Hidden Messages in Water

outeast said:

"Didn't really think it was you, CMG... As to you (not) posting on this thread, if you didn't post the comment 7 or so posts up then someone is appropriating your moniker."

Gee, it would probably help if I either could remember what the hell I wrote here or just checked before I said I didn't write anything, huh?

Hi All, Please tell me if this makes any sense: that everything from objects to thought is a pattern. That different sounds have different vibration patterns, the same patterns we expose eachother to on a daily basis. Patterns that we probably learned from nature to start with, in one way or form. (cause nature was here first). There's growth patterns,healing,creation and so on... destructive patterns too. So Dr. Emotos study seemed magical at first, but seems to make sense after thinking it through. And to think those patterns don't affect us, is ridiculous. Even if not directly physically, then via our subconscious, which we use to communicate more than we care to admit. And why not encourage people to think positively. Even if it was a complete fabrication, we all know that everyone benefits from beneficial patterns of mood. I encourage people to believe whatever they want. I don't say to not question, but people who are so adamant on either side, are just struggling with emotions of their own. Best Regards. Andre

Andre said:

"Hi All, Please tell me if this makes any sense: that everything from objects to thought is a pattern."

Well, maybe. The thing is, though, that even if everything IS a pattern, it isn't necessarily a pattern that we're designed to recognize.

Just as a quick example off the top of my head, we can see light, right? We can't see all forms of light, though, like high-frequency ultraviolet. We're just not set up to perceive it.

Nor can we feel, see, hear or taste X-rays or radio waves. We ARE able, however, to prove that those things exist by the fact that we can utilize them. Believers tend to use the fact that there are things we can't perceive via our senses alone to "prove" that the thing(s) they espouse exist.

It don't work that way. If and when it can be proved, via demonstrable and repeatable means that water contains "messages," then it will become an accepted part of science and not before then. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.

Hmmm, we only recognize that unperceptable information when it's man made - patterns by us. But maybe your right and there's many other messages that we can't read, but perceive on a subconscious level: instinct. The rest doesn't affect us... Thank you for your insight.

PS:please have a sense of humor, hee hee, science is only scratching the surface, and EVERYTHING is a theory. Some of us are not trying to push merchandise, just playin with Ideas, which is where it all starts. 😊 LUV'N'HUGS!

I guess this is the hoax web though, do you speak as a representative for the website? For all the hoax columns? Or do you just passionately feel against the water crystal theory? And then why such a passion? Arre you looking for hope too?

The only person who speaks as a representative of the website is Alex. The rest of us are just commenters (though a few people work as moderators).

I'm very much a skeptic with respect to the water crystal phenomenon, and with most other new-agey beliefs, which seem to me to be a product of people's deep yearning to believe in something...they want so badly to believe, that they will leap to the defense of an idea, along with many others, blinding themselves to a more objective view. Many of the ideas are also, in my opinion, a product of what I might call "schizotypy", a tendency for persons to experience whimsical mystical phenomena with degrees of delusional intensity...the propensity to schizotypy may be determined by an overactivity of dopamine in the brain, or perhaps by a particular structural design in the brain that manifests itself more severely in disease states such as schizophrenia. Schizotypy is probably an evolved and inherited trait that may go along with creativity, imagination, and a "spirituality" that might confer a survival advantage--spirituality perhaps being viewed as a neurotic defense against what one might see more objectively as the meaninglessness of the universe. Mind you, the opposite, so to speak, of "schizotypy" is all too frequent as well, perhaps the highly analytical, obsessive-compulsive, detail-oriented, and rigid style that one can find in some scientists and skeptics (though not usually in the most imaginative ones); a person with such a style can have difficulty with expressing or articulating emotional states, and may be excessively dismissive of a point of view that they see as too sentimental, emotional, vague, unorthodox, or unproveable.

Yet I think a few unambiguous observations are in order:
1) thoughts and emotions in the brain are at the very least a product of localized, dynamic chemical events within a complex neural strucure
2) all dynamic chemical events, such as those within the brain giving rise to thoughts and emotions, involve energetic movements of particles (i.e. neurotransmitters, molecules, atoms, etc.)

