it seems reasonable to assume that there are reasons why things occur. this assumption is the basis for science. it is the basis of our science, our laws and our very existance in a technological society. so why is it difficult to find reasons for important issues like free will and consciousness and death.
a reasonable approach to a designed existance would include immortality, right? we design things and implement systems that we want to exist forever and we resist change. so why do we die?
these concepts sit outside of this new, scientific approach to living. the very idea of life it`s self, the act of consciousness disturbs science so intensely that it doesn`t have a symbol in math or physics to describe it.
science see the effect of consciousness all the time. the observer effect is has been known to physics for nearly a hundred years. there are things going on around us all the time that defy the ability for reasonable explenations yet they continue to happen.
if we take two portions of the same tub of yogurt and hook them both up to a device that measures minute changes in current flow (lie detector) and put them in different rooms, then feed one milk, which is food to the live bacteria in the yogurt, the other portion of yogurt shows a galvanic response on it`s meter.
yogurt knows yogurt.
reasonable?
fact.
this study was done over twenty years ago by a cleve baxter, the inventor of the polygraph (lie detector.) and is repeated by students with plants, yogurt, people and dogs in various forms. science sees the data but refuses to accept the finding into peer-reviewed publication without reasons!
what reasons do we need once we know that yogurt knows yogurt?
what reasons do we need to know that when we feel good, we make good decisions?
we just have to go ahead and choose to feel good for no reason and our lives improve.
or we can wait for reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
bout time someone had a blog that wasn't just superficial bullshit!
keep up the good work...
thank you for saying so.
Is this stuff on yogurt borrowed from Bandler?
It is a plausibly sounding myth, no more, no less ...
the work was done by cleve baxter. his work with galvanic response devices is well within the body of scientific knowledge. baxter experimented with plants, yogurt, animal cells, etc. richard bandler has remarked on his work but cleve has been interviewed many times on radio and his words speak for themselves. i appreciate your opinion about the yogurt, but i think you will find,with some research, that the yougurt reaction is fact and as such is a remarkable thing. it says that communication has many facets and subtlties. it is also a story of hope for a way of thinking about the connectedness and sensitivity of our consciousness and that of everything around us.
here`s a link to a site about primary perception, cleve baxter`s work.
http://www.primaryperception.com/index1.html
Have you checked out mythbusters who tried the experiement?
Or this is another example of Believing others statements and take them at face value, just because it fits into ones own world view?
Have anyone tried the yoghurt experiment again except mythbusters? I sure haven´t, but know for sure that Bandler is a good talker and there are a lot of good believers out there.
hmm. sounds like you have some sort of bias against bandler. baxter and many others did experiments about this and found repeatable results.
i personally take care of plants, shrubs and trees with the thought that consideration has a net postive effect.
and you are right about bandler being a good talker and that there are a lot of believers out there.
prior worldview? what is yours?
bandler`s point about yoghurt knowing yoghurt was, and is, that we should be at least as sensitive as bacteria, but strangely, we aren`t.
why is that?
oh yeah, and mythbusters? come on, a series of repeatable scientific experiments is hardly a myth...unless you want to discard the lot because they threaten your pre-ordained world view.
Post a Comment