatically; this illumination had made him deeply blissful. Oh, were not all sufferings time? Were not all fear and self-torment time, were not all difficulty, all hostility in the the world over and overcome as soon as time was overcome, as soon as time could be thought away? He had spoken ecstatically. Vasudeva beamed at him and nodded in confirmation, he nodded silently, ran his hand over Siddhartha's shoulder and went back to his work.
And once again, when the river swelled in the rainy season and was roaring mightily, Siddhartha said: "Is it not true, O friend, that the river has many voices. Does it not have the voice of a king, and of a warrior, and of a bull, and of a night bird, and of a woman giving birth, and of a sighing man, and a thousand other voices?"
"It is so," nodded Vasudeva, "the voices of all creatures are in its voice."
"And do you know," Siddhartha went on, "what word it speaks when you succeed in hearing all its ten thousand voices all at once?"
Vasudeva laughed happily, he leaned over to siddhartha and spoke the sacred om into his ear. And that was indeed what Siddhartha had heard.
And little by little, his smile grew more similar to the ferryman's, became almost as radiant, almost as blissful, likewise shining from a thousand tiny creases, likewise a youngster's, likewise and oldster's. Many travelers who saw the two ferrymen thought they were brothers. On many evenings, they say together at the tree trunk by the bank, silently listening to the water, which was no water for them, but the voice of life, the voice of Being, the voice of eternal Becoming. And there were moments when both, while hearing the river, thought of the same things, of a conversation from two days ago, of one of their passengers, whose face and fate occupied their minds, of death, of their childhoods, and both of them in the same moment, when the river had said something good to them, looked at each other, both thinking the exact same thoughts, both blissful at this same answer to the same question.
- From Siddhartha, by Hermann Hesse
EDITED_BY: jennyb (1117274538)
When Siddhartha fell silent, there was a long stillness. And then Vasudeva said: "It is as I thought. The river spoke to you. It is your friend too, it speaks to you too. That is good, that is very good. Stay with me Siddhartha, my friend. I once had a wife, her pallet was next to mine, but she died long ago, I have long lived alone. Live with me now, there is room and food for both of us."
"I thank you," said Siddhartha, "I thank you and accept. And I also thank you, Vasudeva, for listening to me so well! Rare are the people who know how to listen, and I have never net anyone who knew it so well as you. This too I will learn from you."
"You will learn it," said Vasudeva, "but not from me. It was the river that taught me how to listen; you too will learn how from the river. The river knows everything, one can learn everything from it. Look, you too have already learned from the river that it is good to strive downward, to sink, to seek the depth. The rich and noble Siddhartha is becoming an oarsman, the learned Brahmin Siddhartha is becoming a ferryman. This too was told to you by the river. You will learn the other thing from the river too."
Siddhartha said, after a long pause: "What other thing, Vasudeva?"
Vasudeva stood up. "It is late, " he said, "let us go to bed. I cannot tell you what the 'other' thing is, my friend. You will learn it, perhaps you know it already."
....
Siddhartha remained with the ferryman and learned how to handle the boat,
...
But more than Vasudeva could teach him, the river taught him. He learned incessantly from the river. Above all, it taught him how to listen, to listen with a silent heart, with a waiting, open soul, without passion, without desire, without judgment, without opinion.
He lived amiably next to Vasudeva, and at times they exchanged words, few and long-pondered words. Vasudeva was no friend of words; Siddhartha could seldom get him to speak.
"Did the river," he once asked, "also teach you this secret: that time does not exist?"
Vasudeva's face lit up with a bright smile.
"Yes, Siddhartha," he said. "Is this what you mean: that the river is everywhere at once, at its source and at its mouth, at the waterfall, at the ferry, at the rapids, in the sea, in the mountains, everywhere at once, and only the present exists for it, and not the shadow of the future?"
"That is it," said Siddhartha. "And when I learned that, I looked at my life, and it was also a river, and the boy Siddhartha was separated from the adult Siddhartha and from the old man Siddhartha only by a shadow, not by substance. Nor were Siddhartha's earlier births the past, and his death and his return to Brahma are no future. Nothing was, nothing will be; everything is, everything has being and is present."
Siddhartha spoke ecstatically; this illumination had made him deeply blissful. Oh, were not all sufferings time? Were not all fear and self-torment time, were not all difficulty, all hostility in the the world over and overcome as soon as time was overcome, as soon as time could be thought away? He had spoken ecstatically. Vasudeva beamed at him and nodded in confirmation, he nodded silently, ran his hand over Siddhartha's shoulder and went back to his work.
And once again, when the river swelled in the rainy season and was roaring mightily, Siddhartha said: "Is it not true, O friend, that the river has many voices. Does it not have the voice of a king, and of a warrior, and of a bull, and of a night bird, and of a woman giving birth, and of a sighing man, and a thousand other voices?"
"It is so," nodded Vasudeva, "the voices of all creatures are in its voice."
"And do you know," Siddhartha went on, "what word it speaks when you succeed in hearing all its ten thousand voices all at once?"
Vasudeva laughed happily, he leaned over to siddhartha and spoke the sacred om into his ear. And that was indeed what Siddhartha had heard.
