Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation

Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation
A Triple-Blind Replication

Principal Investigator
Dean Radin, PhD
Co-Investigators
Masaru Emoto, Takashige Kizu, Nancy Lund

An experiment tested the hypothesis that water exposed to distant intentions affects the aesthetic rating of ice crystals formed from that water. Over three days, 1,900 people in Austria and Germany focused their intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. Water samples located near the target water, but unknown to the people providing intentions, acted as ‘‘proximal’’ controls. Other samples located outside the shielded room acted as distant controls. Ice drops formed from samples of water in the different treatment conditions were photographed by a technician, each image was assessed for aesthetic beauty by over 2,500 independent judges, and the resulting data were analyzed, all by individuals blind with respect to the underlying treatment conditions. Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p < 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.

See related Research Paper:
Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation

* Intramural
* Completed
* Started 2005

Program Areas:
Extended Human Capacities
Topics:
Intention, Mind-Matter Interaction, Parapsychology, Physics, Subtle Energies
Keywords:
crystals, distant intention, water

http://www.noetic.org/research/project/effects-distant-intention-water-crystal-formation/

Spent a while looking into this years ago, it comes back to quantum mechanics and the effect of an "observer" on particles. Fascinating stuff that, yes, has basis in science. Just science that we can't really comprehend yet. Honestly I have no idea if we ever will. It brings into view some sort of mechanism that I don't think we can really understand a use for.

"Tell me, you are smarter than a cockroach... but have you ever tried explaining yourself to one?"

"A fish that is swimming in the ocean can not see the birds that fly in the sky"

Walking the path... and knowing the path... we are merely striving to know the path. And in my experience, knowing a path gets in the way of the experience of walking it.

"Walking the path... and knowing the path... we are merely striving to know the path. And in my experience, knowing a path gets in the way of the experience of walking it."

Well said! I think the answer when dealing with alot of this deals with "feeling" or 4th dimensional awareness and gifts of intuition. Logic and observation only take you so far when it comes to energy.

I strongly feel that what we are doing on this site is a direct violation of nature, natural law states that we are on a downward spiral into not passing on what's accumulated into our entire makeup, in that sense of natural selection, it doesn't apply to most humans now and a lot of us should in an objective sense be dead. How many of the people you see out there would really survive in a natural setting anymore? hell of a die off. Also drives home the point that there's more going on inside our bodies f***ing us up than the shitty food and whatnot... getting back to recent research and jdp.

Saying that, I'm on IH not because I want to be but because I need to be to get back to "living", rather than understanding life.
Same goes for physics and whatnot, who are we to have to understand these things? I've yet to see any scientific advancements not get raped.

Food for thought I guess.

I don't know if you posted this for my benefit, but there are massive problems with the methodology of this experiment.

I digress though, this is a hair-loss forum.

If believing in this stuff works for you, than keep doing it!

Best of luck!!

And Just an FYI, James Randi did challenge this study. You might want to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

or the critiques here: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-139004.html

A bunch of those were pretty logical in questioning the methodology.

Problems with James Randi and his million dollar challenge:

"There’s been a lot of talk about James Randi’s Million dollar challenge. In this challenge, Randi promises a prize of one million dollars to anyone proving his paranormal abilities. Skeptics of anything paranormal use the fact that no one got the prize that they are right and nothing paranormal exists all claiming otherwise are either misguided or frauds. I’ve written about Randi before in James Randi attacks Uri Geller again.

Some good write-ups about Randi’s prize are available from these sources:

Michael Prescott’s blog – Prescott posted a series of article’s about Randi’s challenge. You can read his posts in The challenge, part one and in The challenge, part two. In these posts Michael Prescott reviews the FAQ of the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. JREF stands for James Randi Educational Foundation. One of the things going against the challenge is that it’s hard to apply and to get to the part where you actually have to prove something. In the review of the FAQ Prescott shows various parts of the challenge that demonstrate the nature of the prize offer, where some claims are not even considered because they are being pre-decided as being false claims. Read those posts.

PsiPog’s founder Sean (aka Peebrain) wrote about his try to take and win the million dollars. Sean describes how his question about the nature of the Million dollars (offered in some kind of bonds) was left unanswered and his correspondence with the foundation was edited to remove foul language of the foundation’s representative and an email which he never wrote was posted on the forum as being written by him. This is a very interesting evidence of how hard it is to apply and how the foundation treats the applicants. Read Beware Pseudo-Skepticism.

Jaime Licauco from Inquirer – wrote about his correspondence with James Randi, where Randi answers some of his previous claims. It’s a short and interesting read. One quote:

Randi: “I have never said that Uri Geller was a ‘fake psychic.’ Geller never filed any harassment suit against me. In the one case he did file, he lost and had to pay $150,000 in sanctions.”

