A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm surprised this experiment hasn't been done to rule out any possibility that it could be something other than emotions that is effecting the rate of decay. Maybe it has.

It hasn't that I can find. Emoto chose to go straight to the public with his claims, rather than do science. He made a lot of money off the woo crowd.

BBC Focus Magazine • Masaru Emoto experiments : Science Fact Versus Science Fiction
Is Masaru Emoto For Real?!! | Open minded critical analysis of Masaru Emoto

As quoted in an interview with Jon Woodhouse published in the Maui News, Emoto stated, “I did not start out with any modern scientific background. I did not even know the limit of science to stop me from giving this research a chance.” Not having been educated in the scientific community, Emoto has been happy to do his “research” without accurately employing the scientific method. While he does employ the spirit of the scientific method in his research design, he makes critical mistakes in its rigor. For example, Emoto’s research does employ observation of a physical phenomenon, formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, and testing and revising the hypothesis, but he makes the critical mistake of failing to minimize the influence of the experimenter’s bias on the outcome of the research.

in the Maui News interview, Dr. Emoto specifically stated, “I do not require any blind tests on any samples,” but rather he believes that “the researcher’s aesthetic sense and character is the most important aspect when taking crystal photographs.”

For example, the James Randi Educational foundation, an organization that offers a “one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event” (Randi, Challenge) has offered to give Dr. Emoto the prize if he will agree “to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion” (Randi, Water), yet Dr. Emoto has not responded.

It is this crucial lack of scientific foundation that prevents Dr. Emoto’s work from attracting interest by widely accepted and respected scientists at long-standing research institutions. This is unfortunate for the world if there is, after all, truth to his claims–as reproduction of his results by any scientist would lend much credence to his work. A little change in Emoto’s experimental design would do great things for the credibility of his claims. I recommend the following to ground his work in sound scientific principle:

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why do you keep speaking of them as separate entities?

Because that is what is being questioned based on the research that the brain makes the decision before the agent is aware of it. It makes it appear as if the brain and the agent are two separate entities. Didn't you watch the video?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The idea that the brain chooses before the agent becomes aware of it is what led to the experiment I posted. This would have some really perplexing implications if it were true. It would mean that the agent wasn't really in the driver's seat at all; that he isn't even choosing but his brain is. It would mean the agent (the "I") whose brain it is wouldn't even be involved in the choices that are made; almost like being passengers just going along for the ride.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The idea isn't about the brain and agent being separate. You are the one talking as if that is the case, nobody else is.

But that was the larger question being asked, for if the brain makes the decision before our conscious selves are aware of it, that made it appear as if we have no say as agents since the brain and the "I" are separate entities. It would also imply that we, as conscious agents, are not responsible for the choices being made because the conscious part of us (the "I") that gives the okay to act or not to act is not present in the decision.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The experiment and our subsequent discussions are about the role and extent of unconscious processes in decision making.

That is true and it has major implications. Unconscious processes are obviously those things we are unaware of on a conscious level that may have an influence over our decisions, but the question still remains as to whether our decisions are consciously made or unconsciously made based on how the brain works.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Read this sentence, you are denying separating the brain from agent while simultaneously using language that separates them.

To write this as talking about an integrated brain, you would say, instead "the decision has already been made 7 seconds before the subject is consciously aware of it."

That language wouldn't integrate the two either. There is actually no way to make sense out of this in a language that can integrate them. The "I" or agent has to be consciously aware of the decision at the moment of choice regardless of what the CT scan shows. Whether the decision was made 7 seconds earlier has no bearing on the fact that the agent made the decision. That was what the experimenter was saying; that the processes going on in the brain does not mean the agent (the "I") is not involved in those processes, which was what the subject was having a problem with. Even in a dreaming state the agent is unconsciously agreeing to act in certain ways based on the scenario taking place in the dream.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It hasn't that I can find. Emoto chose to go straight to the public with his claims, rather than do science. He made a lot of money off the woo crowd.

