Discussions

Reasoning or Instinct?

Posted Aug. 12, 2014 by Silverghost in Open

commented on Aug. 22, 2014
by Silverghost

Quote

58

I came across the following vid which quite clearly shows a bear recuing a crow out of the water, is this a sign of reasoning or instinct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ_3BN0m7S8

Wiki
Reasoning: Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.

Instinct; or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism towards a particular complex behavior. The simplest example of an instinctive behavior is a fixed action pattern (FAP), in which a very short to medium length sequence of actions, without variation, are carried out in response to a clearly defined stimulus.

Science says the only difference between man and beast is reasoning, going by the definitions of reasoning and instinct the bear obviously showed reasoning to me. The logics was the bear could obviously see that the bird was in trouble, instinct would have told the bear to seize the bird to eat not to save the life of the bird.

This might just be because the bear is in captivity, rescuing the bird could be of human instinct not animal instinct brought about by human interactions, there could however be another explanation here. Is human consciousness, not just instinct, playing a part here? Consciousness has no boundaries, it doesn’t judge one life form from another so if one life form becomes more compassionate, would this not also affect other conscious life forms in some way especially if they are interacting?

  • 58 Comments  
  • Silverghost Aug 22, 2014

    Reflexes are certainly a different kettle of fish but they are simular in away that we don't have to actually think on them to react like instincts.

    Reasoning and compassion need us to be conscious in some way to express such traits, they usually need us to be able to think to a certain degree, that is why people with certain brain injuries are unable to express such traits. However we do and can be expressive of emotions instinctively, there is a fine line here, that is why I'm not altogether correct within my analysis that compassion might be only of thought, there could be an once of instinctive involvement here which I believe is what you are saying.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 21, 2014

    No I'm not saying people with brain damage should still have full instinctive capacity.

    Instincts come from a part of the subconscious mind. I don't consider instincts to be the same as reflexes though.

  • Silverghost Aug 21, 2014

    Yes I know what you are saying but I don't agree with you.

    In what you are saying is someone with brain damage should be still able to express reasoning and compassion as these traits are instinctive, I dealt with a number of clients that suggest otherwise. We think these human traits are instinctive for the reason we can express them which at times takes a fair bit of thought which indicates their not innate. Instinctive is in relation to a non-thinking action, reasoning and compassion exist because of thought.

    I didn't actually say disables people as such want to forget who they are, traumatised people, yes, at times depending on the trauma however I also look at traumas a being disabling.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 21, 2014

    I'm suggesting reasoning and compassion are instinctual - or more clearly that instincts are pre-programmed into our subconscious prior to birth through the mother's subconscious mind.

    With the bear it's 'aggressive instincts' have likely been broken.

    If newborn babies didn't instinctively have logic then I don't see how they would ever learn anything at all.

    I agree when there are physical brain injuries and those add serious complications to the development of the mind - as an example - through an abusive mother who abused her own body while developing the baby, the mother being abused by a sick husband, or accidental brain injury from a car wreck, Etc.

    I don't believe the disabled people necessarily want to forget who they are, they have just been punished for being who they are and so the mind learns 'don't be who you are'.

    I helped a schizophrenic friend overcome their disorder a few years ago. His first episode (likely triggered by natural DMT, though just a guess) was when he was 16 and he was sent to a mental hospital (terminology eludes me at the moment) where he received electro shock therapy. Seriously messed him up. The problem was he just didn't know how to think. He's better now.

  • Silverghost Aug 21, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    They want to forget who they are at times depending on the scope of trauma involved, does this mean all human traits are of instinct not of actual reasoning? In this case this means reasoning and compassion are taught to us through various interactions, they do not seem to be instinctive. My own experiences with disabled people would seem to support such a statement.

    Newborn babies are quite disabled without the teachings and caring of another human being, I know of children who form birth have been shown very little compassion and have grown up not knowing how to express compassion. If compassion was instinctive, we would know how to express such traits in this circumstance but people like this don't unless they learn such traits from other humans.

    Why did the bear react in such a compassionate way which is indicative of a reasoning process, was it just learned behaviour from human interaction, it certainly doesn't seem to be instinctive of a bear to react in such away?