3) all particles have a measurable gravitational effect on all others (however tiny these force might be). Other forces, such as electrostatic, etc. are present also, interactionally. Even the weak & strong nuclear forces could be argued to be present and non-zero at intermolecular or even astronomical scales, despite being extremely small.
4) While quantum-mechanical phenomena may be most significant at dimensions much smaller than the dimensions of a neuron, that does not render their effects nil at a larger scale...extremely small or insignificant does not mean zero. They can be assumed to be zero for the sake of calculations--and those calculations can lead to meaningful and accurate results with tangible applications--but they are not ACTUALLY zero.
5) Many distinctions in the world are a product of extremely small relative differences (e.g. a single gene differing by a few amino acids among thousands of other genes; a surface of the earth itself (the biosphere, crust, and atmosphere) which represents an incredibly small percentage of the earth's volume, yet is imperative for life; perhaps even at the big bang itself the slightest nuances in which the explosion unfolded led to the destinct unique evolution of the universe which permitted the earth to form the way it did)
6) following point #3, a distant star, or the thoughts of a person across from you (both being the products of dynamic systems of moving particles), literally do have effects on each individual and on each individual's thoughts -- it's just that the effects are extremely small, and presumably irrelevant, to other forces (such as the north wind, or the guy next to you pushing you on the bus, or this sentence you're reading).
7) So even in classical physics, the most ardent skeptic must admit that a person's thoughts have a physical effect -- through gravity among other forces -- on all other matter in the universe, including the thoughts of each other individual. And one has to admit that there ARE quantum mechanical events at the cellular level, and even at the interpersonal level, and at the scale of the whole universe -- it's just that the effects are very, very, very close to zero, especially compared to other effects.

8) But maybe some of these small effects ARE relevant...particularly if there are many, many such small effects going on at the same time.
9) Whether they are relevant or not may not be measurable.
10) If we were to produce a perfect experimental model of the universe, we would need a computer that could have a representation in memory for each particle of the universe. Even in the most perfect computer, the memory bank itself would have to exceed the size of the universe. Which would be impossible. So it is impossible to model the universe completely, only make incomplete--and some might say artistic--manifestations or representations of it, with partial understanding.

And I think there is some beauty in that fact.

11) I think a healthy skepticism of hoaxes ought not to employ reflexive dismissiveness. Some empathy or even whimsical respect for those adhering to the hoax I think is in order. Occasionally the hoax can have some meaningful or poetic value even if no scientific merit. And occasionally, even if there is no scientific merit, it could lead the minds of scientists into a unique new direction of inquiry.

I understand many mystical beliefs to be psychological phenomena which are either a natural result of a person's temperament, or which may serve a purpose for the person that is valuable for them. Sometimes simple dismissal can cause such a person to be even more entrenched in their beliefs, and whatever positive or imaginative influence their beliefs had in the first place is lost. This reminds me of religious dogmas, where the fanatical zealots in a group gain power when the belief system as a whole is attacked from outside, and as a result the belief system itself becomes a rigid dogma, losing whatever poetic truth or wisdom it might have had...so I encourage a stance of "empathic skepticism" rather than reflexive dismissal.

I (sort of) get what you're saying, Garth; I'm not sure you're on very solid ground scientifically there but I think the point you wanted to make was more philosophical, right?

The only thing I'd say is that yes, there is a space for this kind of relativism in philosophy: an inaccurate view of the physical world may arguably have some kind of metaphysical value. However, if a belief is factually wrong then it's factually wrong: no amount of metaphysical virtue is going to make a false belief anything other than metaphorically true (as it were). There may be a 'poetry' to the idea of water having Emotoesque memory, but this doesn't make it in the least bit true!

Personally, I think there is enough poetry to be found in the real world without making up nonsense, and I find myself feeling that the people with the real paucity of imagination are those who insist in chasing after delusions. Pick up any textbook of molecular biology, or chemistry, or physics, or whatever branch of the sciences takes your fancy and if you can just get a grip of the language of the discipline you will find the richest thought mines - with plenty of philosophical meat to chew, if you'll excuse the mixed cliches...

Well, I do think that most of this stuff you're criticizing, water crystals included, is wacky nonsense without what I consider to be much poetic value.

Yet I do think it is true that many scientists, and many skeptics, are embarrassed about poetics, or so embroiled in logical debate (correct as it may be) that their ability to appreciate poetics becomes quite limited. Many people I have worked with who are "alexithymic" are also excellent critics. Cynicism can be poisonous to one's quality of life. Sometimes I think it can be healthy to simply smile and nod...letting go of the need to debate. (Of course, that is not the point of this site!)

