Ode Coyote wrote: > At 12:48 PM 8/18/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >Then that proves mind over matter! > ## Yes it does..within limits of belief..and since all minds are > absolutely connected somewhere behind the scenery, beliefs take on a > commonality to a great degree. > It could be said that mind IS matter..is what gives matter solidity, form > and creates space and time for forms to be in, but mind would have to be > existant in a context other than the grey stuff we believe it is for that > to be true. There is much evidence that this is the case. > Couldn't be? How solid are the objects in your dreams? How do you know > how solid anything is? > It's measured by instruments that exist in the same context as the > dream...senses, even spectrometers. > Beliefs don't alter reality, they alter how it's seen and experienced. > > > >How did they test the water? > ## They did it two ways. The first positive finding was done by using a > particular blood cell that reacted to a substance diluted to 30c [one drop > in all the oceans in the universe?] by the original researcher that > published his findings and made a big splash in the scientific world. > The second positive was done with the same cells and a diluted to 30c > histamine by the Royal Society confirming the 'splash'.
Doesn't sound like a very good test to me. Blood cells are alive, and connected with the doner. It is known that the thoughts of the doner will affect the cells over great distances. The real test would be to use a machine that is not alive and posses a link to a living person. > > > The negatives were done by the Royal Society with the histamine but the > vials were double coded by two different people so that no one, not even > the people doing the coding, knew which were which . That's the only > difference. [except that Randy the magician skeptic was involved and his > 'certainty' may have shorted out the coders 'behind the scenes' > communications] > It should be done again without Randy. If they were using live cells then Randy would most certainly be expected to affect the results. > > > I used a UV scanning spectrometer to prove that water had memory. I can't > say for water, but I know for a fact that quartz also has memory, and this > does NOT depend on the experimenter knowing anything. When I was testing > the memory, reiki was done on water inside the quartz vial that the > spectrometer uses, > >and it totally messed up the quartz, making it unusable. I sent to back > to Hach and they said the quartz was messed up with contamination or > something, and all they could do was replace it. All that was ever in it > was distilled water. Anyway, I got it back and had a friend do a mental > clearing on it, and it was back to normal. > ## An interesting clue! > It should be noted that both "believers" and "disbelievers" have closed > minds...in that both are certain and tend to find what they seek and have > that confirmed to them as much as is possible without disrupting the entire > fabric of the virtual universe, but neither discover the truth behind the > findings. > I was once an atheist..now I am skeptical. The world kept doing impossible > things that had more and more highly improbable histories to validate > whatever I chose to see until I could no longer ignore it. > Things just got too weird for me to keep insisting that I knew what was > going on. Isn't that the truth. I am always having what is expected happen, although it should be impossible upon reflection. I found that I had my hands on the keyboard wrong once, so I should have been typing garbage, but until I noticed it, what went to the screen was correct, but once I noticed my hand was in the wrong place, I got garbage. Last night I went to turn the TV on, and missed the button with my finger, but it turned on anyway. Indeed it is a wierd universe! My daugher flipped a light switch one time and the light came on, only problem is she realized after she had flipped it, it was the wrong switch for that light. It is said that if you want something, then say it will come true. But the problem is that most of the time you still don't believe it will come true, so it doesn't. The very simple solution to that is to say "whether I believe it or not" after making statement that it will come true, that completely short circuits the belief so it no longer is working against you. Marshall > > > I gave up. > ..then it got even weirder. > > I think everyone gets answers before they know what questions to ask...and > get to avoid them for as long as they wish. > If this universe was created by a perfect mind, then all the > anomalies..things that don't fit within reasonable probability.. must be on > purpose. There are a lot of anomalies... really strange 'corner of the > eye' stuff that's BOTH provable AND deniable. Things both are and are not > what they look like. > > Science is only magic that follows rules. > The rules get bendy sometimes...then solidify into new rules and new > sciences. > > Newton is about to get his butt kicked. The boot of doubt is rearing back.... > > Ode > > > > >I guess I should rerun the tests as a double blind test. > > > >Marshall > > > >Ode Coyote wrote: > > > >> Also on Tech TV last night was a story about the memory of water and > homeopathy. > >> It was proven that water itself has no memory..unless..the experimentor > knew which vial had the homeopathic treatment. [something that was apparent > as the common denominator between the various experiments but not dwelt > upon for some reason] > >> His/her "gateway" to the memory? > >> > >> Prayer, energy healing, Reikie [sp?], homeopathy...all interactive > methods...all work. But induce certainty that they don't..and they don't. > >> Skepticism is about doubt and has little or no effect. Most so-called > skeptics are not skeptics. They are not doubtful, they are certain. > >> Introduce certainty of failure into the interaction and that's what you > 'access' so that's what you find. > >> > >> "Seek and ye shall find" > >> A hologram has no preferences as to what you look for. [Holograms are > whole, containing here AND there in any given spot...but defining a spot > reduces resolution to where the closer you look, the less you can see.] > >> You can hide anything behind a fractal. [Perception is quantum..either > here OR there in 'appearance'. 'In between' cannot be perceived] > >> If you contemplate a fractal design..zoom in on it...you can actually > 'see' your perceptions take leaps when the fractal portion grows larger > till it reaches the comprehensive limits of your perception then instantly > disintigrates into smallness to grow again. You can tell it happened, you > just can't perceive it happening. > >> It's like, Zoooom POP!....zooommmm POP! Sorta like electron shells as > perceived as objects in space/time > >> .....yet...electrons communicate instantly over a distance [Einsteins > unexplained 'spooky action at a distance' observation] > >> > >> Perhaps distance itself is simply a matter of perception? > >> Do we identify ourselves and define the subsequent limitations of > reality by what we perceive? > >> Do we see with organs of perception that are only apparent to us > 'because' we perceive ourselves with them? > >> ..and just how much are these organs designed to NOT see? > >> > >> Perceptive organs are designed to focus in order to see things > clearly...to establish definition, yet, the closer you look, the less of > anything else can be seen. [And if you focus too tightly..even that loses > its contextual placement in perceived reality as definition becomes too > limited to even hold that object in view as an object] > >> > >> Total chaos contains all possible orders. > >> There are faces in my carpet. The more of them I look for, the more of > them I can see. The more loosely I define what a face should look like and > be recognizable as such..... > >> Ode > >> > >> At 10:35 PM 8/17/2003 EDT, you wrote: > >> >>>> > >> > >> > http://www.techtv.com/cybercrime/internetfraud/story/0,23008,3389209,00.html > >> > >> <<<< > >> > >> -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > >> Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org > >> To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com > >> Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > >> List maintainer: Mike Devour > > > >
