Service to Other. Teacher/Learner. Here to help with the Great Awakening.

Dear sweet mother of all that is sacred! do you guys ever "test and approve" your resources because this is abysmal at best! Nowhere are you told who performed the study, where it was performed and what was their methodology? Was the experiment replicated by other researchers with predictable outcomes given said methodology? THEY DONT TELL YOU WHO, WHAT, WHERE AND HOW! Doesnt that concern anyone? And if anyone attempts to say science cant be trusted needs to pump the breaks... we shouldnt trust bad science but this cant wvwn bw considered bad science. These are just statements, nothing more.

Service to Other. Teacher/Learner. Here to help with the Great Awakening.

In response Matt Mitchell to his Publication

Try this on for detail. Cell biologist Glen Rein … and IHM Research Director Rollin McCraty conducted a series of experiments in the early 1990s involving DNA and intentionally generated emotions. A decade later interest in these experiments persisted. After numerous requests, McCraty summarized their data and published the results of the research in 2003 in a brief report titled Modulation of DNA Conformation by Heart-Focused Intention.

There has been a correlation between mood/emotions and physical health since the Pre-Socratics. I appreciate that you at least provide an actual study but clearly did not read the article dis you? The article claims that our emotions reform objective reality and alter the objective world around us without evidence. a direct quote states, “Human emotion shapes reality...not just our emotions but reality itself”! That is in the first paragraph... didn't make it that far? Read the article then read my comment in context!

Service to Other. Teacher/Learner. Here to help with the Great Awakening.

In response Matt Mitchell to his Publication

Yes, I did read the article. I agree it should have been sited.
I will continue to look for the actual science.
Have you reviewed the Princeton PEAR Research?
Or simply wave / partical duality research. There is lots of evidence that our consciousness changes our physical reality.

Additionally, the fact that people doing research and why they conduct the research is of no consequence to me. There is no way one could measure or prove objective realities submission to human emotion. Not in a million years A person with a good attitude will undoubtedly have a better life. internal energy and its influence on the self has been demonstrated. Viktor Frankl and Logos Therapy is an example of what I am referring to. "Mans Search for Meaning" is a seminal work here. But that is not suggesting
objective realities subordination to whether I am happy. Its pure idiocy.

Service to Other. Teacher/Learner. Here to help with the Great Awakening.

In response Matt Mitchell to his Publication

People who say things like 'there is no way'... Have a limited reality. Period. I hope you choose one day to expand your thinking. Why not take some time and actually study Princeton PEAR. Try thinking about wave particle duality in other terms. The proof is right in front of you. Perhaps it is your limiting beliefs that prevent you from seeing.

by the way, still waiting for you to deal with any of the reasons I provided. Not suprised. A fools religion tends to be devoid of anything more than a strong stock of emotions and gentle pats on the shoulder. The only way for such an idea to be true, that emotions or internal energy has the causal power to effectuate change in objective reality, is if objective reality is illusory and only the mind exists... Solipsism! You can take your time to research and respond but if you have nothing to offer by way of a defeater or scientific refutation, please take a seat and bow out graciously!

Service to Other. Teacher/Learner. Here to help with the Great Awakening.

In response Matt Mitchell to his Publication

There is a difference between skeptical and synical.
You seem like an angry person just calling others names, in an effort to maintain your beliefs.
Perhaps you should examine your own perspective.
Did you even look at the items I suggested? Probably not because both of those items have science in spades. Wave particle duality, Princeton PEAR reseach. Or dont look and keep to you synical name calling behaviours. It bothers me not.

I did look. I have been searching for a peer reviewed study on their research and guess what I found..... absolutely nothing. I was utterly shocked. Wired magazine sure liked the idea haha! If that is the basis for your belief then I have nothing for you. My mannerisms are one of incredulity and not of anger. Its just shocking that such speculative “research” is the basis for such confident assertions. But because it’s Princeton, we gotta listen because they would have no vested interest to assert spurious theories. What would be interesting is to see when this research team was given a grant

Service to Other. Teacher/Learner. Here to help with the Great Awakening.

