Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ask Dr. Emoto. The observable facts are that water forms nice patterns to good thoughts and good music, and very bad patterns to bad music and thoughts.

No. That is what Dr. Emoto claims are the facts. Since he continually refuses to share exactly how he does his "experiments", no one has been able to replicate his results. Independent confirmation is the hallmark of strong science.

From wiki: Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls,[6] and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community.[7] In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings.[8]
In 2003, James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.

There was no proposal that water is animate. The idea is that our thoughts have power.

I said what I meant; it was quite clear to start with. But it's fine if you want to make a joke out of it. The big colorful letters were pretty.

Everyhting you post is a joke, whether you intend such or not.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But one that seems to be getting more support nowadays; not only that it appears to be information, but IS information. In other words, not "made" of some impenetrable bits of stuff that are exclusive to a bit of "space."

Quite some time? I guess time is relative, but 10 years ago people thought the universe was expanding and that the rate of expansion was not speeding up.

1998 was 15 years ago.

Vandal's statements about me and others, make him the joke, rather than those he criticizes.

What seems to be the case, is that Dr. Emoto's research has neither been refuted or confirmed by other scientists. People raise issues with his methods, but they don't do research on the hypothesis. So the critique seems rather pointless. What usually happens in the ideological realm that vandal and kinser and some others here inhabit, is that they find something to knock, and on that basis simply refuse to look at anything that conflicts with their world view.

I looked at this essay:
http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/

Something else for vandal to laugh at:


Irreducible Mind
Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century
by Edward F. Kelly, PhD and Emily Williams Kelly
Reviewed by Diane Hennacy Powell, MD on June 1, 2007

“The authors of this book emphatically do not believe in ‘miracles,’ conceived as breaches of natural law . . . these seemingly anomalous phenomena occur not in contradiction to nature itself, but only in contradiction to what is presently known to us of nature . . . they not only invite, but should command the attention of anyone seriously interested in the mind.” The authors’ statement summarizes the major intent behind this book.

Although any complete theory needs to be able to account for all associated phenomena, twentieth-century academic psychology developed its paradigm while ignoring anomalous phenomena: out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, psi phenomena, visions of deceased relatives, mystical experiences, automatic writing, stigmata, and cases suggestive of reincarnation. Instead, psychology teamed up with the nascent fields of neuroscience and artificial intelligence to derive a Computational Theory of the Mind (CTM) in which the mind was reduced to being the byproduct of a highly sophisticated, biological computer—the brain.

Irreducible Mind skillfully argues that CTM is empirically false and provides detailed documentation of what CTM cannot explain. For example, CTM never addresses how consciousness could arise from the brain, and anomalous experiences suggest otherwise. CTM can’t even account for some of our everyday experiences, such as volition, or free will. CTM is a theory that reflects its origins rather than the richness of human experience.

This 800-page tome is the result of a collaborative effort of six authors whose qualifications enable them to provide an authoritative and comprehensive review and analysis of the relevant literature. Principal authors Edward Kelly and Emily Kelly are both in the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Virginia. Edward Kelly has a background as an experimental parapsychologist and as a neuroscientist using high-resolution EEG and functional MRI. Emily Kelly worked with the recently deceased Ian Stevenson on cases of “the reincarnation type,” near-death experiences, apparitions, and mediumship.

A CD of F.W. H. Myers’s hard-to-find, two-volume classic, Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death (1903), is included with the book. The authors describe Myers as the “neglected genius of scientific psychology” whose work influenced them, as well as the Harvard psychologist William James. Myers’s contributions are discussed throughout the book and continue to be of tremendous relevance today.

Both Myers and James regarded the brain as something that limited our experience of consciousness rather than something that generated it. Some of this perspective came from studying anomalous phenomena, but it also came from the study of clinical phenomena such as hysterical symptoms: for example, blindness, anesthesia and/or paralysis that had no anatomical cause and were curable by suggestion or hypnosis.“This apparent ability of the hysteric’s subliminal consciousness to initiate and control, at some level, physiological processes that are normally beyond conscious control seemed to Myers to be a gain rather than a loss of function and to have important implications for an understanding of the relationship of mind and body.”

Myers also looked at genius, which he believed to involve access to deeper subliminal or "unconscious” levels. To Myers, the subliminal was something that was restrained and could be released in all of us as a result of adjustments in the permeability of whatever it was that regulated its expression. More than one hundred years old, his theory is entirely in keeping with recent research on autistic savants.