He may not have called Geller a fake psychic, but he certainly hounded him for years, saying what Geller was doing was plain trickery that he could duplicate anytime.

Let me quote Dr. Broughton again (from the above mentioned book “Parapsychology”): “The research on Geller’s alleged PK abilities has received severe criticism, primarily from James Randi and others with conjuring and sleight-of-hand experience. In fact, Randi has made something of a career as Geller’s debunker, having risen from relative obscurity to national prominence through books and television appearances in which he claims to expose Geller’s tricks. Randi and other critics claim that all scientists who observed Geller’s demonstrations were simply duped by conjuring tricks.”

Another interesting quote is about CSICOP, which is the organization which Randi headed sometime during his carreer:

Fate Magazine said in its September 1983 issue, “They call themselves the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. In fact, they are a group of would-be de-bunkers who bungled their major investigation, falsified the results, covered up their errors and gave the boot to a colleague (Dennis Rawlins) who threatened to tell the truth.”

Jeffrey Mishlove – Doctor of parapsychology, whom I interviewed in Interview with Jeffrey Mishlove wrote this on his blog entry Objections to ESP:

Although on the popular media scene many magicians-such as the Amazing Randi have claimed that they can duplicate parapsychological effects using magic tricks, they have consistently been unable or unwilling to do so under controlled laboratory conditions (Eisenbud 1975).

In another entry on his blog “The “Pigasus Award Ironies … he writes:

But, I believe Randi’s offer is a scam. And, I will say why I believe it to be so, in very simple terms.

First of all, there is no doubt that Randi has used his alleged offer – over a period of many years – to generate enormous publicity for himself and his cult of debunkers.

Second of all, Randi’s offer sets himself up as judge and jury. And, of course, he has not the slightest interest in losing the very game that he has created. A true prize would have an independent panel of neutral judges – and these judges, not Randi, should be in control of prize money, to determine if and when it shall be released.

So while James Randi and his cult go around accusing the general public of falling for a wide variety of psychic scams, they themselves are engaged in perpetrating a scam of an equal and opposite sort. The final irony is that they are the very near a mirror image of the phonies they try to expose.

As long as they set about exposing the true frauds and schemes in the psychic world, they do the world a service. And, I applaud Randi and his ilk for that. But, in their fanatical zeal, they sometimes endeavor to put a stop to legitimate scientific and academic inquiry. (I know this, first hand, as they attempted to interfere with my own doctoral degree program in parapsychology at the University of California, Berkeley.) When they go this far, as they did with Brenda Dunne, they simply reveal the philosophical and moral emptiness of their position.

What are your thoughts on the Randi Million Dollars Challenge?"

http://www.mind-energy.net/archives/163-About-the-James-Randi-Million-dollar-challenge.html

In essence, what Randi said was by not making it a double-blind the study the above study might be looked at as up for debate.........not debunked. However, this double-blind study below done by this author supports this study's conclusion.

"The hypothesis that water “treated” with intention can affect ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicated that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (p = 0.001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis.

Citation: Radin, D. I., Hayssen, G., Emoto, M., & Kizu, T. (2006). Explore, September/October 2006, Vol. 2, No. 5.

A triple-blind replication of this effect is presently underway.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/10/effects-of-distant-intention-on-water.html
http://amethodnotaposition.blogspot.com/2006/10/double-blind-experimental-validation-of.html

A graph of the results: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/image/68488129/original.jpg

Ok really, if those questions on the methodology didn't spur your skepticism nothing will.

The triple blind study was done FYI

A better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration did not yield positive results. More than 1,900 of Mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls in a very elaborate protocol. The crystals, both "treated" and not, on average, were not considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). The treated crystals were also rated slightly less beautiful than a set of controls. An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples.[16]

The study failed.

Anyway man, I'm done arguing, if you want to believe this stuff go for it!!!!

Back to hairloss discussion!

In the end, you have 2 studies that support the hypothesis and one "purported" better controls that does not. 2 usually wins in my book. You speak like its set in stone..look at the article about James Randi's validity. Look, I used to be an Atheist and a hard skeptic back in college and spoke from that frame as well. However alot has happened since then. But, the bottom line is that:

If there were multiple studies done showing this to be the outcome from different sources....I would say there is serious doubt. But absent that.....you are putting blind faith in the Journal of Scientific Exploration and ignoring anything done previously.