    For the bear to learn such behaviour, the bear would have had to be taught such a thing through interaction which is unlikely to have happened, so the only other reason for such a reaction is consciousness, mans consciousness affecting the bears consciousness, keeping in mind, thought is a vibration which can affect other vibrations.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 21, 2014

    It is my opinion that people forget who they are, often because our society is built around the concept of submitting to authority. Have you seen the Ted talk about 'school kills creativity?'

    This happens everywhere, even in our own homes. People forget who they really are. I would suggest you're not necessarily teaching them something new - You're developing a skill they had but never developed. My wife whom I saved from self destruction was killing herself by huffing freon. With a lot of effort, she has been building her skills back up.

    By the way I was sexually abused for 10 years.

  • Silverghost Aug 21, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    I worked in the disability field for a time; I was even at the head of my department at one stage until I resigned.

    There are people who have brain traumas who can't reason or show compassion however some of these people can be taught to reason and show compassion, I have also had dealings with ex-cons who showed very little reasoning and compassion.

    It is obvious reasoning and compassion can be taught to those who lack these traits. These so called natural traits are developed through learned behaviour, it is still taught to them.

    What about a person who has been badly sexually abused, do they have the same reasoning process and compassion as you and I? No, for the main reason they were inadvertently taught through a process to dull these traits if they had these traits to start with. We are born with certain instincts but everything else is learnt from our interaction with other humans and animals.

    That cry=milk is instinct but not all mothers have this inbuilt instinct or human trait, this at times also needs to be learnt believe it or not.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 21, 2014

    I don't think reasoning or compassion are 'learned' - I believe they are natural traits that are developed.

    For instance, a child when born 'correctly' (Ina May is enlightened to the Truth on child birth - though not the most enlightened) they 'discover' compassion when they go to their mother's bossum.

    Without reasoning we wouldn't be able to conclude 'I am me' or even figure out that cry = milk

  • Silverghost Aug 20, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    I'm not actually sure if it's this simple, even human reasoning has to be taught, it doesn't seem to be instinctive. I don't think the bear was taught to be compassionate so how did it display a sense of reasoning by showing compassion? Once an animals innate mentality is broken, are they able to then display compassion without reasoning? I'm just not convinced of this......

    If we bring in the history of man, early man relied more on instincts as he's mentality was still innate, was he at this time less companionate than now? Burial sites say otherwise, even flowers were discovered in some of these cave man graves. Look at modern day man today, keeping people sick and living in slums to live off of them, we are suppose to reason more than ever in human history.

    I don't think either having an innate mentality or not matters if a human or other animal species is going to show a certain amount of reasoning or not, however I'm not completely sure on this either!!

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Otherwise it likely would have tried to eat it as animals like bears react to fear

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    I suggested earlier it is likely that the bear had its innate reactive mind broken, like elephants are broken when they are young.

    They tie a thick rope around its neck and attach it to a pole. It then struggles to get away until it gives up. Then when they get older even a tiny rope will seem unbreakable to them.

  • Silverghost Aug 20, 2014

    I think it would be advisable to stick to the subject of the thread, reasoning or instinct?

    There is absolutely no intelligent reasoning going on here and it's not instinct, it's just plain ego which has nothing to do with the thread in question.

    http://worldmystires.blogspot.com.au/2008/11/do-animals-have-ability-to-reason.html

    It is obvious that the ability for animals to reason is still on the board and in question!! Does human intervention give such animals the capability of reasoning to some extent at least?? to me it would seem so because reasoning isn't instinctive to other animals, actually I think humans need to be taught to reason as well, especially intelligently.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    I'm not or have ever claimed to be that. I can just see it. It's a gift and a curse.

    Silver, love you bro, but you realize you're not going to change him right? He feels superior, and probably gets some sick satisfaction out of you putting in time to argue against him just so he can misdirected with nonsense and trigger an emotional response.

    Just trying to save you time :-)

    You're better off to ignore him entirely, for now. Don't let him suck away your attention. He's an energy vampire to a certain extent.

