I have not yet had time to read the whole book.  But I hope some of you will get the book, read it, and share your thoughts of its potential impact.  I hope to share my own perspectives in about a week.  Meanwhile, I will briefly react to these comments from the cover:

"The Hidden Messages in Water" introduces the revolutionary work of internationally renowned  Japanese scientist Masaru Emoto, who has discovered that molecules of water are affected by our thoughts, words, and feelings.  Since humans and the earth are composed mostly of water, his message is one of personal health, global environmental renewal, and a practical plan for peace that starts with each one of us." 

Carolyn Myss adds: "Through his genius photography and superb scientific skill, Dr. Masaru Emoto has created a book that is truly a mystical treasure.  His contribution to research on spiritual consciousness is positively masterful."

This book was a New York Times bestseller. In my view, it has unique value for 2 reasons: (1) Its claims can potentially be replicated and expanded by double-blind studies.  (2) It can potentially shed light on other vexing water mysteries: e.g. (a) why Jesus used spittle to perform healing miracles; (b) why Marian healing springs like the ones at Lourdes in France and at the Virgin Mary's house in Ephesus, Turkey, seem at times to have remarkable healing powers; (c) why cancer cells in a liquid in petrie dishes can be killed simply through the power of prayer or focused intention.  The relevance of Emoto's research on water might be extended to the mysteries of paranormal mind-matter interaction in general and might ultimately be relevant to the modern quest in physics for one grand unified theory of reality. 

Don

... and of course a possible mechanism for the action of homeopathic medicines !

I haven't read the book but I did some research online about the water and it was certainly very interesting, fascinating really. The only negative I've been able to find so far is they say that when he took his photos he took hundreds of each category and only chose one or two for his demonstration. Certainly that is not any kind of proof that his method was faulty or that he has less than  what he appears to have with his research, but it would be interesting to see some of the photo in the same categories that did not make the cut. Still very very interesting and fun to examine.

Yours,
Beau

I have read Emoto's book.  For me, it is a validation of the theory of human intention having effects on the physical world, in ways unexplainable by conventional scientific measurements. 

Princeton University first set up a research laboratory called P.E.A.R.  (Princeton Engineering Anomlaies Research) in the 1970s which closed in 2007 to study the effect of human intent/consciousness on random number generating machines.  Various machines were made and shielded from all known electromagnetic radiation or interference, then tested to ensure they would only generate random numbers.  Next, volunteers would come in and be asked to change the outcome of a machine.  If it were generating a "heads" or "tails" coinflip, the volunteers would be asked to influence the event one way or the other.  The results were tabulated and fascinating.   There after many thousands of recorded experiments, it was shown that the number of times these machines varied from random chance was signficant though small.  In other words, the human volunteer intention somehow affected an otherwise completely shielded random number generating machne.  Some volunteers had more success than others.  Indeed, some volunteers, had the machine do the opposite of what they set intent for!  Interestingly groups of people especially husbands and wives, when they set their mind on altering an outcome had the strongest outcomes---much more strong than individuals. 

These studies were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  They preceded Emoto's work.  But they showed conclusively that there is a small but measurable effect of consciousness on the physical world, independent of known physics. 

The PEAR group also pursued remote viewing and came out with enough "hits" or guesses about what an object was, to have the odds be one out of several billion that the viewer could do this by random guessing. 

PEAR closed its doors at the end of February 2007 with its founder, Robert G. Jahn, concluding that after tens of millions of trials they had demonstrated that human intention has a slight effect on random-event machines. "For 28 years, we’ve done what we wanted to do, and there’s no reason to stay and generate more of the same data," Jahn said. Jahn felt that the work showed, on average, people can shift 2–3 events out of 10,000 from chance expectations.

These tiny deviations from chance have failed to convince mainstream scientists who feel that the effect is inconsistent and that relatively few negative studies would cancel it out.  Physicist Robert L. Park said of PEAR, "It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton". Park maintains that if a coin is flipped enough times, even a slight imperfection can produce more than 50% heads, and that the "tiny statistical edges" PEAR reported are the result of statistical flaws.  I (Matthew) disagree with Park after going over the PEAR data, because the researchers too meticulous care and detail in trying to assure that their experiments were not biased by any outside forces or interference.  The subanalyses of certain volunteers was also fascinating, as some people's intentions had more of an effect on outcomes than others.

For me, Emoto's work continues this line of inquiry, namely, that conscious intention changes the quality of water, independent of other variables.  When Emoto studied water labeled with negative phrases, the crystalline stuctures photographed were dark and sludgy.  When he put labels on water that had positive emotions attached such as "love"  "grace" "kindness," the crystals formed on freezing took on the most brilliant structures.

Emoto freely admitted he was not a trained scientist, and that his photographer's were encouraged to use their discretion as to which photographs to select from the experiments (i.e. the most beautiful ones associated with the blessings, and the ugliest pictures associated with the negative phrases or curses).

From Wikipedia:

"Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls, and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community.  In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings.