BBC Focus Magazine • Masaru Emoto experiments : Science Fact Versus Science Fiction
Is Masaru Emoto For Real?!! | Open minded critical analysis of Masaru Emoto

I don't agree that the conclusions were accurate. I actually thought how could this be? It's interesting that anyone would believe that emotions (using the words I love you, or I hate you) would cause these changes as if rice can understand what these words represent. It's kooky, but it was still an interesting experiment to observe on a superficial level. Sometimes it's just fun to observe an illusion or magic that we know isn't real, but the fact that it looks real is amazing in its own right.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's interesting that anyone would believe that emotions (using the words I love you, or I hate you) would cause these changes as if rice can understand what these words represent.

Lots of people already believe positive thoughts and/or prayer can affect the material world, and things like this just reinforce that belief

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lots of people already believe positive thoughts and/or prayer can affect the material world, and things like this just reinforce that belief

Confirmation bias at its best.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So this is an "Astute Observation", which can be considered as proof of itself?

Astute observations can be enough proof. I saw the truth of what he was explaining for myself. I pictured being in the new environment that I knew no one in the world would blame or punish me for intentionally hurting someone with a first blow (gaining at others' expense when not to hurt them would not make me a loser). I pictured going into a store and being free to take what I want knowing that no one would say a word or go after me even if they saw what I was doing. I couldn't do it. I couldn't justify it. Think about it and you'll see what I mean. You can test this for yourself. That's what he meant by being your own guinea pig at the end of the third chapter.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because that is what is being questioned based on the research that the brain makes the decision before the agent is aware of it. It makes it appear as if the brain and the agent are two separate entities. Didn't you watch the video?

But that was the larger question being asked, for if the brain makes the decision before our conscious selves are aware of it, that made it appear as if we have no say as agents since the brain and the "I" are separate entities. It would also imply that we, as conscious agents, are not responsible for the choices being made because the conscious part of us (the "I") that gives the okay to act or not to act is not present in the decision.

That is true and it has major implications. Unconscious processes are obviously those things we are unaware of on a conscious level that may have an influence over our decisions, but the question still remains as to whether our decisions are consciously made or unconsciously made based on how the brain works.

That language wouldn't integrate the two either. There is actually no way to make sense out of this in a language that can integrate them. The "I" or agent has to be consciously aware of the decision at the moment of choice regardless of what the CT scan shows. Whether the decision was made 7 seconds earlier has no bearing on the fact that the agent made the decision. That was what the experimenter was saying; that the processes going on in the brain does not mean the agent (the "I") is not involved in those processes, which was what the subject was having a problem with. Even in a dreaming state the agent is unconsciously agreeing to act in certain ways based on the scenario taking place in the dream.

Any individual's brain has both conscious and unconscious processes going on at any given time. All that these types of experiments show is that in some cases, we are processing things faster than we can consciously think about them.

These experiments (using fMRI not CT) were for minor decisions such as pushing a button with the left or right hand. As I said, I don't know how accurately the timing of "being aware of" the decision was calculated. But, if these were more complex decisions that required contemplation, the results might be different.

ETA: No I didn't watch the video. I have been aware of this type of research for some years and prefer reading results as I've said several times.

Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them
Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will : Nature News

This is by Eric Kandel, a Nobel Prize winner who is also very good at communicating with the public.
You Have Free Will, But You Might Not Be Aware | 60 Second Reads | Big Think

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to defend myself against your accusation that I don't care about evidence. You're completely wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How could you defend yourself against what you've already admitted? People who care about evidence don't declare that they will keep believing something no matter what the evidence indicates.

That is not about believing something without evidence. I have supporting evidence that negates your evidence. I'm just not accepting what you believe to be the only evidence out there. I am offering a new way to look at this issue, with evidence that supports this new way of looking at this issue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It may well be, but I've lost interest in debating you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then why have you answered me?

Because I don't like you having the last word on this discovery, that's why. That's why I asked you politely to stop adding more posts, which of course you won't do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1) His astute observation is that words projected onto substance cause conditioning which does not occur with the other senses.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is not an observation statement. It is a causal claim - one that would itself need to be based upon further observations to be valid. It is also ambiguous - do you think the above is meant literally or metaphorically?