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    So Silverghost, where's your evidence supporting Emoto's claims that human thoughts can manipulate the structure of water?

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    @Silverghost
    “I have obviously tried to supply evidence to support my statements”

    Your unsubstantiated assertions are not evidence. The unsubstantiated assertions of others are not evidence. Fictitious Einstein quotes are not evidence. Science articles for kids which don’t even support your claims are not evidence.

    “I love how dishonest people exclude certain parts of statements to prove a point, the following is what was actually stated which I commented on.
    ‘Your assertion that “everything in existence including thought is a vibration” was clearly predicated on Einstein’s having allegedly said that “everything is vibration”.’
    This is plain open dishonesty; there is a huge difference between these statements that I commented on. “

    Go back down to the bottom of the page, you said those exact words in a post you made on 18 August 2014.

    “The presumption was from NoetPoet that I was basing all my knowing of everything being vibration on Einstein’s statement without supplying scientific proof to endorse such a statement. “

    That IS what you did!

    “Dishonesty is a good indication of someone’s lack of intelligence. “

    Indeed it is, as is derailing your own thread just so you can avoid hard ON TOPIC questions.

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    "Must get at least some. Feel superior?"

    Certainly no more than you do, Mr Ultimate Truth (TM)

  • Silverghost Aug 20, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    "I do recommend you drop the issue of being defensive"

    Actually SS it's offensive. Way too many people have been bullied and harassed off from these discussions, I'm reassuring everyone this isn't going to happen to me, actually, the more he harasses/bullies me the more I will respond out of courtesy and interest.

    Once again this person is stooping to deceiving to prove he's point which proves what? A destructive mentality, actually he's making himself to look like an utter fool, obviously unbeknownst to him. Deception is quite a lowly act and is only an indication of a lack of intelligence which probably might not be he's fault, however going on by he's bias attitudes, I think he's done it to himself.

    It is obvious he has no idea so he stoops to narky remarks, name calling and deception, this doesn't make for an intelligent conversation at all.

    Do I have empathy for this person? Most definitely, anyone being ignorant of their own destructive mentality deserves to be shown empathy but in a way they only understand!! Conversing with such a person is showing empathy.......

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Nonsensical.

    I get no pleasure that you're a coward.

    Must get at least some. Feel superior?

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    "You get pleasure from calling this man a coward for expressing his opinion?"

    No more than you do.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Different words for different moments. Still love you bro.

    Back to the Question - you get pleasure from calling this man a coward for expressing his opinion?

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    @SS

    “Says the coward. You sir are a moron. Do you feel pleasure in belittling another?
    You're sick.”

    Aww, boo-hoo! What happened to “I love you, bro”?? So far you’ve called me “sick”, “coward”, “moron”, and “Satan” Why?? Because I didn’t agree with you? Because I didn’t bow down to your arrogant narcissistic delusions of grandeur like a good little sheeple? If those are the sorts of terms you use for those you “love”, then I shudder to think how you refer to those you hate!

    Whatever way you look at it SS, I’m nowhere near as sick as that sick bastard who you say molested you, and yet you say you have no hard feelings for him. So how does that work?? And how do you reconcile the notion that I am “sick” and “Satanic” with the sympathy I showed to you earlier when you brought this up out of the blue? Take it easy on the cognitive dissonance there mate; you might give yourself a headache.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Can't necessarily blame him. He seems like a smart guy who is hard-headed but for the wrong reason.

    Ever heard f the smartest person in the room issue?

    He's not used to anyone being more intelligent likely. I pray he become humbled.

    I do recommend you drop the issue of being defensive - nothing to gain and it only encourages him to continue his behavior. In a way, become annointed - make your mind slippery to self-doubt anything less than respectful communication.

    We all have more in common than many of us care to admit.

    We're all students :-)

  • Silverghost Aug 20, 2014

    "To the contrary - You're quite brave to continue on regardless of being called a coward. :-) "

    Quite true, there are many spiritually aware people who wouldn't bother conversing with anyone who was this aggressively abusive; of course I'm still waiting for my scientific proof that I am an actual coward.