I don't think my science is on shaky ground. What may be on shaky ground is whether what I allude to is at all relevant or significant to the goings on in the universe. So the movements of molecules in the brain which produce a given thought do affect all other molecules in the universe, but the effect is most likely insignificant...yet we must not say it is "zero", else we contradict basic physical laws. Or unless we posit thoughts or consciousness to be mystical, which I consider a regressive stance.

Garth, I think the biggest reason we skeptics pick these things apart is because they are NOT merely harmless fantasies. A lot of this crap is peddled to people who are sick and haven't gotten relief from conventional medicine. That is simply detestable (and criminal).

Also, if things like this are NOT challenged, there is always the chance that they will become accepted by the public and even taught in schools. That, too, is unacceptable.

Outeast:

So what's the verdict? Sounds like this Cranky Media Guy is down on the ideas in this book, but It seems to me that the message or "the science" if I dare call it that in this Hidden Messages in Water book supports our discussion of evolution in terms of the idea that we were taught in school that the inert chemicals, "that have no sensorial capabalities," as someone put it in this forum, in the ocean were struck by lightening or however the story goes and by some chance, random low-probability chain of events started forming cell walls around themselves, and by random chance developed nucleic acids making them capable of reproducing and a couple of billion years later, vuala we have complex organsims out of the utter chaotic chemical soup that existed in earth's ancient oceans. I mean doesn't the idea that perhaps the elements of nature, like water, are imbued with intelligence and consciousness lend more credence to the theory of the origin of life on earth? It sounds a little bit easier to swallow or at least understand for dummies like me than all that chaos theory crap. What do you think?

Let us consider intelligence or consciousness to be quantities which exist on a continuum. Certainly we can find examples in daily human experience, where one person may be more intelligent, or conscious, than another, based on clearly-defined criteria (e.g. an IQ test, a neurological exam, ability to compose a symphony, paint a picture, or write a novel, etc.).

The origin of intelligence or consciousness must be the brain...but the brain is simply a collection of atoms organized in a particular way. As brain tissue disappears, intelligence and consciousness diminish (as in strokes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.).

Why should one particular organizational style of atoms give rise to consciousness and intelligence, while other organizations do not? Do we not excessively aggrandize "brains" vs. "non-brains" or even create a spurious distinction?

Perhaps all interactions of atoms, particles, or energy, in any configuration, give rise to some sort of consciousness or intelligence...it's just that in the human brain these qualities are extremely "dense" or concentrated, also finely attuned to magnify and store various percepts in a temporal scale varying from less than a second to a hundred years.

So inanimate objects around us may be imbued with some form of consciousness or intelligence -- yet to claim that we can control water crystallization telepathically is magnifying this subtle principle into a giant hoax.

yes there are skeptics. and you have freewill to believe what you want to. in fantasies like in holy books and the media.
even scientist will tell you that we know only a very small percentage of what this world is all about and the experiements that they do can only be interpreted by what they already know. they are only observers. that's why they are always coming out with tests that contradict previous tests. in other words everything is a theory. but under first amendment rights everyone has the right to say what they think. if you think you can debunk emoto's theory then go ahead and do it, then publish your findings. putting something out of circulation just because you don't agree with it is a communist act, just like book burning. free speech.
he used high speed film because they generally melt while handling them, you have to get the picture before their gone.
as for most of the emails i read on this page, get some common sense and a little bit of education.
a favorite quote of mine. "a teacher's job isn't to teach, it's to open a closed mind." when you putting someone else down because you don't agree with them just makes you look uneducated.

shell, your long posting basically reduces to the tired old "prove it's wrong" argument. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. It's up to Emoto to prove that his wacky theory is real. The way to do that is via SCIENCE and demonstrating that what he claims is reproducible. I doubt he can meet that standard.

Oh, by the way, why do you assume that the people here who question the "intelligent water" thing believe in "holy books?" I sure don't.

"a favorite quote of mine. "a teacher's job isn't to teach, it's to open a closed mind."

Uh, I'd say the job of a teacher is try to impart accurate information to people. Having an "open mind" shouldn't mean that you believe any silly-ass thing someone tells you, like, oh say, "intelligent water."

Yet another poster whose mind is so open his brains fell out...

