Water anyone?
- Thread starter WavMixer
- Start date
Seamus OReally
Well-Known Member
That’s been pretty thoroughly debunked. The creator of this concept, Masaru Emoto, cobbled together some very bad studies, annd has only been published in one pseudoscience journal. In short, it’s not true. Human thought has no effect on the cosmos.
eclecticsynergy
Ambassador of Electric Synergy
I bought one of Dr Emoto's books twenty years ago when I first found out about him. Thought it was very interesting and yes, a little hard to swallow.
I haven't read the rest of his work, so what follows is based on that decades-old first impression.
Here's the thing: To accept that thought & feeling can have scientifically measurable effects on water would be a huge paradigm shift.
It would require extraordinary proof to be accepted; even then, it might take a very long time to be incorporated into current scientific theory.
Continental drift was first proposed in the 16th century, and only accepted widely in the 1960s. When Alfred Wegener proposed a theory to explain the mechanics behind it in the early 1900s, he was called a crackpot. He died disgraced and forgotten before his theory was ever accepted. Today it's taught worldwide, a fundamental tenet of geology.
I think enthusiasm may have led Dr Emoto to draw conclusions beyond what his work justified. Yet I believe he was sincere.
Attempting a scientific approach isn't simple when dealing with the interface between thought/emotion and hard science.
One side is inherently impossible to define & quantify.
Our technology is just beginning to be subtle enough to detect the existence of such energies, let alone measure or manipulate them. I expect that as science becomes more sophisticated, it will indeed encounter phenomena previously considered metaphysical. That's in the future, of course. Still, plenty of what science accepts today would have been considered mad fantasy in the 19th century, or called witchcraft in the 17th.
For now, we have the beginnings of understanding in energy medicine, which was dismissed as superstition until fairly recently. Some years ago Wikipedia took down a page that a Nobel Prize winner had written on the subject of microdosing; the Wikipedia proctors called it pseudoscience. Today, microdosing is no longer considered a crackpot theory, and serious studies are ongoing.
Despite the accusations of 'happy science,' I think Dr Emoto was on to something. While I don't accept all of it - like his proposition that water has memory - I am convinced there's something real at the heart of his work. So far, though, repeatable and quantifiable proof has not been forthcoming.
Once something has been declared bunk, few are willing to risk their professional reputations by taking it up.
Nonetheless, I think the area merits further research.
For those interested in the nature of water, I recommend a 1978 book by Theodor Schwenk titled Sensitive Chaos, The Creation Of Flowing Forms In Water and Air. It's fascinating and beautiful, despite containing some ideas that seem pretty far out even today.
I haven't read the rest of his work, so what follows is based on that decades-old first impression.
Here's the thing: To accept that thought & feeling can have scientifically measurable effects on water would be a huge paradigm shift.
It would require extraordinary proof to be accepted; even then, it might take a very long time to be incorporated into current scientific theory.
Continental drift was first proposed in the 16th century, and only accepted widely in the 1960s. When Alfred Wegener proposed a theory to explain the mechanics behind it in the early 1900s, he was called a crackpot. He died disgraced and forgotten before his theory was ever accepted. Today it's taught worldwide, a fundamental tenet of geology.
I think enthusiasm may have led Dr Emoto to draw conclusions beyond what his work justified. Yet I believe he was sincere.
Attempting a scientific approach isn't simple when dealing with the interface between thought/emotion and hard science.
One side is inherently impossible to define & quantify.
Our technology is just beginning to be subtle enough to detect the existence of such energies, let alone measure or manipulate them. I expect that as science becomes more sophisticated, it will indeed encounter phenomena previously considered metaphysical. That's in the future, of course. Still, plenty of what science accepts today would have been considered mad fantasy in the 19th century, or called witchcraft in the 17th.
For now, we have the beginnings of understanding in energy medicine, which was dismissed as superstition until fairly recently. Some years ago Wikipedia took down a page that a Nobel Prize winner had written on the subject of microdosing; the Wikipedia proctors called it pseudoscience. Today, microdosing is no longer considered a crackpot theory, and serious studies are ongoing.