    Everybody else has to supply scientific proof of their statements but this particular person doesn't and this is the same person who bags spirituality of being of narcissism and hypocrisy, this kind of action speaks for itself.

    In respect to other readers and participators of this discussion board, I have avoided conversing with this person and this kind of person on this board but they have not done likewise. This shows an utter disregard to this site and everyone else on this board by this person, he just doesn’t seem to care about anyone else but himself. Egotism at it’s worst……

  • Silverghost Aug 20, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    " I don't believe Einstein is saying goes energy = vibrations."

    I'm not sure myself but other people do believe this to be so.

    "In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of an object or system is a measure of its energy content. Wikipedia"

    Like with anything, it depends in how you look at something in what answer you will get, this does in a sense seem to be stating that everything is energy, to create energy you need movement, vibration/oscillation. Thought is an obvious energy form so this thought has to be moving/oscillation, how could neuroscientists measure thought if thought wasn't an energy source?

    Yes I know on this discussion board your not allowed to think for yourself, according to certain people's demands, but this is my deduction on everything is energy therefore vibrates/oscillates.

    You obviously think for yourself SS, your not allowed to you know!!

    Anyone who has to deceive to prove a point isn't worth noting on a site like this one, it's a sure sign of un-intellectuality. I think people who actually think for themselves frighten such people so they deceive to cover up such fear.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    To the contrary - You're quite brave to continue on regardless of being called a coward. :-)

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Silver Ghost - He's likely trying to force you to have a negative reaction so he 'wins'.

    Don't react with a negative emotions, you're free to believe whatever you want (but it doesn't necessarily make it true).

    I sense you're open minded enough to consider you could be wrong though without being upset about it.

    I am curious why you think vibrations=energy, I will read your source

  • Silverghost Aug 20, 2014

    I have obviously tried to supply evidence to support my statements, I've been called a coward more than once, I'm still waiting for the scientific proof of this statement that I am, without a doubt, a coward in real life!!

    This is narcissism, hypocrisy and dictatorship at it's best and these are the same people who bag new age spirituality.......

    PS Sorry for going off topic of the thread, I'm not allowed too but certain other people are!!!!

  • Silverghost Aug 20, 2014

    “Stop trying to change the subject.”

    This is a laugh, so I’m not allowed to change the subject on my own thread but certain others can at will, what do you call this???? Hypocritical narcissist dictatorship maybe!! These are the same people who demand scientific proof of other people’s statements but don’t supply them themselves.

    "Is modern day science just about presumptions, where is the scientific evidence of this presumption?"

    I love how dishonest people exclude certain parts of statements to prove a point, the following is what was actually stated which I commented on.

    "Your assertion that “everything in existence including thought is a vibration” was clearly predicated on Einstein’s having allegedly said that “everything is vibration”.

    This is plain open dishonesty; there is a huge difference between these statements that I commented on.

    The presumption was from NoetPoet that I was basing all my knowing of everything being vibration on Einstein’s statement without supplying scientific proof to endorse such a statement.

    Why would you discuss anything slightly intellectual with someone who blatantly deceives , refused to supply scientific evidence to support their own statements but demands such scientific proof from others people’s statements?

    Dishonesty is a good indication of someone’s lack of intelligence.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Silver Ghost - I don't believe Einstein is saying goes energy = vibrations.

    He seems to be saying energy is a product of mass (times the rate at which it grows exponentially). This is not to say energy=mass.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Says the coward. You sir are a moron. Do you feel pleasure in belittling another?

    You're sick.

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    Once again: what evidence can you cite to support Emoto's claims?

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    "Is modern day science just about presumptions, where is the scientific evidence of this presumption?"

    The scientific evidence is what you yourself wrote on this very thread. These are your exact words: "I have also already supplied evidence saying that everything in existence including thought is a vibration"

    "Also when I was called coward"

    No one wants to come to your irrelevant pity party Silverghost. Stop trying to change the subject.

    "It is obvious that numerous people across the board believe Einstein stated,” everything is vibration”, he’s own equations seem to back this up."