In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto. Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist, and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.

In 2003, James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.

In 2006, Emoto published a paper together with Dean Radin and others in the peer-reviewed Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing (of which Radin was co-editor-in-chief). They describe that in a double blind test approximately 2000 people in Tokyo could increase the aesthetic appeal of water stored in a room in California, compared to water in another room, solely through their positive intentions."


Matthew

If this is true, then it supports what we already know, which is that our thoughts and emotions affect our physical body, which contains so much water, and, without the water, we cannot live. If the water in our bodies reflects our own patterns of thoughts and emotions, that's important. Without knowing the effects of the mind on 'others' we already know that we are having a huge effect on our very selves.

Well, it seems as if there are hidden messages in chocolate these days as well.  And who wouldn't rather eat chocolate than drink water?

You see, if we buy and eat a product called Intentional Chocolate (google it), we get the benefit of  health and well-being from experienced meditators who think loving thoughts over the chocolate before it's boxed and shipped.

Yes, it's probably all new age woo-woo stuff, but chocolate is chocolate and if its molecules and atoms are infused with loving thoughts, how can we lose?

Don, I believe this is the first time in the past ten years you have recommended a book that truly can be characterized as New Age "wackadoodle."  I guess I tend to side with some of the more skeptical Amazon reviewers on this one.

PS- Does this perhaps represent a new Don?  :)

R

I think I've heard of that. I've heard of many other interesting studies (independent from this) about water. For example that it makes a difference if water is delivered under pressure through tubes, or if it is taken from a free flowing creek with all the swirls in it. If you are hooked by this topic Don, I could do a research in German websites.

Spooky

Roger, you missed your calling... you could be a comedian!  I'm laughing so hard that I can hardly sit up or even see straight.   ;D

Actually Don and I discussed this a little a couple months ago.  Matthew is right... it is all about intent.  Water, as with chocolate or anything else such as a placebo are tools to help focus intent.  If you believe  chocolate infused with love will help cure your ills, it just may do that.  Have you ever read Bruce Lipton's "Biology of Belief"?

I find this subject fascinating. This should be an interesting thread.

K

I'm looking for a new female flame and have exhausted my other options. So yes, Roger, it's true; I've reluctantly decided to join the New Age Ghetto.  Maybe I'll meet "Her" there.  But "they" will only mail me my membership card with an embossed bisexual picture of Robert Monroe's "Heshe" on the front if I read one of the standard Ghetto books.  I chose "The Hidden Messages in Water."  Please don't snitch on me to my congregation! :-/

The reason why I compare Emoto's findings to sacred springs like the one by the Virgin Mary's house at Ephesus is this: A very bright member of my church, Dick, went to Turkey, despite an arthritic knee with badly torn ligaments. He was scheduled for surgery upon his return.  While he was visiting this spring, a Turkish lady saw him limping badly and suggested that this water would heal his knee.  Dick dismissed the idea, but his wife, Mary Ann, cajoled him, "Why not fill some of your water bottle with `Mary's water' just as a souvenir."  Back at the hotel, Dick's knee began to hurt badly from overexertion.  MA said, "What do you have to lose by pouring the water on it?"  Dick protested, "You know very well that those healing claims are pure nonsense."  But when she persisted, he complied to get he off his back.  Upon returning to the USA, he was prepped for surgery.  When Dick came to, his surgeon stood at the head of his bed with a puzzled expression: "I don't understand it; we did MRIs and other tests on you that revealed badly torn ligaments. But I can find no trace of your injuries now.  In fact, even the arthritis is gone!" 

Now this "miracle" cannot be explained in terms of the faith of either Dick or Mary Ann.  Dick thought that the claims of the spring's healing powers were nonsense and Mary Ann merely thought he should pour it on the knee for a lark.  So why did the healing occur?  Perhaps for the same reason that Emoto's research yielded great results.  The power of the awe and faith of many pilgrims may have imparted a healing energy to the water itself.  When I was there, I was amazed by how awestruck many of the pilgrims were.  The young woman behind me fell to her knees overcome with emotion as soon as she entered the house.  A young man's face was radiant with ecstasy as he splashed the spring water outside the shrine on his face.

So I ask myself whether some of the miracles associated with Lourdes (e. g. the healing of the blind and cripples) should be explained in terms of their faith or the energy embedded in the water.   I also ask myself if Jesus imparted a healing energy to the water in his spittle that allowed Him to cure the blind, deaf, and dumb.  Is there some guided meditation that might be done which can impart healing energy to water under certain circumstances?  The fact that such speculation might be tested in double-blind studies intrigues me enough to send for my woo woo membership card!

Don



Actually, I'm willing to read just about any quackdoodle if it promises me the possibility of a double-blind method of verification.

Interesting, too bad he wasn't around in Aug of 45.

Careful Don, where will all this wooing lead to......a new age marriage ?

;)

Kathy-

Well, while you were laughing, I was having cold sweats and heart palpitations, envisioning Don in sandals and a robe at some new age store, buying crystals, incense and tarot cards.