Despite the accusations of 'happy science,' I think Dr Emoto was on to something. While I don't accept all of it - like his proposition that water has memory - I am convinced there's something real at the heart of his work. So far, though, repeatable and quantifiable proof has not been forthcoming.
Once something has been declared bunk, few are willing to risk their professional reputations by taking it up.
Nonetheless, I think the area merits further research.
For those interested in the nature of water, I recommend a 1978 book by Theodor Schwenk titled Sensitive Chaos, The Creation Of Flowing Forms In Water and Air. It's fascinating and beautiful, despite containing some ideas that seem pretty far out even today.
Seamus OReally
Well-Known Member
The idea that human thought bends space and time is so megalomaniacal to be laughable. We’re just talking apes, not the center of the goddamn universe.
Sargeant Preston
Ambassador of The Ninth Chord
The human body is approximately 60% water. Which substantiates it that thoughts alone can have an affect on a body.
Proof:
I was sitting on the couch silently thinking about an old girlfriend. All of sudden, the wife got all bent out of shape. And yelled at me.
Explain that.
Proof:
I was sitting on the couch silently thinking about an old girlfriend. All of sudden, the wife got all bent out of shape. And yelled at me.
Explain that.
GrooVey
Well-Known Member
You obviously missed something she said.., ahgin’.
Sargeant Preston
Ambassador of The Ninth Chord
I may have missed something she was thinking. I'm not a mind reader.
mcblink
Ambassador of Riffs & Spliffs
Exactly this and less "megalomania" than some would like to believe. There is a connection between human consciousness and quantum mechanics even if we don't yet understand what that is, or how it works. Plants and animals use quantum processes all the time. In my opinion, it is quite reductionist to say that this equates to simply 'thought is bending time and space', as it is infinitely more complex than that, yet at the same time, the implication is that human consciousness does indeed influence "reality" as we know it. The double-slit experiment shows us that our "reality" isn't even "real", until it is observed. And we don't understand it.
History is filled with scientists who were told they were wrong. They were mocked, ridiculed, some even killed, ...and then they changed the world.
I prefer to keep an open mind, rather than attempt to shout down theories that I might find ridiculous. For example, the severely autistic kids that are communicating telepathically. Sounds ridiculous, until we start to realize that even non-talking apes and other creatures and plants are communicating all the time, and they don't need words at all. Suddenly it isn't such a ridiculous concept after all. Especially if we're all "just" talking apes. If actual apes don't need words, why would those kids? Why do we, for that matter? There's a heck of a lot more to it than what we think we know.
What's megalomaniacal is believing that we as humans have reached the pinnacle of knowledge and understanding of our "reality", that we can declare things we don't understand as nonsense. Of course, that's exactly what we do best. Just ask Copernicus.
OP
Interesting. Do you have any citations?
Seamus OReally
Well-Known Member
From Wikipedia:
William Reville, professor of biochemistry at University College Cork writing in the Irish Times, described The Hidden Messages in Water as a work of pseudoscience, and characterized the book as "an amalgam of science and mumbo-jumbo" with "no credible hypothesis as to causation, no development of the idea, no fruitfulness in the concept, and, above all, no clear scientific demonstration.” He concluded by stating that "It is very unlikely that there is any reality behind Emoto's claims. A triple blind study of these claims failed to show any effect. Also, the phenomenon he describes has never been published in a peer reviewed science journal, which almost certainly means that the effect cannot be demonstrated under controlled conditions." Physicist Kenneth Libbrecht, an expert on snow, also saw the book as displaying confirmation bias, joking that "it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out!"
The effect cannot be reproduced, so the hypothesis is disproven.
William Reville, professor of biochemistry at University College Cork writing in the Irish Times, described The Hidden Messages in Water as a work of pseudoscience, and characterized the book as "an amalgam of science and mumbo-jumbo" with "no credible hypothesis as to causation, no development of the idea, no fruitfulness in the concept, and, above all, no clear scientific demonstration.” He concluded by stating that "It is very unlikely that there is any reality behind Emoto's claims. A triple blind study of these claims failed to show any effect. Also, the phenomenon he describes has never been published in a peer reviewed science journal, which almost certainly means that the effect cannot be demonstrated under controlled conditions." Physicist Kenneth Libbrecht, an expert on snow, also saw the book as displaying confirmation bias, joking that "it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out!"