    Vibration and energy have very different meanings in physics. Einstein's equation talks about *energy* and *mass*, it does not refer to "vibration".

    "I know it’s impossible to think for yourself NoetPoet."

    If you're going to whine about being called a coward, then can you at least hold yourself to the same standard of behaviour and integrity to which you hold others? Oh wait, I forgot, that's not how you roll is it.

    "but when I used the word refuted it obviously was in relation to people like yourself refuting other people’s evidence,"

    >Sigh< Yes, that much was obvious Silverghost. That was whole my point: the fact that *I* "refuted" them suggests that I did in fact show them to be wrong!

    "http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/05/21/4008925.htm"

    Your "Bernie's Basics" article says that "everything in the universe can and does vibrate". It does NOT say that everything *is* vibration!

    "If we took the electrical current out of our brains, would the brain be abler to function? No, electrical currents exist because they vibrate/osculate, "

    What is the point of this non sequitur?

    "http://www.yourbrainwaves.com/thought-vibrations/
    Extract: Through electroencephalography (the measurement of electrical activity in the brain), science has proven the concept of thought vibration."

    So is this an admission by you that thoughts are in fact products of electrical activity, and are thus physical in nature?

    "It is obvious that everything vibrates otherwise it couldn’t exist, brain waves are no different."

    Tell me, what law or laws of physics demand that something must vibrate in order to exist? Just because two things share some common feature - however broadly defined - it doesn't mean they can therefore directly affect one and other.

  • Silverghost Aug 20, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    Depends on what you mean about source!!

    The source of all creation; the source is energy.


  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Everything in the universe can and does vibrate, and they're all doing it for the same reason: to store energy by switching it between different forms."

    Good evening kind sir!

    May I ask, does this statement agree with the thought from earlier that 'vibrations' are a result of energy, and not the source?

  • Silverghost Aug 19, 2014

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/05/21/4008925.htm
    Extract: That's a pretty eclectic looking list, but it's barely scratched the surface of things that vibrate. Everything in the universe can and does vibrate, and they're all doing it for the same reason: to store energy by switching it between different forms.

    If we took the electrical current out of our brains, would the brain be abler to function? No, electrical currents exist because they vibrate/osculate, it doesn’t take an Einstein to work out what actual brain thought waves do unless you are unable to think for yourself of course!!

    http://www.yourbrainwaves.com/thought-vibrations/
    Extract: Through electroencephalography (the measurement of electrical activity in the brain), science has proven the concept of thought vibration. An EEG machine uses small sensors all over the scalp to read the frequencies of electrical activity radiating from the skull. Extensive testing has been done with this technology including the effects of brain entrainment on the brain’s wave patterns to see the level of activity in different areas of the brain.

    It is obvious that everything vibrates otherwise it couldn’t exist, brain waves are no different.

    I do love how some people go right off topic and at the same time abuse others of doing so!!

    Back on topic; it is obvious the bear shows unusual behaviour and in my mind needs more research conducted to get a more accurate deduction. Did the bear act in this way only because of human contact, does this sort of behaviour occur in the wild?

  • Silverghost Aug 19, 2014

    "Your assertion that “everything in existence including thought is a vibration” was clearly predicated on Einstein’s having allegedly said that “everything is vibration”.

    Is modern day science just about presumptions, where is the scientific evidence of this presumption? Also when I was called coward, where was the scientific evidence of such a statement but these same people demand such evidence from other people's statements!!

    We now have narcissism and hypocrisy together, what sort of logics is this going to form? Flawed logics obviously!!

    http://kathycastrigno.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Law-of-Vibration-and-How-Does-it-Affect-Our-Lives
    Extract: Albert Einstein who was recognized to be one of the greatest minds of all time discovered his famous equation: E= mc2. This means that energy and matter are the same thing.

    It is obvious that numerous people across the board believe Einstein stated,” everything is vibration”, he’s own equations seem to back this up.

    I know it’s impossible to think for yourself NoetPoet but when I used the word refuted it obviously was in relation to people like yourself refuting other people’s evidence, it wasn’t in relation to me refuting anything. You couldn’t even work this out for yourself…………how simple can one be and you’re questioning me!!