A teacher may have a role in passing along information, or perhaps even in "opening minds" but I think this is aggrandizement of the teaching process, implying that a student is a passive recipient of knowledge or wisdom transfer. This may be a recipe for an unimaginative thinker. Even then, most (but not all) great thinkers, in my opinion, have not been dependent on having "good" teachers or not.

I consider a good teacher to be a knowledgeable guide, who can admit his/her own shortcomings, who can try to establish rapport with students, who can show enthusiasm and love for the subject matter, and who can encourage and expect hard work.

The beauty of shell's post is that it doesn't really require a critical retort. In fact, I have to wonder if shell actually holds the opposite opinion of what he/she appears to state, and the post is an ironic and humourous way to make a point.

part 1
ok

this water thing has me bothered. I want to believe! and I see a lot of reasons why it could be so...

Metal has a memory. bend it once and it's weaker, its molecular bonds get changed - damaged?

Molecules do seem to form crystaline structures which vary according to their environment.

Our thoughts affects our physiological state. In fact they can make us sick. Atoms appear to respond to the affects of observation. Alot of what has been expressed here as scientific skeptism seems to be a simple lack of imagination at putting together some of the latest evidence about our world. If our thoughts can affect our physiological state it means that they affect matter. Again a lack of insight and imagination might lead one to conclude that our bodies are different from the world beyond them. Whatever the case those little quarks start playing up when we look at them.

Therefore its not so hard to see that our thoughts could translate as energetic frequencies into the physical things we do such as write a word. In fact from a pure scientific perspective it seems unlikely that they wouldnt. I know places that have bad vibes and other that have good vibes and so I bet do all of you.

to be continued

part 2

So essentially I am arguing that we dont understand the interconnectivity of our physical world although a pinch of intuition suggests that alot of "spiritual wisdom" is trying to explain this still hidden world.

Finally in favour, the natural world has a propensity for patterns. Patterns that are mysteriously repeated from snails to galaxies. Actually not so mysterious, these are forms arising from energy dynamics, the mystery is in why. But for our purposes we can say that nature forms patterns AND these patterns are pleasing to us. Why not? We are part of nature too, are we too intelligent to notice that what is beautiful to us might actually be our way of registering function? Our eyes in other words might just be meters of function? Makes you stop and consider how the urban environment makes you feel right?

Now it would be rash of me to jump swiftly to the idea that we dont know what about the urban envirnomnet makes us feel not as good as a natural one. Perhaps its the effect of that environment on the water in our bodies. Perhaps our consciousness is the water in us? Im sorry, of course we know thats not true because we know what consciousness is and what makes it occur and where the organ is that creates it dont we. NO WE DONT. Which is a real big problem for skeptics really isnt it cause really you guys shouldnt believe in consciousness.

And this love business. Again, stunted unimaginative intellects might think that love is a human construct. What if its a name for a state of being that is perhaps perfect health beyond the terms of health as we understand it?

Well I like the patterns the water makes. My feelings respond to them.

The problem? Too many charlatans riding the money wagon. Skeptics are right to be cautious. Where o where is the replicated evidence? Maybe we cant have perfect replication with this. Where at least are the other samples. You know do 20 batches of water and freeze them all under the same conditions and see if the crystals are the same. Thats whats bothering me?

Hope this was enlightening.

Love
(he he he)
Adrian

Lovely thoughts, Adrian. Here's the problem: the world isn't the way we would LIKE it to be. The world is the way the world IS, whether we like it or not.

Wishing doesn't make things so. Most things are testable. Either they pass or fail. The thing to do is test this silly "intelligent water" thing. It will either pass or fail--and I'm betting on the latter.

hmm

I would like to see it tested too. Im sure you are betting on the latter for the very obvious reason that its all just to implausible. And sure it is. But can I ask - do you say any kind of grace or blessing over your food? For what we are about to recieve etc etc? I presume you dont. Has science ever tested the effects of saying grace either on the food or on our own physiology? What would your bets be about the outcome of such testing? No effect? Then of course there are the tested unexplained phenomena like the fact that after trialling meditation sit ins to reduce crime in areas of LA the LAPD sponsored the TM group to keep doing it so obvious were the results. A notable decrease in the order of 25% violent crime corresponding to the meditation sessions. If you have further info on that or can debunk it I am objectively interested.

Viva la rigour de science!
but down with myopia masquerading as reason!

all the best
A.