Close call.

R

It's ok Roger... just hang in there.  We all need to break out of our shell now and then. Just put your hand on your chest and repeat... be still my heart... be still my heart... be still... beeeee stiiilllllll...

K

:D     ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

This thread has a nice Valentine's season feel to it !

Much success in your new quest, Don!


Bets

In his last 2 books Robert Monroe reports an OBE experience of a future in which the world returns to its natural state with no more cement jungles and high-rise buildings.  At that time food is created through an interaction between soil and the power of thought.  In Howard Storm's NDE, he experiences a virtually identical future, though it supposely arrives much sooner than in Monroe's vision. 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that both visions ar accurate.  This would imply that humans learn to master mind-matter interactions to the point where food can be produced without the slow, steady blossoming of plants.  Emoto's water research might have uncovered some of the mental principles that make this glorious future possible.  This in itself makes replication of Emoto's experiments urgent and a more ambitious extension of such research exciting.

Don

Don, you have changed! 

Actually, I recall Kyo posting here a leaf experiment which shows like Emoto's experiments what we are capable of in the here and now.  Pick two leaves from the sam plant.  For one leaf, project loving thoughts to it.  Perhaps call it "Leafy" and talk to it like a loved pet.  For the other leaf, ignore it.  Pay no attention to it, or project hateful emotions on it.  Compare the two leaves after 4 to 5 days.  See which turns brown first.  This experiment has been done repeatedly, and, while not 100% effective, more often than not, the leaf given love and attention stays greener while the one ignored or given hate withers first.  Why?  Same thing as Emoto's expermients - intent/thought affects reality, only in subtle ways, often which elude our routine perceptions.

Matthew

This is why I think carte blanche dismissals of anything with a wiff of the 'New Age' are silly. The New Age encompasses everything from carefully designed multiple centre double-blind experiments testing hypothesises which materialistic science rejects out of hand e.g water memory to David Ike's lizard people and all in between ! Let us not forget that many mainstream scientists also reject post-death consciousness out of hand....

heisenberg69 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 8:32am:

This is why I think carte blanche dismissals of anything with a wiff of the 'New Age' are silly.

Exactly...I've seen stuff that would "turn you white" (GhostBusters), and the human/soul potential accepted by the New Age community makes up the only group currently willing to accept the possibilities and attempt an explanation. 

But carte blanche dismissals are inevitable given that, in public perception, religious/ philosophical chains are only as strong as their weakest link.  Here are just 2 examples of uncritical New Age dogma that discredit this label in the eyes of the public: (1) No matter what the romantic soap opera, mediuns seem to construe them in terms of dubious prior lifetimes together.  (2) It would be shocking if the bereaved did not have passionate dreams of contact with recently deceased loved ones.  Yet many New Agers seem to uncritically assume that dreams of contact ARE always genuiine contact.  Their utter disregard for the need for verification and evidence, though very human and understandable, detracts from the daunting task of determining whether ANY ADCs are real.  Ruthless integrity is needed for lasting comfort to be facilitated for the bereaved masses.

Don

Don, doesn't that fly in the face of the "faith" required to believe any formal/organized religious order's viewpoint?

But surely rigorous empiricism is only part of the mix. I know that Richard Dawkins believes the existence of God is a testable hypothesis but I am not inclined to agree with him. I think some phenomena are essentially untestable.

Using the second of Don's examples of New Age credulity, the dream of the departed; I had a dream-type experience involving my deceased brother-in-law and my sister which felt very lucid/powerful and gave me comfort after his death. I know of no way that I can unequivocally prove that it was him to another party but it held significance for me.

I think the average person operates a fairly simple appraisal criteria syatem of new information - 1.This makes sense to me and I'll take it on board 2. This does'nt make sense to me and I'll reject it 3.I'll defer judgement until I get more information. Scientific rigour plays only a limited role.

We can approach our wishful thinking and associated experiences  logically or emotionally.  There is nothing wrong with deriving comfort from dreams that are more rationally explained as wishful thinking.  Most of us are governed more by our emotions than our reason.  What is important is to humbly acknowledge the more "rational" inference.  As long as we don't fudge this distinction, there is hope of advancing spiritual knowledge.  This is what St. Augustine meant by his teaching: "We do not understand in order to believe; we believe in order to understand."  In other words, we embrace comforting assumptions as our working construct for our life journey.  But then we rigorously probe our life experience to see whether and to what extent these assumptions need to be altered or abandoned. 

For example, I have had OBEs complete with floating near the ceiling, looking down on my sleeping body, and overlaying my "physical fingers" with my spirit fingers.  I have used this as the foundation for retrieving an ex-girlfriend who committed suicide.  That was the most emotionally powerful experience of my dream life.  But then I learned how to have lucid dreams and realized that my OBEs, including my retrieval, are better explained as mere lucid dreams with no relevance to an afterlife.  My future chances to advance  knowledge of the hereafter depend on my courage to forfeit the bogus assurance I received.   The danger of confusing OBEs with lucid dreams makes the quest for verification absolutely essential for genuine knowledge. 