    I will not converse with you again unless you can give me sound scientific proof of at least one of your statement/accusations, how about scientifically proving without a doubt I’m an actual coward in real life.

  • NoetPoet Aug 19, 2014

    @Silverghost
    “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p93rKOXRno
    Yes I know this is wrong once again and the narcissists are right, every science minded person who commented on this vid no way believe Einstein stated that everything is vibration obviously. “

    You have not established that Einstein even said “everything is vibration”! You have not provided a citation for that quote, and neither does that video (which, incidentally, is called “An artist [sic] theory on the physics of time as a physical process”). So please tell us Silverghost: when and where did Einstein actually say that? Your assertion that “everything in existence including thought is a vibration” was clearly predicated on Einstein’s having allegedly said that “everything is vibration”. If you’re going to Argue from Authority using Einstein quotes, then can you at least bother to ensure that those Einstein quotes are authentic?

    “How many times has evidence from actual physicists and other professionals been refuted by certain people because they didn’t agree with these professionals, these are the same people who are obviously afraid of being wrong in any way? Egotism can only produce flawed logics!!”

    You’re really one to talk about egotism, “flawed logics”, and being afraid of being wrong! Do you have examples of these refutations? And doesn’t the term “refutated” mean that they were SHOWN to be wrong?

    “These are the same people who have indulged in recent narky remarks and name calling.”

    Spare us the red herring pity party Silverghost. Are you going to provide research which supports Emoto’s claims or not?

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    Perhaps the largest brains see 'the Ultimate truth' and so have no desire to answer any more questions.

    Yes men are capable of evil, but only because they have misconvieced what is true.

    When we discover we are separate from our environment (form a theory of mind) we conclude "I am me" - this is the root of all evil.

    Unfortunately we simultaneously conclude "therefore I am not what is outside of me"

    This is the problem.

  • Silverghost Aug 19, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    Not sure where you are coming from with this question!!

    I think there is always something more worth knowing, if there wasn't, we just wouldn't evolve.

    A large brain doesn't necessarily mean intelligence or more compassion, man is a good example of this, it's the way the brain is formed or programed no matter how big or small it is. Man is one of the more destructive animal species, destroying the very environment he relies on for he's existence, this is just plain dumb. Man is one of the dumbest creatures on this planet.

    This says man can be programed to do what ever and be as intelligent and compassionate as he wants to be, other animal species are no different, it's all to do with how the brain is programed not how large the brain is!!

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    A positively distracting question:

    Is something else more worthy of knowing?

  • Silverghost Aug 19, 2014

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p93rKOXRno

    Yes I know this is wrong once again and the narcissists are right, every science minded person who commented on this vid no way believe Einstein stated that everything is vibration obviously.

    Einstein is wrong obviously because certain people on this discussion board are far more intelligent, this is narcissism at it’s best!! How many times has evidence from actual physicists and other professionals been refuted by certain people because they didn’t agree with these professionals, these are the same people who are obviously afraid of being wrong in any way? Egotism can only produce flawed logics!!

    These are the same people who have indulged in recent narky remarks and name calling.

    You are talking out of your rear end (as usual).
    Here it is for again for the technologically impaired:
    Yes I thought you'd be a coward
    Simply more spamming.
    So in other words you are just spouting unsubstantiated BS (again).
    Or maybe you know that any "evidence" you put forward for your BS will be shot down in flames.
    hypothetical questions do not qualify as evidence of anything except your own warped thinking and fantasies.
    Stop hiding behind excuses like a coward and just post your "evidence" already.

    How unintellectual and childish can these people get, the above name calling and narky remarks show no hint of intellectuality.

  • NoetPoet Aug 18, 2014

    @Silverghost
    “It of course wouldn't matter what evidence I supplied about vibrations and Emoto's claims, it would be either ignored or refuted even when such evidence comes from Prof of physics or psychologists for example, some people in these discussions are obviously far more intelligent than these professionals.”

    Go on, give it a try instead of hiding behind excuses.