Enough. You are chasing your tail. Please become educated in these areas before spewing more errata. The meditation study has been thoroughly debunked in relation to those crime rates.

This is case in point of how these things keep getting perpetuated in the US. Details on the debunking please see the James Randi website at randi.org or check out this report.

http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/?m=200509

Adrian, recently the results of a study on the efficacy of prayer were released. The outcome was that prayer had NO measurable effect. Yes, the faithful have made and will continue to make excuses, but that's the bottom line: it WAS tested and it failed.

"Enough. You are chasing your tail. Please become educated in these areas before spewing more errata. The meditation study has been thoroughly debunked in relation to those crime rates."

Sorry about the errata spewing. I would like to be as educated as you Sandy. Im not sure however which part of my tail I am chasing. Perhaps you could argue by points instead of by flinging poo.

I couldnt find the info at the site you linked. I probably could have looked harder but could you ever so graciously direct me to a specific treatment of the TM study please. I did however look around and I came across an entirely conventional looking scientific appraisal of a TM experiment that was done in Washington state. It finds that crime rates did drop significantly even when controlling for temperature and other variables.

here it is,
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/soci/1999/00000047/00000002/00198917?


Cranky, are the results and a description of the study you mention on prayer available online?


Regards

Adrian

Adrian

I think that CMG was probably referring to the Study of Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer; you can read more about it in this BBC article or in this Time article.

This is far from being the only study to have found no results in rigorous trials of intercessionary prayer: Mayo et al, Matthews et al<a>, and the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16023511&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum">MANTRA study, for example, all found that when the subject does not know he or she is being prayed for there is no evident effect to intercessionary prayer. There is some evidence that knowing you are being prayed for can help, as noted in one of the abstracts I've linked to and in this study, indicative of a placebo effect (not that there's anything wrong with placebos). Interestingly, the STEP study found that those who believed they were praying more actually suffered more complication, though, so maybe how you respond to prayer is not so simple:)

Your link to the Washington study was dead, but a search on that site for 'meditation crime' turned up the abstract. It does look interesting: I'll try to find out more.

Outeast

Here is a working link to the article you found:
<a >Link shortened by moderator</a>

It is not peer reviewed.

The study is addressed specifically in the previous report link on my last post.

I encourage you to read some of the weekly commentaries at http://www.randi.org - Here is a link:
http://randi.org/jr/archive.html

Especially enlightening would be the forums where entries for the one million dollar paranormal prize are summarily dismantled. Here is a link:
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

Here is in reference to James Randi and the study:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm16.html


Some years ago a prayer study was said to prove the power of intercessory prayer. It was hailed all over the web as finally showing proof. It was a coverup, the study actually showed the opposite. Here is an article on that:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,982245,00.html

The most recent prayer study, which took 10 years to complete. It was a long wait for these results. The most comprehensive study of it's kind:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ex=1301461200&en=4acf338be4900000&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Mr. Shermer addresses the 2006 prayer study:
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

And this is an excellent essay and quick read by Mr. Shermer:
Twenty five fallacies that lead us to believe weird things:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm

Adrian (pt II)

The study you pointed out appears to have been heavily criticized for selective use of data - for example, although there may have been a decline in violent crime there was apparently a spike in murders during that period, a point which the report authors failed to mention. (Disclaimer: since I'm not going to fork out 30 bucks to read the paper I can't do a proper factcheck myself and am having to rely on secondary sources such as this. Additionally, although there was a rise in murders in 2003 this trend continues into 2004... I'm not suggesting the TM study had anything to do with it!!)

I am not a statistician. However, if - as claimed - the meditation caused an 18% fall in violent crime over the course of 2 months, this should have been observable as a notable fall in crime over the year: that is, that year should have been a noticeable outlier in violent crime trend lines. A quick glance at the official data suggests this is simply not the case. Violent crime was lower that year than the year before, true (with 514.6 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, as opposed to 534.5 the year before). However, violent crime continued to fall over the next seven years (and maybe longer), reaching just 369.7 in 2000 - suggesting that any statistical correlation with the TM study was almost certainly coincidental.

If there are any statistician out there, maybe you could look at the figures and see if I'm right?

WARNING: What the bleep do we know can seriously damage your cognitive faculties.

Outeast.

IGNORE SECOND PART OF ABOVE POST.