In response Matt Mitchell to his Publication

I suppose you believe there is not enough published research on Wave partical duality... When light is observed it take one form if not it takes another.... The difference is conscious observation. That is hard science that consciousness changes reality. Believe as you like. You are simply not thinking critically. You have also trapped your growth by bleiving these things impossible and foolish. I feel sorry for you.

Wow... thats not what I am saying. wave particle theory is well researched since the advent of quantum mechanics and even earlier. That isnt what I am talking about... not at all actually. Because a couple of researchers P Hack data on Wave Duality and have some baseless correlation to its causal effect on the exeternal world we should build an alter to the theory? I dont think you understand what you are saying. Light being a wave and a particle has zero evidential import to the idea that Human emotions can "affect machines" By the way, thats from the study in case you were wondering.

Service to Other. Teacher/Learner. Here to help with the Great Awakening.

In response Matt Mitchell to his Publication

Many believe his research was not published for 'national security concerns' related to the conscious controll of the recovered UFO's. The 20 years of research is clear and compelling. It deals with both Emotion and Conscious effects on machines and reality. There is more going on here than you know. Supression of some of these subjects I believe is also real and serves a purpose for the military industrial complex.

I also want to be clear... I am not stating that Aliens or UFO's do not exist. to be honest, I dont care. I am merely refuting the entirely unsubstantiated claim that the mind has the power to manipulate the objective world, not or effectuate change; not least of which machines. You have provided nothing, zero, zilch. Anyone can file a FOIA request. Anyone can provide declassified documents on this research. You just have to do it. what about foreign research... our government has no authority over international research (at least not directly). Again,happy to look but you have nothing.

Service to Other. Teacher/Learner. Here to help with the Great Awakening.

In response Matt Mitchell to his Publication

Or perhaps your beliefs are limiting your perspective. Wishing you love and light. :)

As dismissive as the rest of your posts. I wish you the best of luck!

Do you believe science is real only if verified in a Journal Article?
You have already defined your reality. And I quote you "There is no way one could measure or prove objective realities submission to human emotion. Not in a million years..."
I have forwarded you the studies. I have forwarded you excellent hard science, verified by multiple other scientists, however because it has not been published in a journal, you deem appropriate, you claim "I HAVE NOTHING". NOTHING!!!". Sounds like hogans heros Nossing... or the soup nazi "NO SOUP FOR YOU!'. You realize that is JUST your opinion.

In response Matt Mitchell to his Publication

Only people mentioned by @PegasusWarrior in this post can reply

And I will continue to respond any time you post for two reasons. First, it is mildly entertaining and secondly, perhaps you will pull your head from the sand and either provide some evidence I can research or at least put together some cohesive thoughts other than telling me I am closed minded!
Which is hilarious considering I am asking for links to research. you said earlier I am calling you names because I dont have an argument only to turn to Sitcom references to insult. Projection is strong with you. Is it not painfully obvious the degree to which you are projecting your incompetence?

Opinion haha! You post an article that was an
woefully unsubstantiated and then get insulted that I called it out. You tell me there is so much evidence which is not given other than the name of the study. i tried finding said study and could not to which you proceed to tell me there are some who "believe" the evidence is suppressed. you essentially have nothing to provide other than the spurious words of a "Princeton" researcher and the "belief" from well wishers! What is wrong with me? Why isnt everyone not flocking to this well supported idea that my mind can alter the physical world!

Service to Other. Teacher/Learner. Here to help with the Great Awakening.

In response Matt Mitchell to his Publication

I was never insulted. Not in the slightest. You were the one using derogetory language towards me... When angry people spew poison, I long ago decided I would never eat it. And when you dont eat it you look at the person and think... Poor poor angry person...
Not in a million years you say.... NOTHING NOTING NOTHING you assert....
You clearly DID NOT read the links I sent you...
NO SOUP FOR YOU! Poor Poor angry person... You can keep your poison.

(1) Show this thread

You have to learn how to read a statement man! Is this how you hedge your ideas- misinterpreting statements from others? Its painful! Never once did I say that so why make a childish straw man! You defended this garbage by telling me people “believe” the research was suppressed. So anonymous belief is evidence? You have no link to the actual study. There is no evidence of what the parameters were in the study. No defined methodology. What is your malfunction other than the susceptibility to accepting the absurd? If I missed the link, that’s my bad but you arguments are absurdly illogical!