An Attention Topology, as Measured in Distance Intention Effects Upon Water Crystals
The recent work by Radin, Lund, Emoto & Kizu [1] performs a well-blinded study on the effects of distance intention upon water crystallization, with positive quantitative effects expected by the prior art. Their work shows the relative amounts of beautiful water crystallization in three water samples: those that were treated with distance intention (IT), a control group of those that were not the focus of distance intention (DC), and a secondary control group that were physically proximal to those receiving distance intention (PC). An important component to the analysis presented here lies in distinguishing the PC waters from the IT and DC waters — i.e. the boundary conditions of the experiment. Inspection of the gathered data in light of considering these boundary conditions will reveal a door to further investigations of the mind-matter mechanism.
§Design of Experiments
Six bottles of water (Fiji brand) were acquired by the experimental team Radin & Lund, and were assigned letter labels by Lund (only) for experimental blinding. They were divided into 3 groups of 2 bottles, which became the IT, DC, and PC. DC water bottles were placed in an innocuous location of an office, inside a styrofoam container for thermal buffering. IT water bottles were placed in an electromagnetically shielded room (faraday cage) on top of a table therein. PC waters were also placed in this room, though below the table. The IT water bottles on top of the table were photographed with a digital camera, and the photo was subsequently edited to crop out other room elements & create perceptual focus on the photographed water bottles. Of these three sets of bottles, only IT and DC were know to exist by Emoto and Kizu, based on assumptions given by prior experiments of theirs.
On the 20th of May, 2006, Emoto led a distance intention treatment of the IT waters by a group of ~1000 people in Graz, Germany. The intention group used Google Earth imagery to understand the position of the water on earth in relationship to their own location, as well as the editing digital image of the water bottles taken by Lund and Radin. The same intention focus methodology was used by Emoto with a group of ~450 on the 23rd of May, 2006 in Nuremburg, Germany and again with ~500 people on the 24th of May, 2006 in Munich, Germany.
On the 25th of May, 2006, all bottles, IT, DC, and PC, were collected by Lund, individually wrapped in foil, insulated, and packaged for safe shipment to Kizu and Emoto in Tokyo, Japan. At this time, Emoto and Kizu are made aware of the existence of the PC water bottles. Emoto and Kizu crystalize the water in the bottles, still unaware of the which were IT, DC, or PC, due to the blinding code. Crystal pictures are placed online for aesthetic assessment by remote web viewers unaware of the details of the work. The results were analyzed and finalized, then Lund revealed the blinding code to Radin, Emoto and Kizu.
§A timeline is as thus:
Mind-matter interaction timeline for the Emoto-Radin distance intention effect water experiment, 2006 Discussion
The experimenters conducting the distance intention treatments were not aware of the presence of the PC group until after all treatments were performed and all water samples has been sent for analysis. The study data gathered by Radin et. al. shows that IT and DC groups had nearly equal levels of beautiful crystals, with statistically significant greater beauty in the IT group when IT and DC were solely compared. Data from the PC group shows it as less beautiful than IT or DC — individually or combined — by a significant and obvious margin.
Radin et. al. hold awareness that this was an important dimension to introduce to the design of experiments (DOE): “The comparison of principle interest in this study was the… differences using [IT] vs. [PC] samples.” …. “because the proximal control [PC] was not influenced by Masaru Emoto or Takashige Kizu’s prior knowledge of its existence.” Ye t, the strong contrast of the PC data is given no place in the abstract, nor formal discussion of data. The IT vs. DC comparison is then called the “comparison of main interest” because it experimentally confirmed the increase of water crystal beauty due to treatment by distance intention operators.
§Retrospective
Radin, Emoto, et. al. are to be commended for the triple-blinded experimental confirmation of distance intention effect by operators on the structure of water. Their data reenforces the data generated by several historic experiments in the field.