Curse google! No, that's not fair: curse my own carelessness. I searched for 'crime rates in Washington DC' and the site I linked to above was the top link; however, they are figures for Washington state, making my point invalid.

Well, almost. Wikipedia has stats on murders in Washington DC which show 1993 as having the third-highest murder rate the city has ever known. Figures here certainly show a steady fall in aggravated assault from 1993-1999, a fluctuating fall in robbery, etc etc. However, I can't find the figures for before 1993. It may be that my case holds even though my stats were wrong:) At any rate, statistical analysis on figures throughout the decade should test the claims of the TM report.

Apologies for my fuckup!

Adrian said:

"Cranky, are the results and a description of the study you mention on prayer available online?"

I believe so. I know for sure that James Randi has referred to it and I think if you go to randi.org and do a search for it ("prayer study" perhaps?), you should be able to find his reference to it.

I bet you disbelievers also say God is hoax. Huh? Athiests? That's what I thought. Nothing is real unless that isn't in front of your face well...except the news. That's probably the gospel too to your type. I bet you voted for Bush and believe some middle eastern religious fanatic single-handedly ordered the attack on the twin towers too. That's okay. You believe in that fairy tale and Americas most famous hoax and I'll believe that Dr. Emoto is right about water.

Gina Judd said:

"I bet you disbelievers also say God is hoax. Huh? Athiests? That's what I thought. Nothing is real unless that isn't in front of your face well...except the news."

Gina, you aren't making any sense here. First off, yeah, I guess I'm an atheist...or at least an agnostic leaning toward atheism. So what? How does that in any way invalidate my belief that Emoto is full of crap?

"That's probably the gospel too to your type. I bet you voted for Bush and believe some middle eastern religious fanatic single-handedly ordered the attack on the twin towers too."

If you're betting on me believing that, you've lost your bet. I didn't vote for Bush and as for the attack on the World Trade Center buildings, I'd say the jury is still out about who ordered it. Again, what bearing would what a person believes about the WTC attack have on "intelligent water?"

"That's okay. You believe in that fairy tale and Americas most famous hoax and I'll believe that Dr. Emoto is right about water."

Again, your logic is flawed. How does someone else believing in what you think is false give you license to believe in what THEY think is false? Two wrongs don't make a right, after all.

Emoto's "theory" requires proof just as you would require of anyone who says that a handful of people planned and carried out the attack on the WTC. Pointing out what you think are the false beliefs of others on unrelated matters is NOT relevant to the concept of "intelligent water."

If you have any FACTS that prove Emoto's theories, we'd all be happy to hear about them.

yep, quite some are blinded by the belief that the universe is purely material ;-p

I quite agree. It's the shocking Fascism of the Fact - such a terrible thing to be thus chained to belief in what is real when the fantastical is so much easier and more fun!

I love this thread!

Just found the following abstract from
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/10/effects-of-distant-intention-on-water.html

I was sceptical too but this is interesting. I would have been happier if the good Doctor had not been involved.Anyone got any other evidence of attempt to replication?


Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Effects of distant intention on water crystals
Some people, when faced with claims like Dr. Emoto's "intention affects the formation of water cystals," immediately dismiss it as nonsense. Others uncritically accept the claim because it sounds nice. My first reaction is to try to replicate the claim to see it for myself. I conducted such a test with Dr. Emoto, where he and his staff were kept blind as to which bottles of water had been treated. The paper reporting the experiment has just come out. Here's the abstract:

DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION

The hypothesis that water

Ok gang,

I am trying to find some real thoughtful, scientific rebuttal to the theories put forward in "Messages from water". But however all I find here are childish, naff attempts at jokes on the subject. So besides the close minded people who have insulted the pursuit of new understanding about Quantum mechanics can someone please give me some intelligent evidence based rebuttal because I actually want to learn about the subject.

Remember guys the first people who thought the world was round were ridiculed and persecuted. So its ok to disagree just try to do it with some intelligence and class.

Sam, it's up to Emoto to prove what he says is true. Just because a human is mostly water doesn't mean there are hidden quantum messages in water. Just because the earth's surface (not the earth's composition, as stated above) is mostly water doesn't mean anything either.

The fact is, there have been no successful studies showing the affects of 'positive' or 'negative' water, or of anyone who could tell the difference between the two.