It's a causal claim and it's a correct one. It does not need more proof because he is describing to a t what is taking place with words and how they condition us. The proof is that if the image is being interpreted by light alone, this conditioning process could not occur. This can be tested but it would require children not hearing these words in order not to be conditioned by them. That is difficult to do in a society that uses these words constantly to describe what they believe to be objective reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Although differences exist and we see them with our very eyes, the words we have been looking through are not symbolic of anything real. When the words are removed the conditioning is removed. If the eyes were a sense organ this projection could not take place.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Psychological conditioning can and does happen without any need for efferent vision.

I'm not talking about psychological conditioning. I am talking about visual conditioning.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It does not involve any literal projection of words, it occurs with senses other than vision, and it does not have anything to do with the specific mechanism of sight.

Because Spacemonkey says so. It does involve a projection of words, and he shows how this occurs. You didn't read this chapter objectively, you couldn't have. You don't know the first thing about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

2 Claim: This is evidence that the eyes are efferent.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But it isn't. The only way that Lessans' described projection could require a non-afferent visual mechanism were if he meant that we literally shoot words out of our eyeballs into reality, and that is patent nonsense. Understood more sensibly as a metaphor, his observation of projection is both consistent with, and better explained by, the existing afferent theory of vision.

You are completely misunderstanding what he means by projection, and how this actually occurs. You really need to reread the chapter before you say more because you are looking sillier by the minute. It isn't a matter of being a better model, it's which model is more accurate. This has nothing to do with metaphor and it could not be better explained by the afferent theory. It is antithetical to the afferent theory of vision, as I explained earlier.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Astute observations can be enough proof. I saw the truth of what he was explaining for myself. I pictured being in the new environment that I knew no one in the world would blame or punish me for intentionally hurting someone with a first blow (gaining at others' expense when not to hurt them would not make me a loser). I pictured going into a store and being free to take what I want knowing that no one would say a word or go after me even if they saw what I was doing. I couldn't do it. I couldn't justify it. Think about it and you'll see what I mean. You can test this for yourself. That's what he meant by being your own guinea pig at the end of the third chapter.

But these imaginings use your current values system, one in which stealing is already wrong (presumably).

Someone with a different set of values might imagine that scenario and be very happy at the opportunity to take advantage for their own gain.

You can't extrapolate your feelings to everyone else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But these imaginings use your current values system, one in which stealing is already wrong (presumably).

True, but anyone who has a working conscience would feel this way. It is not dependent on a value system per se. It is dependent on how conscience works universally.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Someone with a different set of values might imagine that scenario and be very happy at the opportunity to take advantage for their own gain.

You can't extrapolate your feelings to everyone else.

Yes, they could take advantage if they had a justification for it, but if the justification is removed, and they have a working conscience, there is no way any value system could trump this universal principle. That is why this is not Lessans' law; this is an invariable law of nature that has the power to cause an unprecedented change in human conduct. No one can succeed in outdoing this law because no one can move against his own nature.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1174807]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So this is an "Astute Observation", which can be considered as proof of itself?

Astute observations can be enough proof.

They really cannot. Can you give an example of an astute observation being enough proof that does not involve your father?

I saw the truth of what he was explaining for myself.

And those people who did Emotos experiment saw all kinds of stuff too!

I pictured being in the new environment that I knew no one in the world would blame or punish me for intentionally hurting someone with a first blow (gaining at others' expense when not to hurt them would not make me a loser). I pictured going into a store and being free to take what I want knowing that no one would say a word or go after me even if they saw what I was doing. I couldn't do it. I couldn't justify it. Think about it and you'll see what I mean. You can test this for yourself. That's what he meant by being your own guinea pig at the end of the third chapter.

The results of that experiment do not match yours at all when I do it. So right off the bat we have a 50% fail rate.

Anyone else want to participate in this experiment the book advocates?

[Vivisectus]

ah - Shea also did not have the same result.