Emoto's water research might seem absurd to the scientific establishment.  But it deserves respect precisely because replication of these experiments makes his claims testable, at least in principle.

Don

Don

What are the difference(s) between a lucid dream and an OBE? 

Dude,
Now you've posed the most important question, to which I'm not sure I have an adequate answer. 
(1) I understand that sleep paralysis can often precede OBEs.  I've experienced such paralysis, but not as a prelude to a lucid dream.

(2) I have not experienced the strong tingling sensation that is often reported to precede OBEs.

(3) Lucid dream adepts like Stephen LaBerge claim to create OBEs at will, but insist that these are no more than lucid dreams with no afterlife relevance.  But  some OBE adepts claim to enter the OBE state from lucid dreams.  I would like to know more about how these adepts would respond to the skepticism of lucid dream experts.

(4) Some on this site have claimed to generate OBEs or phasing experiences in the waking state.  I wonder if there is a waking equivalent to the lucid dream state.  That question has prompted me to read the many reported retrievals on this site.  Most of them strike me as too cartoony to be real encounters with spirits.  But my preconceptions of the mental astral  world may be flawed and I may need to expand the range of what is truly spirit contact.   

So I don't have a final answer to your question. But Swedenborg has been a powerful influence on my expectations in 2 ways: (1) the possibility of the verifications he routinely seemed to receive for his spirit contacts: I am intrigued by Robert Monroe's verification of a pinch he inflicted on a lady who later verified this.  Maybe if I astrally stalked Kathy (Lights of Love) and "pinched" her, she could verify this.  Of course, she would probably never communicate with me again.  LOL!  (2) I am also impressed by ES's  capacity to have very detailed conversations with deceased spirits that he later recalled and tested with friends who knew the deceased.  As far as I know, lucid dream conversations or rotes are rather simple and brief. In any case, I still have a lot to learn about this issue and wish I had more time to explore my Gateway tapes.

I'm just so sorry that when I tried to enroll in TMI Gateway program for my vacation, I was shut out; so I went to London and Paris instead. 
 

I Am Dude wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 10:19pm:

Don What are the difference(s) between a lucid dream and an OBE?

Hi Dude,

Mind if I jump in and answer that in my own way?  Lucid dreams, by definition, would obviously occur during the dreaming state.  Whereas OBEs do not necessarily only happen during dreaming states.  In other words, it is not a requirement to be dreaming in order to have an OBE.

In both lucid dreaming and OBEs the body is considered "sleeping", however the mental awareness is wide awake and functioning completely the same as it does during the waking state. 

As far as I am aware, just because the body is technically sleeping, even in a very light state, it does not mean that the brain is necessarily in a dreaming state, i.e. like REM. 

As for a more simple explanation to the difference, there really isn't much of a difference.  The lucid dream is where you find yourself consciously aware of the fact that you are dreaming...able to use your normal waking conscious mind and faculties the same as you would during being awake.  The OBE is being consicously aware of the fact that your focus of awareness is not focused in physical reality from the standpoint of the physical body, but from some other location or in some other "reality".  In other words, your consciousness is able to perceive in other dimensions, times, or locations that are not what you normally experience during your normal waking life. 

I disagree with LaBerge and others who think that the OBE is nothing more than a lucid dream.  It degrades the fact that importance that should be focused on conscious awareness as being the key point here as if to say "because you are dreaming, nothing is real".  That's such a limited-minded concept.  As we all know, no matter what your surroundings are, your ability to be consciously awake, aware, and focused through the power of your own mind, thoughts, and feelings is of the greatest importance, wouldn't you agree?  You are only limited by the power of your own abilities and what you allow yourself to do, think, imagine, feel, etc. 

I agree in part with Vicky, however I think the heart of the issue, is whether or not a lucid dream is a complete fabrication of our imagination.  If it were, then any communication that occurred within it would not be the meeting of two minds, but our own hypothetical fantasy. 

The problem is a bit more complicated because even if a lucid dream contains a conversation held within our own mind (i.e. without true communication with another mind), there may be symbolism and subtle communication that comes from a deceased loved one that is difficult to recognize.  We may therefore play a hypothetical dinner with our deceased loved one in a lucid dream.  Yet in that dream we see flashes of a symbol - a clock, a heart, etc. that is part of the imaginary dreamscape, but that is a bit "off."  Perhaps, the symbology that occurs within lucid dreams could be a form of communication as well.

Anyone who has explored consciousness comes to realize at some point that what we call physical reality, and what we accept as verifiable sensory evidence is, in some ways no more "real" than any other exploration of consciousness.  It is simply an experience in this plane of thought, bound by common experiences in the physcial world.  We assume that common sensory experiences, somehow are our only reality, whereas upon deep reflection, it is seen that our pure perceptive awareness is independent of touch, taste, smell, etc. and that the five senses are not truly relaying objective evidence but more commonly shared experiences in the physical plane.