Frankly, have you read his explanations? They don't make sense. He speaks of people's collective consciousness, yet we know of no such thing. He speaks of thinking positive thoughts to heal the planet and ourselves, yet doesn't explain how making water 'positive' would accomplish this. For that matter, what wounds would we be healing? Pollution? Deforestation? If every human on the planet suddenly dropped dead the planet would quickly take care of itself, without anybody around thinking good thoughts at the water. Water routinely became polluted and clean again for a billion years before people came along, why are we so special?

I'm well aware of how necessary it is to be open minded, but you have to filter things out based on evidence, sound reasoning, and our knowledge of how the universe operates. Nothing in physics can explain Emoto's claims, not even the much repeated (and abused) quantum mechanics. Until Emoto comes up with an internally consistant and rational explanation for the perceived affect we have to assume he's making it up.

Finally, I don't recall anyone ridiculing people who claimed the world was round. Science has known for over two millenia that the earth was a sphere, so I'm wondering where you got that idea from. Did you mean Galileo? Because nobody laughed at him either, they just tried to suppress him. And for every person science did laugh at who turned out to be right (there were a few), I can easily provide 10 examples where the person was wrong. So if anything your analogy shows that Emoto shouldn't be believed. At least not until he proves his case.

I am wondering why he thinks the pretty crystals indicate the water is somehow better. Sure, I like pretty things. I think a birthday cake is 'prettier' than a garden salad, does that mean the cake is better for me?

The reason I disbelieve in the Emoto's claims is because they're based on what seem to me to be aesthetic valuations, rather than on any moral or scientific claim.

The visual association builds on generally human valuations about beautiful and ugly, ordered and disordered, etc. Recognize these valuations, and Emoto's claims explain more about human interaction with the world, than they do about the fundamental nature of the universe.

Moreover, the so-called polluted water is physically and, it seems here, conceptually unappealing to humans. What are considered pollutants to human tissue and bodily function may benefit human life through chemical applications. There are host of ways to reinterpret 'polluted' that seem to favour human life, so polluted water is in itself needs much clarification, rather than the aesthetic association that Emoto imposes.

honestly I think it's possible.
and perhaps he's a science teacher, but he's a spiritual person. those things sort of go hand in hand if you think about it.
what more is science than a series of explanations to help us better understand the mystical world around us that we couldn't before?

i believe its possible for thoughts to affect water. and maybe not a piece of paper tied to the bottle but just the instance of thought it took to tape it there... you have to read it right?

and personally. I would try it myself. if i knew how. I actually ran across this website looking to ask him to conduct more studies.

and to you: Cranky Media Guy...
every organism on this earth has feeling, consciouness and thought process. we must all be able to commnicate with eachother and feel vibrations around us. We all have an electrical current running through our bodies that can tell the currents in others around us, and act accordingly to the magnetic pushes and pulls of the earth. these same energetic pathways have been used for at least 2000 years in acupuncture.
organisms need these abilities to survive and adapt. whose to say that water is not the same way?

and as for Charybdis...

I don't know why or want to know why you don't understand his explanations. if the water is healthy, our minds are healthy. sure... maybe the water is just prettier, but it's not the same difference between cake and salad. it's the difference between a lie and truth. they are of the same category but affect us in completely different ways.
if we find out this is true, what kind of possibilities can be uncovered. if this is true, who is going to demand that we recieve only the best water.. better yet. we can all make sure we have the best water. not with just positive thoughts. but with spiritual intentions. I mean it's water for christs sake. learning this is true should turn anyone to spirituality of some kind. that's like... the ultimate connection and communication with nature.

and with her speaking back.

and whoever it was that is skeptical about whether or not the water is truly healthier for you because the crystals are pretty or ugly.. it's not a matter of pretty because nothing but humans understand what pretty is. but we all (everything universally) understand perfect balance. we see that something is shining brighter than before and is perfectly balanced we note that it must have reason. but for it to be warped or malshaped... there must be something un natural about it. a divorce from nature, so to speak.

because nature is of course.. balanced.


you guys should watch these movies.

Esoteric Agenda
and Kymatica.

Ginger said:

"and to you: Cranky Media Guy...
every organism on this earth has feeling, consciouness and thought process."

Really? EVERY ORGANISM? That would include rocks, for example. You believe that rocks have a thought process?

"We all have an electrical current running through our bodies that can tell the currents in others around us, and act accordingly to the magnetic pushes and pulls of the earth."

