Crystallized Thoughts
The hypothesis that the focused intention of a group of people can affect ice crystals formed in water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. This question is of interest to alternative medicine--especially for therapies involving intention, because the adult human body is made up mostly of water.
Approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions toward water samples located inside a room in California. The group was unaware of similar "control" water samples set aside in a different location. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were photographed, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water, lending support to the hypothesis that they their creation was altered by the thoughts and intentions of the people in Tokyo.
Image: "Larger nano droplet" by vitroid on Flickr courtesy of Creative Commons Licensing.
Tweet- 12-23-09
- Jennifer Palmer's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Contagion
The results of this study certainly lends support to the theory of planetary mood swings. If we can affect free-standing water molecules a thousand miles or more away, we must surely be affecting other humans.
In fact, this brings us right back to the discussion of "other" doesn't it? If we pick up on and mirror each others mood as a planetary body of humans, then there's no such thing as "other".
"We are one" appears to no longer be a cliche' regarding humanity.
In addition, lower animals are mostly water...In addition to animals, plants rely on water...
One day it will be a wonder that we ever thought about life in the detached way that we do today.
Here's hoping that my crappy holiday mood doesn't affect your "joy of the season".
Hardly Convincing
Your analogy, to me, doesn't
Your analogy, to me, doesn't seem to fit with the aspects of the study. In a control study both/all containers of water would have been examined and deemed "identical" in the quality they were testing. Each container would then be subject to the same environment, the only difference being the attention/intention of the participants of Japan. In ruling out as many variables as humanly possible, one could only deduce the changes in the nature of the water were caused by the intention of those in Japan.
I'm not trying to convince you that the conclusion of the study is concrete. Niether you or I have the full report here to make that decision. It is, however, important to remain open-minded to the idea that maybe there is something operating here that we don't completely understand yet. After all, instances like this have been reported many times in many places. Maybe there is something to this.. ?
Significance
Reversing the polluted water with intention
The old word observer simply has to be crossed off the books, and we must put in the new word participator. In this way we’ve come to realize that the universe is a participatory universe. - Physicist John Wheeler
In an altered state of consciousness we use a different metaphysical system. If we really use a different metaphysical system (and not just think or talk about it), we are in an altered state of consciousness. These two phrases are different ways of describing the same thing.
- Psychologist Lawrence LeShan
http://www.sandraingerman.com/medicinefortheearth.html
"The SACRED (whatever that means) is surely related (somehow) to the BEAUTIFUL (whatever that means)..."
Gregory Bateson
.
I agree with Brad - pretty weak
For that to have any meaning those results would need to be independently reproduced. But even if they were, what could be said - that human intention can make pretty ice crystals? More seriously, you might be able to conclude something like, "it appears that focused human intent may have minor, physically demonstrable effects."
Just the beginning..
If these are in any way accurate studies, in that the crystals really were produced by concsious intention, then the implications could be great. Just because we do not fully understand does not mean we should condem this research. After all, this may only be the "tip of the iceburg" (no pun intended) of something even greater. Possibly to the "untapped" power of the human brain, who knows for sure..
But I do agree, these studies do need to be reproduced over and over again..
pretty
as in eyes of the beholder to the beholden.
of course science as we know it or don't know it.
is not pretty.
what then when it begins to turn pretty?
I think this is pretty...
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/QuantumJazzTaoofBiology.php
"The SACRED (whatever that means) is surely related (somehow) to the BEAUTIFUL (whatever that means)..."
Gregory Bateson
Significant ... in many ways
Brad: It wasn't just a question of one group scoring higher than the other, but scoring higher by a statistically significant margin. The abstract is linked to above, and the results show that the difference in scores is shown to be not just higher, but higher beyond the statistical norm one would expect from sheer randomness.
And I don't know how anyone can downplay this. If the results of this study are accurate and can be reproduced... I mean, potential proof that man can physically alter matter through nothing more than focused will? How can anyone look at this as some minor blip of a discovery? This is kind of questions practically stands as the dividing line between two competing schools of thought regarding what consciousness is and is not capable of.
I'm not saying that this study alone is conclusive. But I am saying that this type of result is so starkly clear in its implications as to demand serious further study.
Contradictions...
I'm not sure you understand why statistical significance was incorrectly applied here. They used it to show that one ice sample was beyond little doubt more "aesthetically pleasing" (which I believe is objective enough of a metric) than another. I'm sure it was. They did NOT show that conscious intention influenced its amount of aesthetic appeal with ANY amount of statistical significance. To do this, they would need to test a large number of actual frozen water samples against conscious intention. Like I said, nature can vary its aesthetic appeal, whether it is the way a certain species of mushroom grows, how a lightning bolt strikes, or how a water sample crystallizes. 4 bottles tells us nothing.
If an experiment is produced with good methodology and uses a statistically significant number of samples, it IS conclusive. This was conclusive on the aesthetics of a water sample, but extremely inconclusive on the effect of intention. The fact that the team didn't see this flaw from the start amazes me. You know what this is like? Having 2,000 people focus on a coin landing "heads" up, and then afterwards taking 40 pictures of it be analyzed by 100 judges, to verify with statistical certainty that it is in fact "heads". It's like the whole experiment is a red herring to distract from the initial 50/50 chance.
One flaw...
Brad:... in your argument is that the results were not a 50/50 chance. There was also a third possibility: a tie. And in this case, a "tie" would have been acheived not just if the scores of the two samples were exactly the same, but if their respective rating scores were within the standard deviation. The abstract shows that they were not.
To move it over to your example, a better analogy would be if 2,000 people focused on a coin landing "heads" up, and then an experimentally blind judge flipped it 100 times. If it landed heads 51 times, and the researchers claimed this result significant, then your argument would be correct: effectively, it would have been a tie.
But what happened instead is the equivalent of getting, say, 75 heads and 25 tails: a difference so large that it cannot easily just be summed up to chance. The odds of getting a difference that huge is not 50-50, and it is therefore its existence that makes this study interesting.
You are right that this study will need to be repeated for the reasons you mentioned. You are right that it could just be one very "lucky" sample. More coins need to be flipped. But this coin shows something more significant than a single lucky flip.
How many trials?
No, your modification to my example doesn't make sense because they only frozen the water once--not 100 times. If they had a statistically significant number of trials there would be no reason to repeat it--that's the whole reason behind taking multiple trials of an experiment.
Okay, I just pulled up the study and I see that they actually had pictures of around 20 different crystals for each group, which would count as seperate trials. That was the key information I was missing. Interesting.
The concept of transmitting
The concept of transmitting moving pictures seen by a big robotic eye with copper spilling from it attached to a big tower shooting invisible waves in every direction that is then exploded onto some glass for you to be absorbed by was "interesting" and "magical" until it became common place.
When love and happiness become common place, much of what we thought to be interesting and magical will manifest. We are made of stars.
still more mind blowing
that is amazing
can you please provide links to this? either in a comment or you can email me.
Thanks!
jp
experiments done by Lucy Pringle