The real issue in the question about lucid dreams vs. an OOBE has to do with true communication between two minds (ours and anothers).  When we pick up on a piece of information that we should not have been able to know from our own thought, then we believe that a true afterlife communication has taken place.

Matthew 

'We assume that common sensory experiences, somehow are our only reality, whereas upon deep reflection, it is seen that our pure perceptive awareness is independent of touch, taste, smell, etc. and that the five senses are not truly relaying objective evidence but more commonly shared experiences in the physical plane'. Mathew.

I would just like to reinforce that point, our physical world is an essentially 'constructed' one. Where I see a solid wooden table on which I place my coffee cup the physicist sees a nebulous cloud of sub-atomic activity. Somehow I am constructing the solidity of the table.

Quote:

Maybe if I astrally stalked Kathy (Lights of Love) and "pinched" her, she could verify this.

Don, have you really been pinching me occasionally over the past few months?  If so... you pinch hard! Ouch! Be prepared to get pinched back next time.  >:( ;D

K



Matthew, this is beautifully stated!

Quote:

Anyone who has explored consciousness comes to realize at some point that what we call physical reality, and what we accept as verifiable sensory evidence is, in some ways no more "real" than any other exploration of consciousness.  It is simply an experience in this plane of thought, bound by common experiences in the physcial world.  We assume that common sensory experiences, somehow are our only reality, whereas upon deep reflection, it is seen that our pure perceptive awareness is independent of touch, taste, smell, etc. and that the five senses are not truly relaying objective evidence but more commonly shared experiences in the physical plane. The real issue in the question about lucid dreams vs. an OOBE has to do with true communication between two minds (ours and anothers).  When we pick up on a piece of information that we should not have been able to know from our own thought, then we believe that a true afterlife communication has taken place. Matthew

Matthew: "Actually, I recall Kyo posting here a leaf experiment which shows like Emoto's experiments what we are capable of in the here and now.  Pick two leaves from the sam plant.  For one leaf, project loving thoughts to it.  Perhaps call it "Leafy" and talk to it like a loved pet.  For the other leaf, ignore it.  Pay no attention to it, or project hateful emotions on it.  Compare the two leaves after 4 to 5 days.  See which turns brown first.  This experiment has been done repeatedly, and, while not 100% effective, more often than not, the leaf given love and attention stays greener while the one ignored or given hate withers first.  Why?  Same thing as Emoto's expermients - intent/thought affects reality, only in subtle ways, often which elude our routine perceptions."
_____________________________

Similarly, William Braud of the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology showed in 1990 "that even senders unpracticed in distant healing may, through visualization and directed attention, reduce the rate of destruction of blood cells placed in a saline solution.  Braud's experiments produced results with odds against chance of 5,000 to 1."  We need to hone in on the hidden laws of consciousness that make such phenomena possible. 

Don

So it is quite clear that by using directed intent, one can affect objective reality.  Well, this directed intent comes directly from one's subjective mind.  So I think it is safe to say that there is obviously a strong connection between subjective and objective reality.  This would therefore apply to lucid dreams as well, and their relationship with OBEs and the semi-objective(?) afterlife dimensions. 

Dude,

We laugh at Bill Clinton's self-defensive evasion when faced with the Monica Lewinsky scandal: "Well, it depends on what the definition of `is' is."  Claims that lucid dreams are as "real" las OBEs duck the relevant issue in the same way.  When I projected myself after midnight to Park street in Boston at high noon, I had no conscious control over how the people I detained reacted.  I explained to one lady that I was "back there" in bed, and so, she was a figment of my imagination because I was God in this self-created lucid dream world.  She reacted in horror and looked at me like I was a kook; and others gathered protectively around, alarmed that I was behaving strangely and rudely.  But the botton line is this: none of the "people" I interacted with were real spirits.  Nor were the strong odor of car exhaust, the sounds of honking and motors, the bright colors of the Boston Common, etc. signs that I was visiting an astral territory where spirits actually lived.  When I returned to my body, I instantly realized that what had seemed so real and vivid was nothing more than a creation by my unconscious--a creation irrelevant to afterlife survival.

Don

Einstein and others have pointed out, that in any scientific experiment, if it is set up to measure "objective findings," and if all interfering variables are factored out of the experiment, then the actual person doing the obeserving (observer) is and must be part of and factored into the experiment.  This forever ruined the idea of pure objectivity in experimentation for me, but taught me the value and interplay of consciousness on scientific experimentation. 

From an excellent website on quantum physics:

"The notion of the observer becoming a part of the observed system is fundamentally new in physics. In quantum physics, the observer is no longer external and neutral, but through the act of measurement he becomes himself a part of observed reality. This marks the end of the neutrality of the experimenter. It also has huge implications on the epistemology of science: certain facts are no longer objectifiable in quantum theory. If in an exact science, such as physics, the outcome of an experiment depends on the view of the observer, then what does this imply for other fields of human knowledge? It would seem that in any faculty of science, there are different interpretations of the same phenomena. More often than occasionally, these interpretations are in conflict with each other. Does this mean that ultimate truth is unknowable?"