Experiments have shown that when performing intention treatment experiments having a treatment target and control, the control can show equal or greater impact than the target, proposed to emerge from a so-called “underdog” effect wherein operators sympathize with the ‘ignored’ and ‘left out’ control group. This is comparable to the significant levels of beautiful crystal formation, when comparing IT and DC.
Unspecified and off-target elements of a consciousness experiment can become the signifying descriptor of data. The effect was similarly demonstrated in psychokinesis / remote perception (PK / RP) experiments reported in Margins of Reality. This is comparable to the hidden element of the PC group.
Another effect, potentially similar, was reported in field REG experiments, where the baseline measured was more stable than expectation. For the investigation of this effect in water crystallization experiments, the generation of a reference baseline would come from crystallization of water not in any way involved in an intention experiment, yet being composed of media uniform with that used in consciousness experimentation.
§Model
Nothing is excluded from the field of intention, ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or otherwise conceived. The field of intention does, rather, permeate the set of all things(objectified or aspect-oriented) that it holds inclusive. Phenomena, occurrent from forces presented by the field of intention, may thus be divided among the set of allthings coincident with that field. The notion of a ‘fractionalized’ consciousness exists in pre-colonial Aztec ontology and in contemporary models of psychological intersubjectivity
It may be said that phenomena occurrent from operator intention are governed by the media — the things. Thus, the number / order of the degrees of freedom in the media composing a ‘consciousness-coupled system, may be the preferred number of experimental media groups in consciousness research tests. An example will serve to illustrate.
Using water as the media for an experiment, let us propose that the crystallization dynamics range can exhibit the following four properties: symmetry, number of points, number of sub-points growing from the sides of each point, crystal mean diameter.
Crystal beauty is a possible item for this list, as well as many other physical liberties allowed in the dynamics of the media, such as thickness, etc. Crystal beauty is an overtly qualitative measure, and therefore contrasts with the illustration made — which is to say that beauty, or any subjective measure, may be borne upon the system as an aggregate of the physical degrees of freedom, and through a different model than currently discussed.
These physical degrees of freedom are comparable to the number of openings in a double slit experiment. The photon in such slit experiment can go, under observation, through “A or B” or “A or B or C” but we don’t propose that a photon may go ‘joyfully’ in one case and ‘woefully’ in another — yet, were we to, said photon could go joyfully though A, B or C. The degrees of freedom in the media form atopological allowance in the experimentation. In many cases this topology can be called the ‘boundary conditions.’ Whether or not the experimental design advantages itself of that topology, the quantity of a qualitative measure such a beauty will remain.
By our model, we might expect that intention operators working with water crystallization as the consciousness-coupled media may have the strongest effect when addressing four experimental groups. By conjecture, each group would represent data having a significant difference from measured baseline in one of the given degrees of physical freedom. Thus, a subsequent measurement of the media state would yield the data from each group characterizing one of the four properties.
Alternatively, the range of expression within a given degree of freedom — say, number of points — may direct the chosen number of groups. Let us imagine that crystals may have 6, 7, 8, 12 and 16 points. We would then have five experimental groups, wherein after operator treatment we would then expect to find that one group contains a predominance of 6-pointed crystals, another group being mostly 7-pointed crystals, etc.
Given the subjective response of consciousness to experimental conditions, we would expect that the given degree(s) of freedom selected for experiment will be more preferential with certain operators. The preference may be a strength in the design of experiments. Operators may be surveyed for their knowledge of media degrees of freedom and operators clustered by similarity, providing organic differentiation into operator groups sharing the same topological construct — or filter.
For example, in a model to be done with water crystallization, organic groups may emerge as operators surveyed prior to the experiment show a predisposition to two groups: a group that identifies water crystal symmetry and number of points, and a second group that identifies the number of points and the number of sub-points growing from the sides of each point (i.e. higher fractal number). The proposed model would predict that their data sets would be different, correlated with the degrees of freedom natural to each operator group. Prudent experimentation would run two separate tests in order to strengthen the coherence of mind-matter coupling between operator group and target media. Admittedly, multiple signals may be measurable in the same media, but the design of experiments remains open for how to differentiate the ‘number of points’ influence of one operator group from that of the other.