And little by little, his smile grew more similar to the ferryman's, became almost as radiant, almost as blissful, likewise shining from a thousand tiny creases, likewise a youngster's, likewise and oldster's. Many travelers who saw the two ferrymen thought they were brothers. On many evenings, they say together at the tree trunk by the bank, silently listening to the water, which was no water for them, but the voice of life, the voice of Being, the voice of eternal Becoming. And there were moments when both, while hearing the river, thought of the same things, of a conversation from two days ago, of one of their passengers, whose face and fate occupied their minds, of death, of their childhoods, and both of them in the same moment, when the river had said something good to them, looked at each other, both thinking the exact same thoughts, both blissful at this same answer to the same question.
- From Siddhartha, by Hermann Hesse
EDITED_BY: jennyb (1117274538)
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
'nuff said
'nuff said
ture na sig
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Mmm, lovely story...
onewheeldave, you too must accept that you could be wrong. Yes, the madman is often a happy man, but he's still mad.
Lastly, on the accusation of bullying, it looks to me like the skeptics are the ones getting ripped into. Whenever we try to present our views we immeadiatly get accused of being 'closed minded'. In the science and religion thread people were making quiet out to be some kind of fascist. Simply pointing out that a persons entire religion is probably wrong isn't a personal attack, it's simply a statement about how the world appears. If your belief aren't air tight it probably isn't a good idea to hold them, let alone post them. Thats just how I feel anyway.
Mmm, lovely story...
onewheeldave, you too must accept that you could be wrong. Yes, the madman is often a happy man, but he's still mad.
Lastly, on the accusation of bullying, it looks to me like the skeptics are the ones getting ripped into. Whenever we try to present our views we immeadiatly get accused of being 'closed minded'. In the science and religion thread people were making quiet out to be some kind of fascist. Simply pointing out that a persons entire religion is probably wrong isn't a personal attack, it's simply a statement about how the world appears. If your belief aren't air tight it probably isn't a good idea to hold them, let alone post them. Thats just how I feel anyway.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
re: 'if it works, then leave it'
I think there's a conflict of values here, also: I'd rather know the truth, and risk unhappiness, than find solace in a pack of lies.
re: 'if it works, then leave it'
I think there's a conflict of values here, also: I'd rather know the truth, and risk unhappiness, than find solace in a pack of lies.
ture na sig
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
owd, I agree with most of what you say. Actually it IS people trying to validate spiritual things with what they perceive as science that annoys me most. I'm able to accept people's spirituality and just agree to disagree.
Please bear in mind though that it's very hard to speak in a tone that is good for everyone involved in a discussion. If I say something bluntly, someone may be upset because he/she's more sensitive. Aspergers is a good example - however, I know at least one person with a mild form of autism that doesn't get a point until you really rub it in and say it as bluntly as possible. Add for example that I'm not a native English speaker and therefore sometimes get mixed up with nuances of tone/politeness, but would still like to get involved in debates. The easiest thing would be to just assume people are not trying to insult others, and to say "look, what you just wrote sounded a bit offensive to me, did you actually mean it that way", especially if you know you're a very sensitive person.
owd, I agree with most of what you say. Actually it IS people trying to validate spiritual things with what they perceive as science that annoys me most. I'm able to accept people's spirituality and just agree to disagree.
Please bear in mind though that it's very hard to speak in a tone that is good for everyone involved in a discussion. If I say something bluntly, someone may be upset because he/she's more sensitive. Aspergers is a good example - however, I know at least one person with a mild form of autism that doesn't get a point until you really rub it in and say it as bluntly as possible. Add for example that I'm not a native English speaker and therefore sometimes get mixed up with nuances of tone/politeness, but would still like to get involved in debates. The easiest thing would be to just assume people are not trying to insult others, and to say "look, what you just wrote sounded a bit offensive to me, did you actually mean it that way", especially if you know you're a very sensitive person.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
An interesting point, does the truth have a value of it's own.
"Truth is beauty, and beauty truth"
Keats
An interesting point, does the truth have a value of it's own.
"Truth is beauty, and beauty truth"
Keats
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I know it's a little off topic but I've just found out that the american institute of dowsers have lost a box that contained their badges and can't find it.
What would the world be like without irony.
I know it's a little off topic but I've just found out that the american institute of dowsers have lost a box that contained their badges and can't find it.
What would the world be like without irony.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Very true, and a good point.
Again, a good point.
If the sceptics are being accused of 'closed-mindedness', and if it's being done in a aggressive manner; then they are entitled to object.
Maybe both sides need to reflect on the fact that both feel there is some bullying going on, and act accordingly to resolve it.
Written by: Birgit
owd, I agree with most of what you say. Actually it IS people trying to validate spiritual things with what they perceive as science that annoys me most. I'm able to accept people's spirituality and just agree to disagree.
..........Please bear in mind though that it's very hard to speak in a tone that is good for everyone involved in a discussion.
Very true, and a good point.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Lastly, on the accusation of bullying, it looks to me like the skeptics are the ones getting ripped into. Whenever we try to present our views we immeadiatly get accused of being 'closed minded'. In the science and religion thread people were making quiet out to be some kind of fascist.
Again, a good point.
If the sceptics are being accused of 'closed-mindedness', and if it's being done in a aggressive manner; then they are entitled to object.
Maybe both sides need to reflect on the fact that both feel there is some bullying going on, and act accordingly to resolve it.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [message * water] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Messages from Water [55 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com