"There were, however, potential problems with the "triple-blind" follow up. As the study explains:

In any experiment involving intention, the intentions of the "investigators" cannot be cleanly isolated from those of the nominal participants and this in turn constrains how one should properly interpret the results. In addition, there were many uncontrolled degrees of freedom in this experiment which may have allowed ‘‘unintended intentional’’ effects to creep in. They all involve human decisions, e.g. selecting six specific bottles of water from a huge population of available bottles, randomly assigning those bottles to three conditions, selecting and preparing the water drops, placing the water drop samples inside the freezer, searching for and photographing ice crystals on the frozen water drops at different magnification levels, choosing one of a large possible set of image processing algorithms to provide an objective measure of image contrast, and so on."[17]"

Man, did you read the critiques of the methodology? Such as

1. "Important point: how did they calculate the p value?

For example, assume a single picture was taken of each sample and the p value was calculated assuming judge choices were independent. Then, chances are, one picture actually will be 'prettier', and the judges choices would reflect this. So their choices would tend to be similar, and the analysis would result in an artificially low p value.

In other words, the judges should be deciding which pictures are better than others, and then you calculate the p-values based on the picture ratings. The number of judges should not affect that calculation in any significant way."

2. "How many photos did the analyst take from each sample? Was the sample size 1 photo from each? or hundreds, thousands? Doesnt this process pretty much put everything at the discretion of the person taking images of the crystal samples. Im also assuming that more than one crystal type forms in each sample, due to the fairly randomness of dendritic growth, right?"

And thats just some of the terrible methodology and logic used in this study. Not to mention his questionable intent (He's also a salesmen).

If you notice, he did not release the specifics of his study or how he arrived at those results.

Spurious indeed.

Furthermore, If I post a study right now proving I can shoot laser beams from my eyes would you believe it? Or would you wait for independent verification. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. By your rationale, you would believe my study, even if an independent reseacher couldnt reproduce my results.

This is why any reputable journal requires not only peer review, but peer testing so that the results can be duplicated with independent reseachers.

All you have of proof is two studies posted by the same person with highly questionable methodology, both in statistical analysis and research method. Combined with the obvious logical problems, and reputational issues of the researcher: That IS Blind Faith.

I see you posted those alleged "problems" with the triple blind study, similar criticisms can be made of the original study (see above). To reiterate, in the end the burden of proof is on the asserter.

Look IMO you are suffering from confirmation bias (no disrespect intended) and its understandable.

IMO anyone who went to school for scientific research or statistical analysis would laugh at the methodology of the study.

But, To each his own man!!! As I said before, if you want to believe this stuff and its making you happy, go for it!!!

And thats my last word on the subject!!

Raxe

In the same vain, one could also assert that you are suffering from disconfirmation bias. Trying to disprove this concept at all costs. The bottom line is that its open to interpretation. Neither you or I was there to spot-check everything. In the end we have 2 studies done that confirm the power of intention and....1 that migh not. And this all depends on the faith you put in those doing the experiments. Anything that can be questioned..... can be spun. Wikipedia is not the ultimate authority as it is written by you and me.

Very interesting topic, interesting indeed.
From my poitn of view, the old paradigm is falling apart. And there are people, who do not want to change their materialistic point of view.
They build upon the fact, that everything doesn't fit to paradigm is illusion and fraud. Something like that simply can not be true. It simply can't.
They will ridicule and humiliate you, the same story repat over and over again.
Have you heard about Michel Gauquelin and Mars effect? Even Hans Eysenck approve the quality of acquried data [1].
And still nothing changed. There is a lot of business behind the science nowadays. The science is corrupt...

On the other hand, there are pepole just like me, who are trying to define their experience with consciousness by science. And somehow, it doesn't fit to materialistic point of view.

Let me tell you one thing, if you (Raxe) experience something paranormal and something spiritual, you wouldn't look for science evidence, you would simply know.

By the way, I am psychology student...

[1]Hans Eysenck: Planets, Stars and Personality. New Behavior (1975), p. 246-9.

I totally agree Jeruslan. I think the world is tired of all the negativity put forth and has responded as such. I beleive it is ready for a positive change. There are many spreading apocalyptic visions of 2012 which only feeds this negative energy and takes away from what could be. I used to be one. Much like a plant responds highly to classical music and intense care. Same with us and our bodies and our worldview. The environment we create for ourselves and the actions we take determines our direction.. We can show the world some love and encourage its healing or the opposite. We are masters of our destiny and the fate of the planet. Meditation is a powerful tool for this change as it allows us to raise our vibrational frequency out of physical reality and connect to higher self where powerful world change can be carried out. When all else fails:

DM5, if there are 1,000 studies confirming an effect, and all 1,000 of them are poorly designed in the methodological sense, then you have 0 studies confirming the effect.

I'm fairly open minded and critical of the current scientific paradigm. That being said: why can't you admit you're wrong?