Following this model, two implementations of control media may be contemplated. One of the degree of freedom may be called the baseline. The degree of freedom chosen should be one not identified by operators as a target for mind-matter coupling. In this way, the control would be topologically isolated. An alternative for implementing a topologically separate baseline group, similar to the PC group in the work of Radin et. al., would involve taking measurements of the same degrees of freedom as the target media, though from media not specified to operators.
It should be considered that the operator expectation of a control group may need to be ‘managed’ in the design of experiments to accomplish topological separation. Operators may need to be informed of one degree of freedom as the control, when an additional (i.e. topologically isolated) is also measured. The same could be accomplished as in the DC group in the work of Radin et. al.
The data of Radin et. al. supports a new precedent for the control group. The measurement group an operator is unaware of may form the new basis of control groups in mind-matter research. If the utility of this model demonstrates itself, and future operators come to have the expectation that ‘there exists a group I’m not being told about,’ then further study of the boundary mechanics between topologically isolated experimental media groups can be performed [10].
Another component of this model is the organizing effect of anisotropy. The ‘brief unusual observation’ by the RP-sender was the most impacting to the RP-receiver. The ‘little underdog’ can get the lion’s share of the intention effect. A proper design of experiments should take care to give equal weight of attention to all experimental elements.
§Future Design of Experiments
Roger published on similar mechanics of ‘field REGs’, and operator group intention, with Dr. Bob Jahn & Brenda Dunne during his time at PEAR Lab
- http://pearlab.icrl.org/pdfs/1996-fieldreg-anomalies-group-situations.pdf
- http://pearlab.icrl.org/pdfs/1998-fieldreg-ii-consciousness-field-effects.pdf
Despite the positivity in the paper, within the lab we discussed that the effects were only marginally above threshold. Sad lore. The lab struggled with the design for a while, since the principle seemed reasonable based on analogous idea in group consciousness. I think a more specific design of experiments is called for. (necessary, really)
Read the design of experiments in those papers closely. IMO you won’t see much effect from just telling people ‘there is a thing and we should use intention to affect it’. For the IMO-reason why, read this paper on the Emoto/Radin triple-blinded study of group intention affect. Then read my conjecture on why it happens, and what they are under-representing / overlooking in their paper.
§Proposal:
You need three RNG devices, or RNG-device-groups. A topological divide needs to existing in the field of group consciousness, that attaches/pertains to them. Per the 3rd link, this is done by ensuring that all of those in the intention experiment do not know about one of the RNG devices/device-groups. If anyone is aware of the 3rd group, the topology is corrupted.
I think the metaphor for the effect is like the sacrificial goat / sin-eater. To concentrate order/effect in one RNG, that order/effect must be taken from the other. ((or in the case, on the 2 groups of REGs that will be targeted by people that know of REGs for this group exercise))
§Conclusion
The proposed model holds that the degrees of freedom of an operator’s awareness represents the range of experimental media variation. When the operators, as in the illustration, construct an awareness composed on a specific range of variables, the experimental results of mind-matter influence should quantize to that range. Without such framework for coherence, each operator potentially brings a consciousness effect with dramatically different degrees of freedom. The model of consciousness coherence between operators (i.e. same filter) conforms to the partner-dyad experimental data at the PEAR lab, where like-minded couples caused increase intention effect upon the experimental media. Without an organizing framework for consciousness the effects’ range is a broad as epistemology affords. Footnotes
-
Radin, D., Lund, N., Emoto, M., Kizu, T. Effects of distant intention on water crystal formation: A triple-blind replication. Journal of Scientific Exploration. vol. 22, #4, 2008. p 481–493
-
Büttiker, Markus. Edge-State Physics Without Magnetic Fields. Science. vol 325, 17 July 2009. p 278–279.1