The book’s title refers to the need for psychology to recognize that the mind cannot be understood by reductionistic, materialistic science. It is written primarily for advanced undergraduate and young graduate students in fields such as psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy, who have sufficient backgrounds to understand its arguments yet are new enough to the field to still have an open mind. The book will also be a valuable addition to the library of all serious students of consciousness, particularly if they are interested in understanding the mysteries of the mind.

Publisher: Review published in Shift magazine

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nice dodge!

You're the one who dodged. You did not state what the effects on mercury would be. In the case of water you also did not state what the sounds of whales and elephants would be on freezing water.I'll toss in something new. What does wind to to freezing water.
Note, all of the stuff above are all natural sources of sound.

Hint: freezing is only what allows the effect to be seen.

Hint. Have that guy try the same experiment with some "classical" low frequency instrument, say a "bass".

Who put whom on ignore???

You implied you did. You put me in your virtural hall of mirrors.

Of course, I do tend to ignore your heavy metal videos. But not always.

That is also your perogative.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Something else for vandal to laugh at:

<snip for brevity>
Irreducible Mind

Why do you bother bringing Vandal into this when you have him on ignore? Those who wave red capes in front of bulls always end up getting gored.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

You're the one who dodged. You did not state what the effects on mercury would be. In the case of water you also did not state what the sounds of whales and elephants would be on freezing water.I'll toss in something new. What does wind to to freezing water.
Note, all of the stuff above are all natural sources of sound.

I'll just have to dodge again, because I don't know. All I do is report.

You implied you did. You put me in your virtual hall of mirrors.

I did not, nor did I imply such a thing.

Oh, and the people in my hall reflect each other, not me.

But your letters are pretty. I like rainbows these days, especially the rainbow bridge of the starway to heaven.

I would be nice if I got more responses to this thread. But when I have nothing better to do, I might click and see what nonsense vandal is spouting now. It's OK, I'm still not going to argue with him. I have him on un-gore. Oh, and YOU are the bull, Mr. Toro. I'm sure the vandal won't reveal his sign.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Vandal's statements about me and others, make him the joke, rather than those he criticizes.

What seems to be the case, is that Dr. Emoto's research has neither been refuted or confirmed by other scientists. People raise issues with his methods, but they don't do research on the hypothesis. So the critique seems rather pointless. What usually happens in the ideological realm that vandal and kinser and some others here inhabit, is that they find something to knock, and on that basis simply refuse to look at anything that conflicts with their world view.

I looked at this essay:
http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/

We're supposed to be impressed by an author that makes a very basic error in one of the first paragraphs of his "research"? The grey rods are representative of the hydrogen bonds not hydrogen atoms.

What the hell is "high quality" and "low quality" water? If he is referring to the relative concentrations of dissolved particles in the water then Emoto hasn't "discovered" anything. The disruption of crystallic structure from contaminants is well and long known.


What exactly was the protocol for his Beethoven vs. heavy metal "experiment? Why has no one but Emoto been capable of replicating these results? Written words? Still no independent replication.

His protocol for obtaining images is rife with potential for selection bias! Has this ever been tested with a double-blind methodology? Why not?

Next paragraph is the standard "uneducated outsider shows up all those so called experts" story that all cranks adopt as their mantle. This whole thing reads as your basic Internet crank. He even admits to avoiding employing anyone with any sort of actual research training. Pure crank!

You may have "looked at the essay", but since you are already committed to believing in the pseudoscience you conclude that there is something to it despite the lack of any objective evidence. That's standard behavior for someone pretending to understand science.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

What the hell is "high quality" and "low quality" water? If he is referring to the relative concentrations of dissolved particles in the water then Emoto hasn't "discovered" anything. The disruption of crystallic structure from contaminants is well and long known.

Oh, no, nothing so prosaic and mundane as that, Vandal!

Emoto has, since the release of his book, articulated his "theory" about water's ability to store good vibrations (literally and figuratively). Did you know that "[m]ost tap water and bottled water is composed of large water conglomerates which are too large to move freely into the cells"? As a result, people drink the recommended amount of water each day thinking they're hydrating, but they still end up dehydrated. This is dangerous (even deadly) because "[m]ost diseases can be traced to dehydration". Uh oh!