    “I think for the sake of these discussions and this organisation, certain people should not continue to converse with each other when it causes trouble.”

    Why not? Afraid your ideas will be challenged?

    “ http://altered-states.net/barry/newsletter463/ ”

    Can you provide the original citation of where Einstein said “everything is vibration ”? Because it isn’t mentioned anywhere on his Wikiquote page. Oh, and by the way that’s incredibly irresponsible of you to promote such woo-tastic unsupported nonsense. If some sick person came across that drivel and bought into it then it could literally cost them their life.

  • NoetPoet Aug 18, 2014

    @SufferingServant "I believe it is more accurate to describe thoughts as energy"

    What do you mean by "energy"?

  • NoetPoet Aug 18, 2014

    @SufferingServant

    "Perhaps the quantum vibrations are a reaction to energy, and not the source."

    So how would you test that idea?

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 18, 2014

    Whoops. Meant to say:

    Perhaps the quantum vibrations are a reaction to energy, and not the source.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 18, 2014

    Felines are a strange species aren't they? The have a cycle in life - wake, hunt, lounge, sleep, repeat. If you give a feline 'play' correctly, they do not need to hunt.

    I mistyped with the bear protecting it's young. I was arguing that they are capable of feeling compassion.

    Bears have larger brains than house cats.

    When a large predator senses fear, they react. Unless they are broken, like elephants are broken via ropes in their youth.

    Animals can also sense compassion, and this is why 'the lion whisperer' is able to chill with the lions.

    To your point on vibrations:

    I believe it is more accurate to describe thoughts as energy. Is energy produced by vibrations at the quantum scale? Perhaps.

    Does it truly matter?

  • Silverghost Aug 18, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    Flat out wrong obviously without a doubt, this sounds awfully egotistical to me.......

    You should be asking what is a vibration, what actually creates vibrations? If you delves into this yourself you will find it's consciousness so what does consciousness pertain too? Awareness, see where I am coming from!!

  • Silverghost Aug 18, 2014

    It of course wouldn't matter what evidence I supplied about vibrations and Emoto's claims, it would be either ignored or refuted even when such evidence comes from Prof of physics or psychologists for example, some people in these discussions are obviously far more intelligent than these professionals.

    I have also already supplied evidence saying that everything in existence including thought is a vibration in past posts but of course that was obviously ignored once again.

    I think for the sake of these discussions and this organisation, certain people should not continue to converse with each other when it causes trouble. I have myself avoided conversing with such people especially on their own threads/posts however certain kinds of people love causing unnecessary trouble it would seem.

    http://altered-states.net/barry/newsletter463/
    http://sydney-insatiablycurious.weebly.com/1/post/2014/04/everything-in-life-is-vibrationalbert-einstein.html

    Yes I know Einstein is wrong as well and he certainly wasn't as clever as certain people on here!! If everything is vibration would it not make sense that one vibration can affect another vibration, in this case water crystals. It's certainly a possibility but not to people who thoroughly believe they are more intelligent than Einstein it would seem.

    I think for the sake of the site, certain people should avoid conversing with each other, at least show a bit of consideration for others on here.

  • Silverghost Aug 18, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    We have cats that are domesticated who don't have to hunt for food but they still do, the cats I'm talking about have direct human contact day in day out, I think you will find a bear is no different to a cat plus the bear was still eating so it still must have been hungry.

    I would relate compassion to reason myself, compassion isn't instinctive, when a bear protects it's cubs it's instinct not compassion.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 16, 2014

    Am I understanding correctly? Are you saying vibrations are aware they are vibrating? This is um... How do I say this...

    Flat out wrong. It is like saying the waves of the ocean are aware they are flowing.

    You should be asking yourself: what is a thought (hint: it is not vibrations) and also what is consciousness (simplified, the answer to awareness)

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 16, 2014

    Whoops, mistyped. Should say:
    Without the reactive mind it is more likely to feel compassion for something, as they can feel compassion (like they do towards their)

  • NoetPoet Aug 15, 2014

    @Silverghost

    "Thought is vibrations and so is obviously consciousness"

    How do you figure that?.