The effect cannot be reproduced, so the hypothesis is disproven.
Me too ! For other folks the quote I posted was from, Albert Einstein, it was his description of what is now known as quantum mechanics or quantum physics.
My favorite skepticism is that the speed of light is our known upper limit, nothing is faster. I say, why? How do we know that, just because we haven’t found anything faster, yet. Take Dark Matter as an example. I know nothing about it, but neither do all the brain trusts. We do not know how to measure it. What if it was faster than the speed of light? We postulate that it exists because of its gravitational effects.
From Wikipedia:
| Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon where the quantum state of each particle in a group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance. The topic of quantum entanglement is at the heart of the disparity between classical physics and quantum physics: entanglement is a primary feature of quantum mechanics not present in classical mechanics. |
Sargeant Preston
Ambassador of The Ninth Chord
Seamus OReally
Well-Known Member
PLX
Well-Known Member
I had to chuckle at the section of the video in the OP where the idea was presented that using nice words or mean words affected whether rice in water would ferment or rot.
Fundamentally, fermentation and rotting are the same type of thing. In both instances, the process is occurring because some microorganisms are metabolizing the rice. In the case of fermentation, specific organisms break down the product into something desirable to us. In the case of rotting, other types of organisms are breaking the product down into something undesirable or harmful to us. The difference between what we call fermentation or rotting depends on the microorganisms in the solution and the byproducts of their metabolic action.
Now, here's a thought: if you were able to completely sterilize the rice and water mixture, and if you could prevent the reintroduction of live microorganisms, you could say anything you wanted to the mixture until you are blue in the face and you'll never get either fermentation or rotting. As a matter of fact, this exact process is done hundreds of thousands of times a day. It's called, "canning." In fact, you can buy canned veggies, fruit, meat, and all sorts of stuff at your local grocery store. Trust me...I've seen them! Think of the canned products in your home that have listened to you in your good moods and bad...and they're unchanged when you open them...neither fermented nor rotted.
But, maybe I'm just being way too cynical. Just think of how this new discovery could revolutionize the brewing industry. I mean, for literally thousands of years, brew masters have carefully cultivated yeasts and have refined brewing and fermentation methods to craft beer. But, it turns out all they really had to do was throw some grain in water and talk really nicely to their kegs!
Fundamentally, fermentation and rotting are the same type of thing. In both instances, the process is occurring because some microorganisms are metabolizing the rice. In the case of fermentation, specific organisms break down the product into something desirable to us. In the case of rotting, other types of organisms are breaking the product down into something undesirable or harmful to us. The difference between what we call fermentation or rotting depends on the microorganisms in the solution and the byproducts of their metabolic action.
Now, here's a thought: if you were able to completely sterilize the rice and water mixture, and if you could prevent the reintroduction of live microorganisms, you could say anything you wanted to the mixture until you are blue in the face and you'll never get either fermentation or rotting. As a matter of fact, this exact process is done hundreds of thousands of times a day. It's called, "canning." In fact, you can buy canned veggies, fruit, meat, and all sorts of stuff at your local grocery store. Trust me...I've seen them! Think of the canned products in your home that have listened to you in your good moods and bad...and they're unchanged when you open them...neither fermented nor rotted.
But, maybe I'm just being way too cynical. Just think of how this new discovery could revolutionize the brewing industry. I mean, for literally thousands of years, brew masters have carefully cultivated yeasts and have refined brewing and fermentation methods to craft beer. But, it turns out all they really had to do was throw some grain in water and talk really nicely to their kegs!
Boubou
Well-Known Member
What you describe about sterilizing the rice and water mixture is called Pasteurizing, discovered by Louis Pasteur, a while ago.
Like you say in a sealed container, like a can, if you , say heat it, to destroy all living organisms, in principle whatever you have in there will keep without spoiling for a long time. Stuff might degrade but not during to microorganisms