So the experiment continues: so far, it seems that about 1 in 3 results are positive.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since the "experiments" were not done in controlled or sterile conditions without any controls or checks, any number of things, including purposeful things, could have caused the rice to rot faster. Dr. Emoto invited the public to try the experiment at home, why don't you try it.

Masaru Emoto's Wonderful World of Water - Science News - redOrbit

Remember, though, peacegirl has previously expressed her disdain for properly controlled experiments, on the grounds that they may fail to catch phenomenon that she would really like to be true.

[LadyShea]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Remember, though, peacegirl has previously expressed her disdain for properly controlled experiments, on the grounds that they may fail to catch phenomenon that she would really like to be true.

100% bullshit. If you read anything about my father you would not say this. It is you that is denying the possibility that he could be right without any proof whatsoever, so you reject him at the very outset. It's so clear to me. You're just the latest representative of the cancer that has spread throughout this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ph7LcupAENw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In keeping with this man's response, does it make it any less magical that our actions are controlled by something bigger than us; that we are actually compelled to do the things we do by laws that we have no control over? The only thing this does is puts us in our proper place in relation to God. We are not all that; we are under the control of a higher power, whatever you want to call it. What this truth offers is more magical than anything we could claim responsibility for.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegril

100% bullshit. If you read anything about my father you would not say this. It is you that is denying the posibility that he could be right, so you reject him as being a nutcase. It's so clear to me, and you're just a representative of the cancer that has spread through this thread.

Man. Adam gets all the good cancer in this forum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ph7LcupAENw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nothing showed up on this post.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In keeping with this man's response, does it make it any less magical that our actions are controlled by something bigger than us; that we are actually compelled to do the things we do by laws that we have no control over? The only thing this does is puts us in our proper place in relation to God. We are not all that; we are under the control of a higher power, whatever you want to call it. What this truth offers is more magical than anything we could claim responsibility for.

Is that the 100% unreligious God or the other one?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because that is what is being questioned based on the research that the brain makes the decision before the agent is aware of it. It makes it appear as if the brain and the agent are two separate entities. Didn't you watch the video?

But that was the larger question, for if the brain makes the decision before our conscious selves are aware of it, that made it appear as if we have no say as agents since the brain and the "I" are separate entities. It would also imply that we, as conscious agents, are not responsible for the choices being made because the conscious part of us (the "I") that gives the okay to act or not to act is not present in the decision.

That is true and it has major implications. Unconscious processes are obviously those things we are unaware of on a conscious level. This may have an influence over our decisions, but the question still remains as to whether our decisions are consciously made or unconsciously made based on how the brain works.

That language wouldn't integrate the two either. There is actually no way to make sense out of this in a language that can integrate them. The "I" or agent has to be consciously aware of the decision at the moment of choice regardless of what the CT scan shows. Whether the decision was made 7 seconds earlier has no bearing on the fact that the agent made the decision. That was what the experimenter was saying; that the processes going on in the brain does not mean the agent (the "I") is not involved in those processes, which was what the subject was having a problem with. Even in a dreaming state the agent is unconsciously agreeing to act in certain ways based on the scenario taking place in the dream.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Any individual's brain has both conscious and unconscious processes going on at any given time. All that these types of experiments show is that in some cases, we are processing things faster than we can consciously think about them.

But this implies that we are not giving the final okay, as agents. This is what is being disputed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

These experiments (using fMRI not CT) were for minor decisions such as pushing a button with the left or right hand. As I said, I don't know how accurately the timing of "being aware of" the decision was calculated. But, if these were more complex decisions that required contemplation, the results might be different.

Bottom line: We cannot kill someone without our conscious consent. If you want to argue this, go right ahead, but this is the nuts and bolts of this argument and I refuse to get off onto a tangent that has no relevance in terms of what matters.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

ETA: No I didn't watch the video. I have been aware of this type of research for some years and prefer reading results as I've said several times.