Matthew

Hi NewDawn,

However, since those people were all part of your creation, could they be parts of you, expressing some left over attitudes from your former pov? 

Bets

Mathew- 'Einstein and others have pointed out, that in any scientific experiment, if it is set up to measure "objective findings," and if all interfering variables are factored out of the experiment, then the actual person doing the obeserving (observer) is and must be part of and factored into the experiment.  This forever ruined the idea of pure objectivity in experimentation for me, but taught me the value and interplay of consciousness on scientific experimentation.'

Indeed, this is purported to be the cause of the so called 'experimenter effect' where positive results from sympathetic researchers are failed to be replicated in identical experiments performed by more sceptical colleagues with the same protocols. Also responcible for so called 'sheep' and 'goats' when it comes to things like predicting/influencing random events; "sheep" have a significant deviation above chance, while "goats" tend to be significantly below. This suggests the effect of belief of the observer on the observed.

D

Don

Perhaps those people you encountered were created from your subconscious.  However, from your story, I see no evidence that this was the case.  I merely see evidence that you convinced yourself that this was the case.

My journeys out of body, both lucid dreams and OBEs, have revealed to me that there is very little difference between these two means of exploration.  I used to doubt it myself, but the more I travelled, the more I became open to what I suppose you can call my higher mind, and the more nonphysical insights/intuitions I would receive.  It is these insights which brought me to this conclusion. 

Some of my explorations would start out in the classic OBE manner and the experience would retain this OBE-normality until the end.  Some would start as OBEs, but later change into a more of a lucid dream type experience in terms of environmental fluidity and downright oddness of the situations encountered.  And some would start as lucid dreams and remain them, and in other lucid dreams I would will myself back to my sleeping body, reenter momentarily, and exit again in the standard OBE way.  However, the experiences themselves were almost identical in terms of the quality of my consciousness and the connection with the universe and a higher power, and this, I believe, is the key.  It is apparent to me that the only difference between these two types of experience is the dimensions of consciousness one experiences, and one can willfully travel from one to the other if desired.

Mind-matter interaction has been repeatedly demonstrated by DMILS research (= Direct Mental Interaction between Living Systems).  Measurements are taken of the receiver’s electrodermal (skin) reactions while he (she) is subjected to a series of arousing or calming thoughts by a sender.  Electrodermal reaction refers to the fluctuations of the skin’s resistance to a very mild electrical current.  When aroused by an emotion, the skin dampens slightly and the resistance drops; when relaxed, resistance increase.  The receiver and sender are in separate rooms and the receiver has no idea of what kind of situations the sender is visualizing.  The sender visualizes the receiver in a very exciting or fearful situation, then switches to visualizing him relaxing on a sunlight beach.  Even on occasions when the receiver is unable to report correctly whether the sender is visualizing arousing or relaxing situations, electrodermal reaction is significantly more activated during the arousing than during the calming sessions.  The instruments used are so sensitive that they register an effect even when the reaction is so slight that it fails to impinge on the receiver’s conscious mind.  Even when receivers have no idea of whether they are the recipients of arousing or calming thoughts, the unconscious mind receives the information and registers it in physiological reactions.

Don

Berserk2 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 4:33pm:

But carte blanche dismissals are inevitable given that, in public perception, religious/ philosophical chains are only as strong as their weakest link.  Here are just 2 examples of uncritical New Age dogma that discredit this label in the eyes of the public: (1) No matter what the romantic soap opera, mediuns seem to construe them in terms of dubious prior lifetimes together.  (2) It would be shocking if the bereaved did not have passionate dreams of contact with recently deceased loved ones.  Yet many New Agers seem to uncritically assume that dreams of contact ARE always genuiine contact.  Their utter disregard for the need for verification and evidence, though very human and understandable, detracts from the daunting task of determining whether ANY ADCs are real.  Ruthless integrity is needed for lasting comfort to be facilitated for the bereaved masses. Don

Don, Please shair your "proof" of your God with us all. Make sure you add in everything in the "verification" process you used. I just dont think you can do it, but I am willing to keep my mind open. Remember Don, "proof" not anything less will do.
Now your personal experiences wont work here as they offer me no direct proof. I want real proof. Or is the real fact that it cant be done. That there is no proof of your God. That's is not to say that there is not personal experiences of God in yours or others lives, but they only offer proof to the receiver of the message. So in till you can offer this "proof with verification" of your God how can you demand it of others beliefs? If I was to tell you that I have lived before, experienced past lives...talked with God, met others from within the phyical but not of this planet...met others not of the phyical...among countless other experiences, you would demand proof. I just ask the same of you. Until you can do that, I presume I shouldn't believe in the old stone age religious crap that gets shoveled out in churches.
 