Oh, really? Can you provide any proof of that? Just because something is fun or conforting to believe in, that does NOT mean that it is true.

"these same energetic pathways have been used for at least 2000 years in acupuncture."

Are you aware that when acupuncture needles have been put in the "wrong" places in actual scientific testing, the results were exactly the same as when they are put in the "right" places? That would tend to demonstrate that any benefit from acupuncture comes from the placebo effect.

"organisms need these abilities to survive and adapt. whose to say that water is not the same way?"

Well, who is to say that monkeys don't fly when no one is looking and when there are no cameras around? Saying "Who is to say [fill in the blank]" is not at all the same as PROVING that that particular thing actually happens. That's why SCIENCE tests things while PSEUDO-SCIENCE just makes a claim and expects people to believe in it.

I'm sure you sincerely believe the things you say, but your sincere belief is not a substitute for PROOF. For centuries, people sincerely believed the Earth was flat. It wasn't. They were just wrong.

wtf!! you guys sound like a bunch of closed minded
and extremely sad individuals that aren't willing to accept the true power of love and appreciation..its obvious that you have vary sad lives..

I wonder if the originator of this post has read the book? The pictures and photos are meaningless, read the book, understand the concept, and open your frozen mind.

Go to YouTube and look at the rice experiments.
They have been repeated over and over by lots of people and posted their videos.
I use the water.
My pets prefer it over regular tap water.
Can't brainwash pets.
I guess the skeptics are skeptical about Jesus Christ too.
The Jews called him a fraud too.
Prove that he is not.
prove that Dr. Emotto is a fraud too if you can.
By the way the word fraud is a new word isn't it.
Dont see it anywhere in any scripture or ancient writing of any kind.

"Go to YouTube and look at the rice experiments.
They have been repeated over and over by lots of people and posted their videos."

As we all know, everything on YouTube (or the Internet in general) is exactly as it appears to be.

"I use the water."

So?

"My pets prefer it over regular tap water.
Can't brainwash pets."

So? I had a dog who liked to lick his genitals. I guess you'd say I should follow his example. After all, you can't brainwash pets.

"I guess the skeptics are skeptical about Jesus Christ too.
The Jews called him a fraud too.
Prove that he is not."

Ah, so we've dragged anti-Semitism into this irrelevantly, eh? You know, "they" also called Enron a fraud. I guess using your "logic," it must have been perfectly legit.

"prove that Dr. Emotto is a fraud too if you can."

See, here is how life works. If YOU make an extraordinary claim, then the burden of proof is on YOU.

"By the way the word fraud is a new word isn't it.
Dont see it anywhere in any scripture or ancient writing of any kind."

At the risk of sounding rude, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? To take you literally, no, the word "fraud" would NOT appear in ancient writings. Neither would the words "dog," "tree," "house," etc. I hope you can see why this would be the case.

I am quite sure it's a false clame to suggest Jezus was the first fraud, so I don't suggest he was nor can proof it.

Okok no no jokes.

But I had to, after this fool suggesting to proof Emote was wrong, while believing what he sees at Youtube.
If God would exist he might forgive you, as you have been fooled when young to believe 'everything written'.

as far as I am concerned nobody, now and in history needs to be a fraud.
Not because of walking on water or bringing water to higher energy levels in some form .. and at least people believing in these miracles. This is quite something.

Sending love to water does not hurt anybody. I consider to support people who send love to water.
It is lovely compared to sending oil into water and other nasty things many humans are indirectly responsibly for. Via stocks, mortgages, driving et cetera.
Yeah I am too indirectly responsible, for sending shit (hate?) into water.
I don't like it and want to change some things. But I rather hope we can all change - we can accept our different believes in prophets and water, 'even' respect it, as we want our neightbour to at the very least accept+ our own religion and believes, from God to Santa.

I hope its not just little groups, following unproved spiritual very touching movements of miracles, moving attention to love, but giant power companies like Shell and BP should move to sending love to water.

😉 and !!! :-D love and peace

Harry said:

"I am quite sure it's a false clame to suggest Jezus was the first fraud, so I don't suggest he was nor can proof it.

Okok no no jokes.

But I had to, after this fool suggesting to proof Emote was wrong, while believing what he sees at Youtube."

Harry, I was employing SARCASM when I said that everything on YouTube is true. I thought that was obvious from the context.