That is such a lame excuse LadyShea, it makes me want to give up. I put forth a lot of effort to share with you my refutation and you come back with such nonsense. How in the world can you really be objective if you won't even hear my side of the debate by refusing to hear what I have offered? I refuse to engage with you if you won't hear my evidence. No legitimate debate omits the other persons' point of view just because they feel it's not worth listening to. Own up LadyShea and listen to the demonstration, otherwise, you have put cotton in your ears and that disqualifies you as a legitimate participant.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them
Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will : Nature News

This is by Eric Kandel, a Nobel Prize winner who is also very good at communicating with the public.
You Have Free Will, But You Might Not Be Aware | 60 Second Reads | Big Think

There you go again, looking at a person's achievements as your proof. This discovery is not philosphical. It is not open to debate. You read nothing LadyShea. You don't even know the first thing that my father proved. All you are doing is resorting to the results given by people whom you consider to be the cream of the crop. But these people don't have the knowledge that my father had, so how can they know he was wrong? Are you that blind to your own bias? You are offering nothing to this conversation other than giving someone's puffed up credentials. This is the huge stumbling block I am faced with and that my father was faced with 50 years ago.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Is that the 100% unreligious God or the other one?

I have clarified what I mean by the word "God" time and time again. I will continue to use this word in reference to the laws of our nature. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but move on if it bothers you that much.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

100% bullshit. If you read anything about my father you would not say this. It is you that is denying the possibility that he could be right without any proof whatsoever, so you reject him at the very outset. It's so clear to me. You're just the latest representative of the cancer that has spread throughout this thread.

Where did I say anything about your father? I'm talking about you. Specifically, I'm talking about that time you rejected the notion that a properly controlled study would be better than an informal survey of parents who were already convinced that vaccinations had harmed their children, because a study might not find evidence of the harm you firmly believe is happening.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Where did I say anything about your father? I'm talking about you. Specifically, I'm talking about that time you rejected the notion that a properly controlled study would be better than an informal survey of parents who were already convinced that vaccinations had harmed their children, because a study might not find evidence of the harm you firmly believe is happening.

No, this is the antithesis of what I meant. Studies are not foolproof, they don't give the accounts of parents who have watched their children deteriorate after a vaccination. Should a parent refuse to see what they see in favor of a study that may be flawed? I don't think so. If you were a parent of a child who got ill not long after a vaccination, I don't think you would dismiss this as being unrelated, in spite of the studies that conclude otherwise.

[Adam]

There's the stuff I'm talking about, and I think this even gets back to Spacemonkey's question that you're unable or unwilling to answer. You're conflating data with conclusions.

You think you observe "vaccination made child sick" when what you actually observe is two separate events: "child got sick" and "child got vaccination". The problem is that you're unwilling to do (or, in reality, to pay attention to the people who have done) the necessary steps to determine if there is any causal connection between the two separate events. You want to jump right to the conclusion and then pretend that your conclusion is what you actually observed.

So, dragging us back to your father, this is why Spacemonkey keeps asking you if you can identify even one of your father's so-called "astute observations" that is actually just an observation, and not really a conclusion disguised as an observation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

There's the stuff I'm talking about, and I think this even gets back to Spacemonkey's question that you're unable or unwilling to answer. You're conflating data with conclusions.

You think you observe "vaccination made child sick" when what you actually observe is two separate events: "child got sick" and "child got vaccination". The problem is that you're unwilling to do (or, in reality, to pay attention to the people who have done) the necessary steps to determine if there is any causal connection between the two separate events. You want to jump right to the conclusion and then pretend that your conclusion is what you actually observed.

So, dragging us back to your father, this is why Spacemonkey keeps asking you if you can identify even one of your father's so-called "astute observations" that is actually just an observation, and not really a conclusion disguised as an observation.

I explained to Spacemonkey what those observations are. This has nothing to do with the topic of vaccinations so stop dragging me back to this topic in order to conflate the two.

I am not the only one that is concerned about vaccinations. As any mother will attest to, she is responsible for her children's well-being and will do whatever it takes to make sure that what she allows into their bodies is safe. Mothers should have that right. Vaccinations should not be imposed by a government order. They can't fix the problem if something should go wrong.