Hawkeye,

You are of course mistakenly reading a demand for "proof" into my posts when in fact I make no such claims.  What we need to pursue are "verifications" in the sense of evidence that makes the most sense in the context of a belief system (e. g. the unusual number of spectactular apparent miracles experienced by Christians).  But the best available alternate explanations must also be sought in the interests of honest and open inquiry.  In a spiritual quest, the courage to doubt paradoxically usually increases the intensity of conviction and the depth of helpful insights.  Conversely, the suppression of doubt to enhance spiritual comfort often leads to the haunting feeling that we are just fooling ourselves with wishful thinking. 

I repeat: the early church fathers got it right.   "We do not understand in order to believe.  Rather, we believe in order to understand."  True understanding is a grace bestowed during a spiritually committed journey.  In my view, this is the one principle that my buddy Roger overlooks, which, if applied, would totally change his perspective on the spiritual quest.  We must believe passionately but provisionally--passionately because without passion the quality of our spirituality will be negligible and provisionally in the sense that we are always eager to modify or eliminate false beliefs in the interests of a deeper, more honest relationship with God. 

As a young man, I once traveled across Canada with a highly effective missionary, Lauren Cunningham.  He had converted an Amazon tribe to Christianity through specacular miracles, e. g. instantly healing a woman with cataracts and being able to preach to them in their language, a language which he had never learned.  I asked him about the key to his success.  He replied, "My faith become strong when I got clear that I was willing to be an atheist if the insights of my quest pointed in that direction."

Don

That's a very nice story. (Not that I believe that being converted to Christianity is necessarily the best thing, especially when it comes to beliefs systems.) Healing the lady of her problem with cataracts is great. Where did you here this story? From him, or do you have independent verification? Was the Vatican or a head of his church informed of these possible miracle's? People who perform miracles can be made Saints.
Miracles can be funny things. Most seem to revolve around having faith. I wonder if she was healed before, or after she "converted"?
I have had what could be thought of as miracles happen in my life, yet I am not a Christian, or do I believe in the Church. Yet God is in my my life and I have been graced by his presence in it a number of times. Perhaps the need is in belief, not in Christianity its self.   

I heard it directly from Lauren Cunningham on the trans-Canada bus.  I had just turned 20 and had joined his organization, "Youth with a Mission," and was about to share my faith in the streets and door-to-door in Toronto and Montreal.  I was blown away by how effective the Christians in my group were.  I saw marvelous paranormal mannifestations. 

Each seeker imagines that their paranormal manifestations are special.  Other seekers must survey and compare them as each alleges them and draw their own conclusions.  Hawkeye, why not share yours?  I will be posting more of mine on my "Healing of a Cripple" thread.  By the way, since that word bothers you, I would delete it if I could, but it is too late.  I never otherwise use the word, but it seemed the only appropriate word for the lady's dire condition.

Don

Remember, DMILS stands for "Direct Mental Inreractions between Living Systems."  Successful DMILS experiments have demonstrated that the unconscious informs us when someone is staring at us.  In these studies, the sender sees the receiver either through a one-way mirror or on a video screen.  The sender is instructed to stare or not stare at the receiver for several designated periods.  The receiver is  tipped off when these periods begin, but is not told whether the sender is staring.  The receiver is instructed to press a button if he (she) senses staring during these periods and electrodermal meansurements are taken.  The results indicated the receiver's abiility to sense staring period well beyond chance levels (so e. g. Rupert Sheldrake, 2003). 

Don

As for Hawkeye's request for proof that God exists, I will throw in my two cents.  First off what I'm going to argue for is an inductive proof; meaning given these lines of evidence it is more likely than not that God exists, not a deductive proof like one might find in geometry or calculus.  So from the outset Hawkeye may disagree with me since he is trying to set up impossible ground rules it seems.  But if he / others are willing to think logically, built on evidence, then inductive proofs can more than lay a solid groundwork for a faith that is very reasonable.  In other words, I believe based on scientific and historical evidence that it makes more sense to be a Christian than an atheist, agnostic, scientific materialist, or new ager.
  First off, there is a beginning to the universe.  We know from experience that everything that begins to exist has a cause.  The universe began to exist.  And therefore the universe must have a cause.  However we also know through physics that the moment of the big bang was the beginning of space and time.  There was no time before the beginning of the universe, in our sense of the word time.  So our universe was literally began by something that is beyond space and time.  We also know that this thing chose to have this event happen.  We know roughly this was a choice because we could have not had a universe at all.  So what this shows is that something caused the universe to come into existence, that seemed to be operating with a choice, that was outside our physical causality, space, and time.  Making a choice implies that this is a person; a personality.  This personality is immaterial, incredibly (all?) powerful, and eternal, as in not bound by space and time.  Does this mean it was the Christian God?  Not at this point no; it could have been a pantheon of Gods at this point that caused these events; or another version of God altogether.
  Secondly we know that the laws of the universe, and the constants that were set up in these laws, were fine tuned for the possibility of life.  One example would be the constant that is in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  I believe the example that Stephen Hawking gives is that if the constant was one millionth stronger (a very small amount), than the universe would have collapsed back in on itself after the big bang, and if it was something like one millionth weaker (again, a very small amount lesser than what it is), then we would have a universe where stars and planets wouldn't form; a universe of Hydrogen and Helium gas.  This is one example among hundreds however; there are many, many of these examples of constants being set at just the right value to allow for life, and the idea is called the anthropic principle.  The more we learn scientifically the more we learn that our universe has been fine tuned for life.  So then, as we update our conclusion, we know that something exists that is immaterial, eternal, incredibly if not all powerful, astoundingly intelligent, and a creator in the sense of setting up the laws of the universe in a sensible way that allows for the possibility of life.  This doesn't prove God deductively in the way that Hawkeye is looking for (deductive) proof, but it does start to give powerful indications of what caused our physical, material universe.
  Third I would argue that morality exists.  There are actions that are clearly right or clearly wrong.  It is wrong to torture babies for fun.  So the question arises, where does this morality come from?  Or more correctly, what is the basis of morality?  I would argue that the basis of morality lies in the existence of something that is absolutely (not relatively) good; a moral code or expectation of behavior.  A counter argument here is that our morality is governed by societies that we live in.  The problem then is that societal morality degenerates quickly into moral relativism.  One's society cannot be better than one other's society if moral relativism exists; they are simply competing claims to who is right.  In other words, I could say that in the society that I live in, it is fine to torture babies for fun, and you would have no justification to argue against that.  However, if we are being honest with ourselves, we know that torturing babies is simply wrong.  One could argue that this is because of the society that I grew up in; I would argue that society does play a role, but torturing babies for fun is objectively, absolutely wrong.  If there is something that is absolutely wrong, then there must be a line to judge that problem against; a right type of expected behavior to judge the wrongness against.  This implies that there is a goodness to the universe that is inherent in the universe as well.  I would say that this suggests, but doesn't prove, that this being that is immaterial, incredibly powerful and intelligent, outside of time, and able to cause physical reality changes, also has put into place a code of conduct for the universe.  Yes, this code is usually not black or white, but sometimes it is black or white.  This implies a law giving component of whoever this being or beings are that are immaterial, incredibly powerful, outside of space and time, and creators.
  Fourth I would argue that life and moral choices have meaning.  Make no mistake; if God and the afterlife don't exist, than life is meaningless.  Worse yet, it is a sick joke for most of humanity that is suffering.  The only way that life has any meaning at all is if it matters how we treat others.  If it doesn't matter at all, then there is no value to anything; there is nothing of lasting permanence, there are no real achievements and suffering is not meaningful or redemptive; it simply is sick.  There are about 3000 kids who die from malaria every day.  These kids just have short lives of suffering with no setting of things right; no chance at betterment, no justice, and their lives have absolutely no meaning.
  Lastly the life and example of Jesus is the example of the character of this creator that is incredibly powerful, intelligent, outside of space and time but able to affect space and time, and a creator who is also a lawgiver.  It's hard to dismiss Jesus; he is a polarizing figure.  As C.S. Lewis pointed out, Jesus claimed to be God, and that gives us three logical responses.  Option one is Jesus was not God and knew it; he was a liar.  Option two is Jesus was not God and was confused about that fact; in that case he was insane.  And the last logical option is that Jesus is who he said he was; God incarnate.  Those really are our only 3 logical options.   Just to say that Jesus was an 'ascended master', or to call him a prophet like the Muslims do, or just make him out to be a moral teacher is logically ridiculous; because he also, along with leading the most incredible exemplary human life, he also claimed to be God incarnate, taking on human weaknesses, and perfectly demonstrating how we should live our lives, and saving humanity in the process as well.  He is not simply a nice guy, or someone who can fit into other systems of thought; he is either the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.  Nice guy is not an option.  So from this we can update our view of God, based on science and history:  God is immaterial and eternal (but can influence and cause events in our physical universe), is incredibly intelligent (if not all knowing), incredibly powerful (if not all powerful), a creator, a lawgiver, and gave a perfect example of his character through his human life here on earth, the life of Jesus.  Much more about God's character is revealed through the life of Jesus.  This is a proof of God's existence, and proof that Christianity is more logical, and makes more sense, than any other option; although it is not a deductive proof.  So if one is willing to read with an open mind then they may take something from this; but if you are looking to argue than maybe not.  Many people react negatively towards Christianity or Jesus; they claim to be tolerant towards everything but are very intolerant towards Christianity.  I'm open to semi constructive debate or criticism.  By the way if you want to hear someone who is much better than explaining these things than I am, download any of William Lane Craig's debates in mp3 format.  He has debated popular figures as well as academics; including Richard Hitchens as an example.

I mentioned this book to my stepmom and she pulled it off the book shelf and handed it to me. I've read a few chapters now and may finish it today. It's very eye opening and inspirational. I definitely recommend everyone give it a look.