The questions those people asked, quoted by Raxe, bring up serious threats to the internal validity of the study. There's a high degree of bias intrinsic to the design uncontrolled for.

empty-

I admit we don't know and noone can say for certain because we weren't there. But I very much beleive it to be true. Why?

1. Because that critique was leveled at the first study that Emoto did which could of been clumsy but true. The second was double-blind and might have been more exacting in scientific methodology.
2. The 3rd study was carried out by the Journal for Scientific exploration whose motives might have been other than objective, not to mention all the problems inherent in the that study. We know James Randi's motives...lol.
3. I have tested the plant theory I talked about above. I have found that environment and intention have impact on matter(plants, water, etc.)
4. Meditation is powerful stuff. Quantum Theory as shown in the above videos gives clues as to how Emoto's experiments may be scientifically possible.
5. I beleive that there is much that science can't explain in this dimension which only fuels skepticism and begs for easy answers.

DM5 wrote:empty-

I admit we don't know and noone can say for certain because we weren't there. But I very much beleive it to be true. Why?

1. Because that critique was leveled at the first study that Emoto did which could of been clumsy but true. The second was double-blind and might have been more exacting in scientific methodology.
2. The 3rd study was carried out by the Journal for Scientific exploration whose motives might have been other than objective, not to mention all the problems inherent in the that study. We know James Randi's motives...lol.
3. I have tested the plant theory I talked about above. I have found that environment and intention have impact on matter(plants, water, etc.)
4. Meditation is powerful stuff. Quantum Theory as shown in the above videos gives clues as to how Emoto's experiments may be scientifically possible.
5. I beleive that there is much that science can't explain in this dimension which only fuels skepticism and begs for easy answers.

1. I believe the critique was directed toward the second, double-blind placebo study.

2. I cannot comment on this study as I have not read it. I'm less concerned with the possibility of the result and more with the methods used to produce the result.

3. Not applicable to the discussion.

4. I'm with you here.

5. I agree. But you can't use potentially invalid studies to scientifically back these phenomena.

You have not read the study but trust it was done wrong based on what someone else said???

Ok. The studies done by Radin were not criticized in Wikipedia....that was leveled against Emoto in his first experiment. The criticism Raxe posted came from a physics forum and had 2 questions about the methodology of the study....1 of which was answered and can be put to bed in regards to aesthetics in that thread.. "Perceived beauty - aesthetic appeal - can be a measure of symmetry. This is largely what we "measure" when we judge people's looks. Also, the results are mostly reproducible in that there is a clear preference for who we consider to be beautiful." Here is the second experiment done by Radin and Emoto published in Explore: The of Science and Healing
http://www.explorejournal.com/issues/contents?issue_key=S1550-8307%2806%29X0012-5:

Here is Dean Radins' blog where he is asked and answers a multitude of questions about the second study:
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/10/effects-of-distant-intention-on-water.html

Here is the third study:


Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation
A Triple-Blind Replication

Principal Investigator
Dean Radin, PhD
Co-Investigators
Masaru Emoto, Takashige Kizu, Nancy Lund

An experiment tested the hypothesis that water exposed to distant intentions affects the aesthetic rating of ice crystals formed from that water. Over three days, 1,900 people in Austria and Germany focused their intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. Water samples located near the target water, but unknown to the people providing intentions, acted as ‘‘proximal’’ controls. Other samples located outside the shielded room acted as distant controls. Ice drops formed from samples of water in the different treatment conditions were photographed by a technician, each image was assessed for aesthetic beauty by over 2,500 independent judges, and the resulting data were analyzed, all by individuals blind with respect to the underlying treatment conditions. Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p < 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.



In regards to the third, triple-blind study:..it did back up the previous studies....just not as statistically significant as before And this could of been a fluke of the experiment...or some of the problems even Wikipedia cited. Meaning that more tests should be done. He even says that in his blog. But it by NO means is grounds to dismiss this phenomena. It was replicated 3 times regardless of any questions.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/01/water-crystal-replication-study.html

DM5, would you descirbe what type of meditation do you use? What are your intentions during the meditation.
And, don't you think, that meditation helps body by extra portion of oxygen, due to deep breathing?
Currently, there is a thread about role of oxygen...
It just makes me wonder...

And to science... I come to the conclusion, that science have an answers to partial questions. But in comprehension life as a whole, I must move to something new. Do not know what it is, but there is a intuition which leading me this way...

Jeruslan: I have begun considering many sources and am just starting out. I agree that we are constricted to 3rd dimensional awareness and thought. Science can only go so far which breeds skepticism and denial. 4th dimensional thought deals alot with feeling and intution.

Interesting fact about the above researcher: Dean Radin actually worked for the US goverment investigating psychic phenomena before his post at IONS. The CIA actually utilizes psychics presently.