However, "our most recent research is revealing that it is not just the lack of water, but the lack of hexagonally-structured water that is of greatest importance". As it turns out, "[h]exagonally-structured water hydrates the body more rapidly by encouraging faster water uptake" because "the smaller molecular structure of hexagonal water allows for faster transit through cellular membranes". That's good news, because "[a]fter many years of research and conscious deliberation, Dr. Emoto is able to provide the world with a stable, consumable hexagonal water, imprinted with frequencies to support creativity, balance and conscious awareness". This is great, because it means that we can buy eight ounces of concentrated hexagonal water for just $35.

Now, to be sure, Emoto and his partner Robert Lloy offer instructions for making your own hexagonal water, but it requires "scalarwave energy, laser light, inert noble gases and frequency-emitting crystalline ceramic oscillators". What is scalarwave, you ask? "Generally speaking, Scalarwave is a boundary line between the third dimension and the fourth dimension", but that description doesn't get to the "nature" of the scalarwave. And, I'm sorry, I have to quote this in full, because it's hilarious... er... I mean enlightening, of course:

...Scalarwave is the world existing on the boundary between the manifested world and the non-manifested world. All dimensions including the third dimension, the fourth dimension and the fifth dimension indicate the manifested world.

On the contrary, the genuine Scalarwave indicates the place of contact point between the non-manifested world, and this world includes all possibilities, or “emptiness” in Buddhist words, and the manifested world includes all shape, and is the world of "color."

"Creation" means creating “a manifested place” from “a non-manifested place” using pure thoughts. Prajna shinkyoo defines this world as: "Every form in reality is empty, and emptiness is the true form" and the Scalarwave is related to this type of essential and fundamental aspect of the universe. Thus, it could be said that: "The Scalarwave is the key to creating."

To be more accurate, the Scalarwave exists anytime and anywhere, although it has been said that it is something that occurs...

In any case, while instructions are offered, only Lloy's coils produce genuine bullshit... I mean... um... scalarwaves... so I guess we can't make our own after all.

Seems legit to me. And it's a bargain, given how complicated Indigo Water is to create. (And you thought that water quality had something to do with concentrations of dissolved particles in the water! Ha! Obviously, you weren't taking into account boundaries between the manifested and non-manifested world, or the borders between dimensions and the impact they might have on the very structure of water.)

In all seriousness though, I am kind of impressed by these guys. I mean, they're selling concentrated water that you can mix with your own water at home. Concentrated water. The con is so shameless and brazen, and implying that it can cure "most diseases" so fucking evil, that Emoto and Lloy can only be called scumbags of the highest order. (All quotes are from: http://www.hado-energy.com/hado_water.php)

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Oh, no, nothing so prosaic and mundane as that, Vandal!

Emoto has, since the release of his book, articulated his "theory" about water's ability to store good vibrations (literally and figuratively). Did you know that "[m]ost tap water and bottled water is composed of large water conglomerates which are too large to move freely into the cells"? As a result, people drink the recommended amount of water each day thinking they're hydrating, but they still end up dehydrated. This is dangerous (even deadly) because "[m]ost diseases can be traced to dehydration". Uh oh!

However, "our most recent research is revealing that it is not just the lack of water, but the lack of hexagonally-structured water that is of greatest importance". As it turns out, "[h]exagonally-structured water hydrates the body more rapidly by encouraging faster water uptake" because "the smaller molecular structure of hexagonal water allows for faster transit through cellular membranes". That's good news, because "[a]fter many years of research and conscious deliberation, Dr. Emoto is able to provide the world with a stable, consumable hexagonal water, imprinted with frequencies to support creativity, balance and conscious awareness". This is great, because it means that we can buy eight ounces of concentrated hexagonal water for just $35.

Now, to be sure, Emoto and his partner Robert Lloy offer instructions for making your own hexagonal water, but it requires "scalarwave energy, laser light, inert noble gases and frequency-emitting crystalline ceramic oscillators". What is scalarwave, you ask? "Generally speaking, Scalarwave is a boundary line between the third dimension and the fourth dimension", but that description doesn't get to the "nature" of the scalarwave. And, I'm sorry, I have to quote this in full, because it's hilarious... er... I mean enlightening, of course:



In any case, while instructions are offered, only Lloy's coils produce genuine bullshit... I mean... um... scalarwaves... so I guess we can't make our own after all.

Seems legit to me. And it's a bargain, given how complicated Indigo Water is to create. (And you thought that water quality had something to do with concentrations of dissolved particles in the water! Ha! Obviously, you weren't taking into account boundaries between the manifested and non-manifested world, or the borders between dimensions and the impact they might have on the very structure of water.)

In all seriousness though, I am kind of impressed by these guys. I mean, they're selling concentrated water that you can mix with your own water at home. Concentrated water. The con is so shameless and brazen, and implying that it can cure "most diseases" so fucking evil, that Emoto and Lloy can only be called scumbags of the highest order. (All quotes are from: http://www.hado-energy.com/hado_water.php)

Prince

PS: Semo, you have outdone yourself on this one. "Uh oh"! Too funny!

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Why do you bother bringing Vandal into this when you have him on ignore? Those who wave red capes in front of bulls always end up getting gored.

He thinks he's safe since he's a fellow bull.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Semo '75

In all seriousness though, I am kind of impressed by these guys. I mean, they're selling concentrated water that you can mix with your own water at home. Concentrated water.

Hmm. Where have we seen this before?

Eric's mistake is to narrowly define materialism in terms of specific characteristics (mostly emotional ones rather than factual ones) of "matter." A description of matter which doesn't feel to him like a soulless, mechanistic clockwork becomes a refutation of "materialism."

It's not, though. Matter remains matter no matter how it makes us feel.

Actually, this kind of reminds me of the approach of atheists to the concept of God: Narrowly (and wrongly) define it, prove there's no evidence for something that fits that definition (or even evidence against it), pat yourself on the back.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But one that seems to be getting more support nowadays; not only that it appears to be information, but IS information. In other words, not "made" of some impenetrable bits of stuff that are exclusive to a bit of "space."

Quite some time? I guess time is relative, but 10 years ago people thought the universe was expanding and that the rate of expansion was not speeding up.

And once again you demonstrate either misunderstanding or a blatant attempt to con. Let's take the lowly photon as an example. A photon is both a thing and information (it carries information). This is true for all force carrying particles. This is not ground-breaking stuff Eric.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

And once again you demonstrate either misunderstanding or a blatant attempt to con. Let's take the lowly photon as an example. A photon is both a thing and information (it carries information). This is true for all force carrying particles. This is not ground-breaking stuff Eric.

Yes, it appears to be, at least compared to what you are saying here. The bits of information he was discussing are not protons. He's talking about something at a more fundamental level. What the various theories are pointing to is, as I said, that the world is not made of "force carrying particles." It is only force, or information; in this case at the end of his talk, it was clearly information.

And the physicists do seem to be validating what Plato and Aristotle said, when they say that "matter" and "space" are the same thing (or come about at the same time?). Heisenberg is one who wrote that the new quantum physics was bringing us back to what the ancient philosophers said.

And (this IS me talking, my speculation), if the universe does consist of information, not merely of "things" that "carry it," then it must be conscious at some level, because information must exist in a mind. And the philosophers already know that there are no "things." That is not "ground-breaking stuff" either. So why do you write in those terms?

Originally Posted by Chas'88

He thinks he's safe since he's a fellow bull.

~Chas'88

Bulls goring each other, eh? Well, except this one is not charging.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Eric's mistake is to narrowly define materialism in terms of specific characteristics (mostly emotional ones rather than factual ones) of "matter." A description of matter which doesn't feel to him like a soulless, mechanistic clockwork becomes a refutation of "materialism."

It's not, though. Matter remains matter no matter how it makes us feel.

Actually, this kind of reminds me of the approach of atheists to the concept of God: Narrowly (and wrongly) define it, prove there's no evidence for something that fits that definition (or even evidence against it), pat yourself on the back.

Burning strawmen.

Matter appears to be related to mistaking something we sense (not "feel") for the reality, as if our sensation entitles us to make it into a concept and assume it about the world. It's kind of like Dr. Johnson's reply to Bishop Berkeley, kicking a table and saying "I disprove him thus." It also appears to be related to our capacity to measure the world, to chop it into bits and give it a number. The word matter is related to the word meter; they have the same root. In any case, as I said, "matter" is just a category of thinking. It is not the actual "elementary particles."

These words of mine have no necessary connection to the ideas expressed in the video copperfield and I were discussing though.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Eric's mistake is to narrowly define materialism in terms of specific characteristics (mostly emotional ones rather than factual ones) of "matter." A description of matter which doesn't feel to him like a soulless, mechanistic clockwork becomes a refutation of "materialism."

It's not, though. Matter remains matter no matter how it makes us feel.

Agreed. Though I think for most of us who are commenting on this thread, it is pretty obvious.

Actually, this kind of reminds me of the approach of atheists to the concept of God: Narrowly (and wrongly) define it, prove there's no evidence for something that fits that definition (or even evidence against it), pat yourself on the back.

I would disagree. The word "god" has a pretty clear definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

And the concept is pretty easy to destroy since supernatural (IE outside of the natural world) phenomena does not and cannot have evidence (or it would stop being supernatural). And so far everything claimed to be supernatural has been upon scientific examination been shown to actually be a natural phenomenon. And yes natural phenomena includes hallucinations.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

PS: Semo, you have outdone yourself on this one. "Uh oh"! Too funny!

I didn't even quote the funniest part. There's a testimonial on the second page in which the woman extolling the virtues of the product states that her experience after drinking it "was like having a whole brain."

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Hmm. Where have we seen this before?

I really need to watch more Steven Wright, which isn't entirely relevant, but there it is.

Well said, my master and friend:

http://youtu.be/G4j6cUwCRmI

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I would disagree. The word "god" has a pretty clear definition.

You can't consult a dictionary for a definition of the indefinable; that's guaranteed to be wrong. If you consult theologians, you will get not one but many definitions. Actually, you get that from Merriam-Webster, too.

And in any case, all of this misses the point. People believe in God because they experience something they attribute to his/her/its presence. Not everyone who has spiritual experiences explains it by reference to a personal God, but no one who has been there dismisses it as of less than cosmic significance. The ideas of God/gods found in religious teachings vary widely (Hinduism has a very different concept than Islam for example) but none of them emerge ex nihilo; all developed as attempts to explain spiritual experience.

Poor ones in my opinion. But having dealt with the superficial and poorly-conceived models, you are not finished, you have barely begun.

I had a conversation with someone just yesterday. He's a creationist, and I consider creationism to be utter balderdash needless to say. In the course of our discussion, he suddenly presented what I considered a non-sequitur: "I know God is real, because he spoke to me."

I thought about this for a moment and said, "Dennis, answer this question. In your opinion, if evolution is real and human beings evolved from other species, does that mean there is no God?"

Evidently it did. It is easy to be confused about how to understand spiritual experience and his understanding was especially confused and indeed ignorant. Nevertheless, his experience was real, and his unwillingness to dismiss it or explain it away was correct and sound, even though some of his conclusions from it were entirely unwarranted.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You can't consult a dictionary for a definition of the indefinable; that's guaranteed to be wrong.

The word is a symbol of the concept and is defined. The dictionary is a great tool for defining words, because words are defined socially and not individually. Why is that? Because words need to be, in order for them to be a means by which communication occurs.

If words can be defined on an individual basis then they lose all meaning and may as well be grunting.

If you consult theologians[...]

I have no need to consult with someone who is capable of persuading themselves of anything.

"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything."--Robert Heinlien

And in any case, all of this misses the point. People believe in God because they experience something they attribute to his/her/its presence. Not everyone who has spiritual experiences explains it by reference to a personal God, but no one who has been there dismisses it as of less than cosmic significance. The ideas of God/gods found in religious teachings vary widely (Hinduism has a very different concept than Islam for example) but none of them emerge ex nihilo; all developed as attempts to explain spiritual experience.

No, I would argue that religion is used to make the harsh existance that people face more bearable. It developed as a means of control. It is an opiate. Religion explains nothing and spirituality less than nothing. The closest creatures to a god is the human being. It is we who create gods in our image.

Poor ones in my opinion. But having dealt with the superficial and poorly-conceived models, you are not finished, you have barely begun.

Actually again I disagree. I have yet to be presented with a religious or spiritual position which was not superficial and poorly conceived. If "god" exists he is not a spook in the sky, nor is he some invisible force, nor is he pure consciousness either.

I had a conversation with someone just yesterday. He's a creationist, and I consider creationism to be utter balderdash needless to say. In the course of our discussion, he suddenly presented what I considered a non-sequitur: "I know God is real, because he spoke to me."

I agree that creationism is balderdash (though I would use a stronger word for it). However, I would say that if his claim is that he knows god is real because he is hearing voices he has deeper problems than merely being a creationist.

I thought about this for a moment and said, "Dennis, answer this question. In your opinion, if evolution is real and human beings evolved from other species, does that mean there is no God?"

Evidently it did. It is easy to be confused about how to understand spiritual experience and his understanding was especially confused and indeed ignorant. Nevertheless, his experience was real, and his unwillingness to dismiss it or explain it away was correct and sound, even though some of his conclusions from it were entirely unwarranted.

I would disagree that his "experience" was real, and his unwillingess to dismiss it or find a natural and rational method to explain it was "correct and sound". Indeed merely accepting that experience as something supernatural is the exact opposite of correct and sound. If his claim of having a "spiritual experience" amounts to being spoken to by an invisible creature, for which there is no evidence of existing, then I would say he is suffering from a pretty big delusion. If he is actually hearing voices claiming to be this creature he may well be suffering from a psychosis. Just because someone has an experience that they cannot explain does not make it supernatural or even spiritual.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

I didn't even quote the funniest part. There's a testimonial on the second page in which the woman extolling the virtues of the product states that her experience after drinking it "was like having a whole brain."

You just don't get it, do you, Semo(ie: Cynical Xer)?
That woman said(from personal experience) that "Indigo Formula"^TM was the reason
for her recognition of the care-free, joyful-twirling of a little girl! That's freaking adorable!
(ie: a warm fuzzy). It allows us to unlock our "inner-child" and experience life
as it's meant to be experienced.
You see, "Indigo Water"^TM is like "magic-water"! Fucking Ma-gic!

Plus, check this out. David Radius Hudson(a real live "alchemist", no less!)
has "re-discovered" Ormus!(Holy Shit! He did it!).
[Note: I mean, his middle name is Radius, you know, so he must know
a lot about Math/Science(ie: Geometry, Calculus, Anatomy)].

And just check this out from the web site
(I bolded the apparently really scientific stuff):

Originally Posted by WTF????

These distinct substances also seem to be intimately woven into the fabric of living things. They appear to be associated with what causes everything to "live." These forms of matter can have an attraction for the heavens, and through proper forms of motion and catalysts, they will aetherialize and levitate (or actually fall upwards)

See, that stuff is "woven into the fabric"of living things and, they will actually fall upwards!
(ie: an attraction for the heavens!). Seriously. They actually do that; The website says so.

And what about this:

Originally Posted by LMAO!

Such substances in spiral motion and in combination with hydrogen and sulfur compounds could be the cause of all plant and animal growth upward against gravity (we believe they can, under controlled scientific conditions, actually displace the force of gravity, thus causing levitation). These substances are not like the other atomic units of matter found on the Periodic Table of the Elements. When isolated and separated from other parent materials, these substances display consciousness. They move to escape isolation by jumping (or teleporting) into nearby salts, oils, water sources, and even the atmosphere itself.

Dude. These things can teleport! No, really!

Oh man, that website is freaking amazing! I learned so much stuff I never knew I didn't
even know. Things like "superfoods" and "superherbs". Plus, they have a list of some of
"the primary foods of the superhero". I'm being serious, man. I mean, don't you want to
be a superhero, Semo? I know I sure do!(I want to be Thor!)

Oh, there's so much BS on that site it's not even funny. Who believes that crap?
I mean they even put the really out-there stuff(ie: lost-touch with all sense of reality!)
in quotation marks!

Fucking Ormus, man. Get with the program, Semo.
(ROFLMAO! Can't. Stop. Laughing.!)

I cannot express enough my gratitude for you linking that website.
And, you're so right. It's so shamelessly bad that the comedy basically
writes itself(ie: the comedy appears to express "consiousness"!).

Ok. I'm done.


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Semo

I really need to watch more Steven Wright, which isn't entirely relevant, but there it is.

Read the sentence you posted in your head using Steven Wright's voice and delivery.
It works(for me, at least).

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I cannot express enough my gratitude for you linking that website.
And, you're so right. It's so shamelessly bad that the comedy basically
writes itself(ie: the comedy appears to express "consiousness"!).

Oh, that Ormus page is great.

Imagine the rejuvenation and hydration of every one of your cells. Picture your every cell as a galaxy with a spinning black hole (singularity) at its center and a renewed event horizon (membrane) allowing it to magnetize new energy levels, awarenesses, and cellular attitudes.

Every cell a galaxy with a spinning black hole and a renewed event horizon! (As opposed to a run down event horizon, I guess?) And it will magnetize awareness! I mean, I didn't even realize my awareness wasn't magnetized.

Pure gibberish. But, since it hasn't been disproved, it must be the truth.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would be nice if I got more responses to this thread. But when I have nothing better to do, I might click and see what nonsense vandal is spouting now. It's OK, I'm still not going to argue with him. I have him on un-gore. Oh, and YOU are the bull, Mr. Toro. I'm sure the vandal won't reveal his sign.

As an astrologer and self-described "prophet" shouldn't you be able to tell us what his sign is?