    "It's certainly worth a mention and our serious consideration."

    Okay then, perhaps you can provide an example of an independently conducted experiment which supports Emoto's claims?

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 15, 2014

    The bear likely has been broken of its innate reactive mind (sense fear, then react because if something is afraid of it, it must be 'weaker' than the bear is), plus is fed so does not require hunting for food.

    Without the reactive mind it is more likely to feel compassion (as it would if it's young were threatened)

  • Silverghost Aug 15, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    The problem is there are no true right or wrongs, we have created a problem through such judgement.

    Yes I agree, the bear is neither expressing reason or instincts but the bear obviously is either expressing reason or instinct through our own observation which might or might not be bias and flawed by impartial judgment.

    To find what is a bear one must first at least ask such questions through the way we observe, we cannot ask questions that are beyond our mental conditioning so we must at least start somewhere. Yes this observation is flawed as you have pointed out, it's flawed by impartial judgment brought about by our own ideologies which are also flawed.

    At present our observation is flawed because it's incomplete but again at least we are observing, it's a start. I'm not going to judge it as being just flawed, mistakes are there for us to learn from.

    Yes I agree with you in principle.

  • Silverghost Aug 15, 2014

    G'day Christiane

    Yes this sort of open minded experimentation is interesting, thought is vibrations and so is obviously consciousness, we are just starting to delve into this so who really knows, it's certainly worth a mention and our serious consideration.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 15, 2014

    It is neither instinct or reasoning.

    The fact is all of you have always been wrong in that you have only been partially correct; the truth is your capacity to discern truth has been limited because you are getting in your own way.

    1. All truths, except this and the next, are only partial truths.
    2. The only truth that is not a partial truth is 'the Ultimate Truth'. This is the sum of all partial-truths; it is where are partial truths point to and connect to.

    To say 'a bird flies in the sky' is certainly true; but it is but a partial truth. In fact, the question that leads to that truth is fundamentally flawed; it is not the right question. The question to lead to that partial truth is 'where do birds fly?'. Why would the question be asked when you do not understand what a bird is entirely?

    This points back to the root question you must understand the answer to- and when the answer is understood the original question 'where does a bird fly' is unnecessary.

    The real question is: What is a bird?

    When you understand the most true partial truth to what a bird is, you do not have such silly questions.

    In summary, your question of 'Reasoning or Instinct?' is flawed; you do not understand what a bear is or what a crow is.

    The questions become:

    What is a crow?
    What is a bear?

    When the truths of those questions are revealed, your question becomes unnecessary.

  • NoetPoet Aug 14, 2014

    Here's some background on "Dr" Masaru Emoto ( from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto ):

    "Emoto became a Doctor of Alternative Medicine at the Open International University for Alternative Medicine in India in 1992.[5]"

    Open International University is an example of what's known as Diploma Mill. From http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Diploma_mill :

    "Diploma mill is a frank and pejorative term for the many bogus "schools," "colleges" and "universities" — run by charlatans for naive minds — that confer fictional "degrees" that are not recognized by any other educational institutions or bodies. Large numbers of gullible fools sign up for these — often seriously expensive — programs."

    Regarding Emoto's water experiments, the Wikipedia article goes on to say:

    "Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community.[7] William A. Tiller, another researcher featured in the documentary What The Bleep Do We Know?, states that Emoto's experiments fall short of proof, since they do not control for other factors in the supercooling of water.[8] In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them prone to manipulation or human error influencing the findings.[9][10] Writing about Emoto's theory in the Skeptical Inquirer, physician Harriet A. Hall concluded that it was "hard to see how anyone could mistake it for science".[1]

    "Emoto was offered the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge by James Randi in 2003, and would have received US$1,000,000 if he had been able to reproduce the experiment under test conditions agreed to by both parties. He has not participated and the prize money is still offered."

    Here's an article about someone who carried out Emoto's water experiments for themself: http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/a_grain_of_truth_recreating_dr._emotos_rice_experiment/ . As you can see, the results are far from impressive.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Christiane Aug 14, 2014

    and this, I found it amazing:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-0ulKgmio

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS