She was hotter in Robin Hood.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Water Has A Memory
- Thread starter TanzanianMagic
- Start date
Bjorn to farm.
Member
Water remembers to be wet and heavy.
And sticky.
S
Sertaiz
isseem or subtle energies and energy medicine has a lot on water. i think it was volume 18 or 24... but i read that crop circles are coding the water with the frequencies we are missing, and are almost like a living thing themselves. like a recording or something.
but it was valerie hunt who was recording the frequencies of human body. and this guy was recording crop circles and their frequencies and they met and realized its the same , what we are missing and what they are giving out.
then, these crop circles are found on top of the worlds largest aquifers in the world, and are coding all our water! before the chlorine and fluoride gets to it, our water might be almost magical! we are lacking words between magical and scientific
but it was valerie hunt who was recording the frequencies of human body. and this guy was recording crop circles and their frequencies and they met and realized its the same , what we are missing and what they are giving out.
then, these crop circles are found on top of the worlds largest aquifers in the world, and are coding all our water! before the chlorine and fluoride gets to it, our water might be almost magical! we are lacking words between magical and scientific
S
Sertaiz
and, oh yeah,the last post supposes that it defininitely has a memory. how long is another question.
Drewsif
Member
The particle is the detector of the wave. Like pulse code modulation. Proof we are in a simulation duhhhh... How else would the planets float? They are particles detecting waves.
God bless you for making believers in Woo look every bit as crazy as they are.
There is no 'magical' world. You can't just presume there's a whole magical land out there where anything you can imagine is possible, and then use that to explain everything.
Actually, you can, it's called your imagination.
But spirituality is opposite of materialism... while Beta hold stand and search proof
only in science.. but science is materialism,they look for numbers and proofs in
material space,they look for devices that you can measure things and in this way
to know values that worth in same material space..
here at forum we have lot of people that use PH/EC meters as they wish to know
how much they feed their plants... its a scientific aproach but it doesnt mean
that he is the only one that is absolute as knowledge or best performing one..
does your plant eat 1200 ppm or she use 1300 ppm of food per watering is not
important at all for growing great medicine.. maybe its a best choice to not use
PH/EC meter at all but to feed by your gut feeling and you will get better medicine
than scientific guys.. look just organic growers,they proove this with their own
example as they meds taste much better than from NPK fanboys..
and its healthier,better for body to not use all those toxic shit that scientific growers
use for their own plants...
so by many things i get conclusion that science sucks cause she is created by psychopats
for another psychopats... you could sees that in a example of NPK classic agriculture..
no matter that today people are mostly awared of a danger of NPK technique most
of them will still use same crap to feed their own plants,they still polute nature,they
smoke and sell lower quality of medicine,they poisson their own body while there
is solution to live healthier and to live cleaner Earth to our childrens..
and that is more spiritual type of sustainable agriculture,organic one or biodynamics
as she is really more advanced agriculture that gives much healthier and better
product out,people that use this techniques doesnt play against nature nor
final consumer of such produced products..
We talk about conscioussness... and she is not inside materialism... hope you understand
what i wish to explain to you..
only in science.. but science is materialism,they look for numbers and proofs in
material space,they look for devices that you can measure things and in this way
to know values that worth in same material space..
here at forum we have lot of people that use PH/EC meters as they wish to know
how much they feed their plants... its a scientific aproach but it doesnt mean
that he is the only one that is absolute as knowledge or best performing one..
does your plant eat 1200 ppm or she use 1300 ppm of food per watering is not
important at all for growing great medicine.. maybe its a best choice to not use
PH/EC meter at all but to feed by your gut feeling and you will get better medicine
than scientific guys.. look just organic growers,they proove this with their own
example as they meds taste much better than from NPK fanboys..
and its healthier,better for body to not use all those toxic shit that scientific growers
use for their own plants...
so by many things i get conclusion that science sucks cause she is created by psychopats
for another psychopats... you could sees that in a example of NPK classic agriculture..
no matter that today people are mostly awared of a danger of NPK technique most
of them will still use same crap to feed their own plants,they still polute nature,they
smoke and sell lower quality of medicine,they poisson their own body while there
is solution to live healthier and to live cleaner Earth to our childrens..
and that is more spiritual type of sustainable agriculture,organic one or biodynamics
as she is really more advanced agriculture that gives much healthier and better
product out,people that use this techniques doesnt play against nature nor
final consumer of such produced products..
We talk about conscioussness... and she is not inside materialism... hope you understand
what i wish to explain to you..
'Spiritual' is the word people use when they want to give the impression that they've said something meaningful without saying anything at all. It's a placeholder for 'I believe whatever I want because I pretend there's a special and magical sub-physical reality in which all of my dreams come true."
I've literally never heard anything resembling a coherent definition for the word 'spiritual' that didn't amount to "I want to believe in magic".
I consider spiritual to be beliving in a creator and having respect its creations. I consider religious to be similar but with pre determined rules.
Most people who use psychedelics will at some point have a very spuritual experience. Many of which are identical to spuritual experiences people have had all over the world.
I have read its pretty much impossible to to be an athiest after smoking 5-meo-dmt. Still have no tried that one.
Most people who use psychedelics will at some point have a very spuritual experience. Many of which are identical to spuritual experiences people have had all over the world.
I have read its pretty much impossible to to be an athiest after smoking 5-meo-dmt. Still have no tried that one.
For spiritual you need to have a soul,soulless people dont get this
things..,its hidden from them..!!
Now Beta,one question for you,do you think you posses one soul
beside body you have???
I bet you think souls doesnt exist as you never sees one,never mesured one with instruments that some scientific person invented
and cause of modern science dont have proof and knowledge on exoplasmas..
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Lol
organic is science too... and it's also NPK. danger to the environment(like leaching of nitrogen causing eutrophication, or volatilisation of N contributing to global warming) is also there with organic.
the things organic actually does better is adding organic matter(for soil structure), no use of oil for producing N fertilizer, and no dependence on depletable rock phosphate. also, personally as a gardener I love organic for how easy and cheap it is.
but this is wandering further offtopic...
as for spiritualism vs. materialism, I'm firmly on the side of the scientific method. ofcourse I can't prove there is no spiritualism at all, because that's impossible(you can proof something exists, you can't prove something doesn't exist). but in the absence of evidence, there is no reason to assume anything spiritual is going on.
you can't base a discussion on that, since you're setting up your own side of the debate as infallible. you can just invent some new rules every time, and in your spiritual universe they'd exist.
like I can say right now there is an invisible pink elephant who always speaks absolute truth standing on my desk who tells me he is the only true spiritual element of the universe, and science is right about everything. try to prove my pink elephant doesn't exist.
however, following the scientific method we can find things that exist for both of us, things that can be replicated and assumed to be true. building on that we can actually have a discussion trying to find some truth in this world, instead of just making the world more complicated with worlds that may just exist in the mind of 1 man.
and answerring the question you asked to beta, no, I don't believe in souls. I don't know of any observation I had where assuming the existence of a soul would add explaining power, or a better understanding(+ prediction power) of the world. look up occam's razor.
the things organic actually does better is adding organic matter(for soil structure), no use of oil for producing N fertilizer, and no dependence on depletable rock phosphate. also, personally as a gardener I love organic for how easy and cheap it is.
but this is wandering further offtopic...
as for spiritualism vs. materialism, I'm firmly on the side of the scientific method. ofcourse I can't prove there is no spiritualism at all, because that's impossible(you can proof something exists, you can't prove something doesn't exist). but in the absence of evidence, there is no reason to assume anything spiritual is going on.
you can't base a discussion on that, since you're setting up your own side of the debate as infallible. you can just invent some new rules every time, and in your spiritual universe they'd exist.
like I can say right now there is an invisible pink elephant who always speaks absolute truth standing on my desk who tells me he is the only true spiritual element of the universe, and science is right about everything. try to prove my pink elephant doesn't exist.
however, following the scientific method we can find things that exist for both of us, things that can be replicated and assumed to be true. building on that we can actually have a discussion trying to find some truth in this world, instead of just making the world more complicated with worlds that may just exist in the mind of 1 man.
and answerring the question you asked to beta, no, I don't believe in souls. I don't know of any observation I had where assuming the existence of a soul would add explaining power, or a better understanding(+ prediction power) of the world. look up occam's razor.
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
The Urantia Papers (The Fifth Epochal Revelation) has all the answers.
If you dont belive in soul then natural is that you will not understand
spiritual... maybe you know for fact that death is best friend to
spiritual life... and if death is best friend to spiritual than there is
a time you will encounter this life truths..
people with NDE experiences will explain you better this things...
maybe you readed that most of them was not wish to come back
in life... so there is something in person,i call it spirit.. that is
awared of higher realms.. or they are awared of limits of a material body and they found truth while they was on a edge of life..
Again NDE experiences are not mesurable and there is no machine
that can record them so off course people that are turned to
scientific or material will deny them as impossible or charlatan
claims...
While there are good number of folks that experienced same..
they died while their spirit stays alive and they have deep
spiritual experience,and if they survived they haved fantastic
story to tell... but scientific guys will never belive them..
cause its not mesurable or recorded on some track..
paradoxlost
Member
I don't see how any of this relates to the spiritual claim that water has memory.
Water does not have memory. The ability to reorganize itself does not indicate it has memory. That would be like saying granite has a memory cause when it crumbles it goes down hill. It remembers which way to co.
The reality of the soul is among the most important questions of life. Although religions go on and on about its existence, how do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.
The idea of the soul is bound up with the idea of a future life and our belief in a continued existence after death. It's said to be the ultimate animating principle by which we think and feel, but isn't dependent on the body. Many infer its existence without scientific analysis or reflection. Indeed, the mysteries of birth and death, the play of consciousness during dreams (or after a few martinis), and even the commonest mental operations – such as imagination and memory – suggest the existence of a vital life force – an élan vital – that exists independent of the body.
Yet, the current scientific paradigm doesn't recognize this spiritual dimension of life. We're told we're just the activity of carbon and some proteins; we live awhile and die. And the universe? It too has no meaning. It has all been worked out in the equations – no need for a soul. But biocentrism – a new ‘theory of everything' – challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts.
Of course, most spiritual people view the soul as emphatically more definitive than the scientific concept. It's considered the incorporeal essence of a person, and is said to be immortal and transcendent of material existence. But when scientists speak of the soul (if at all), it's usually in a materialistic context, or treated as a poetic synonym for the mind. Everything knowable about the "soul" can be learned by studying the functioning of the brain. In their view, neuroscience is the only branch of scientific study relevant to understanding the soul.
Traditionally, science has dismissed the soul as an object of human belief, or reduced it to a psychological concept that shapes our cognition of the observable natural world. The terms "life" and "death" are thus nothing more than the common concepts of "biological life" and "biological death." The animating principle is simply the laws of chemistry and physics. You (and all the poets and philosophers that ever lived) are just dust orbiting the core of the Milky Way galaxy.
As I sit here in my office surrounded by piles of scientific books, I can't find a single reference to the soul, or any notion of an immaterial, eternal essence that occupies our being. Indeed, a soul has never been seen under an electron microscope, nor spun in the laboratory in a test tube or ultra-centrifuge. According to these books, nothing appears to survive the human body after death.
While neuroscience has made tremendous progress illuminating the functioning of the brain, why we have a subjective experience remains mysterious. The problem of the soul lies exactly here, in understanding the nature of the self, the "I" in existence that feels and lives life. But this isn't just a problem for biology and cognitive science, but for the whole of Western natural philosophy itself.
Our current worldview – the world of objectivity and naïve realism – is beginning to show fatal cracks. Of course, this will not surprise many of the philosophers and other readers who, contemplating the works of men such as Plato, Socrates and Kant, and of Buddha and other great spiritual teachers, kept wondering about the relationship between the universe and the mind of man.
Recently, biocentrism and other scientific theories have also started to challenge the old physico-chemical paradigm, and to ask some of the difficult questions about life: Is there a soul? Does anything endure the ravages of time?
Life and consciousness are central to this new view of being, reality and the cosmos. Although the current scientific paradigm is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence, real experiments suggest just the opposite. We think life is just the activity of atoms and particles, which spin around for a while and then dissipate into nothingness. But if we add life to the equation, we can explain some of the major puzzles of modern science, including the uncertainty principle, entanglement, and the fine-tuning of the laws that shape the universe.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
The idea of the soul is bound up with the idea of a future life and our belief in a continued existence after death. It's said to be the ultimate animating principle by which we think and feel, but isn't dependent on the body. Many infer its existence without scientific analysis or reflection. Indeed, the mysteries of birth and death, the play of consciousness during dreams (or after a few martinis), and even the commonest mental operations – such as imagination and memory – suggest the existence of a vital life force – an élan vital – that exists independent of the body.
Yet, the current scientific paradigm doesn't recognize this spiritual dimension of life. We're told we're just the activity of carbon and some proteins; we live awhile and die. And the universe? It too has no meaning. It has all been worked out in the equations – no need for a soul. But biocentrism – a new ‘theory of everything' – challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts.
Of course, most spiritual people view the soul as emphatically more definitive than the scientific concept. It's considered the incorporeal essence of a person, and is said to be immortal and transcendent of material existence. But when scientists speak of the soul (if at all), it's usually in a materialistic context, or treated as a poetic synonym for the mind. Everything knowable about the "soul" can be learned by studying the functioning of the brain. In their view, neuroscience is the only branch of scientific study relevant to understanding the soul.
Traditionally, science has dismissed the soul as an object of human belief, or reduced it to a psychological concept that shapes our cognition of the observable natural world. The terms "life" and "death" are thus nothing more than the common concepts of "biological life" and "biological death." The animating principle is simply the laws of chemistry and physics. You (and all the poets and philosophers that ever lived) are just dust orbiting the core of the Milky Way galaxy.
As I sit here in my office surrounded by piles of scientific books, I can't find a single reference to the soul, or any notion of an immaterial, eternal essence that occupies our being. Indeed, a soul has never been seen under an electron microscope, nor spun in the laboratory in a test tube or ultra-centrifuge. According to these books, nothing appears to survive the human body after death.
While neuroscience has made tremendous progress illuminating the functioning of the brain, why we have a subjective experience remains mysterious. The problem of the soul lies exactly here, in understanding the nature of the self, the "I" in existence that feels and lives life. But this isn't just a problem for biology and cognitive science, but for the whole of Western natural philosophy itself.
Our current worldview – the world of objectivity and naïve realism – is beginning to show fatal cracks. Of course, this will not surprise many of the philosophers and other readers who, contemplating the works of men such as Plato, Socrates and Kant, and of Buddha and other great spiritual teachers, kept wondering about the relationship between the universe and the mind of man.
Recently, biocentrism and other scientific theories have also started to challenge the old physico-chemical paradigm, and to ask some of the difficult questions about life: Is there a soul? Does anything endure the ravages of time?
Life and consciousness are central to this new view of being, reality and the cosmos. Although the current scientific paradigm is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence, real experiments suggest just the opposite. We think life is just the activity of atoms and particles, which spin around for a while and then dissipate into nothingness. But if we add life to the equation, we can explain some of the major puzzles of modern science, including the uncertainty principle, entanglement, and the fine-tuning of the laws that shape the universe.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
I know someone with an NDE experience. He was the type that would argue with you for hours about something trivial. After his NDE, he's totally changed and just smiles if you don't agree or believe him. Serenity in the extreme. When I asked him if it bothers him if someone is skeptical or doesn't believe him he said "It doesn't matter. You'll get it one day." and he drops it.
Am get those guy cause i understand he overcome his own ego when he gets those
experience.. this people shine and are happy cause they know they will go "home",
on a real place for soul when they pass out from this realm..
most of NDE dont wish to come back and that tells us something.. there in spiritual
world is better and you feel more cosy than in this flesh and body and material
realm...
thats why i pointed in previous post that death is best friend to spiritual life..
experience.. this people shine and are happy cause they know they will go "home",
on a real place for soul when they pass out from this realm..
most of NDE dont wish to come back and that tells us something.. there in spiritual
world is better and you feel more cosy than in this flesh and body and material
realm...
thats why i pointed in previous post that death is best friend to spiritual life..
S
Sertaiz
supposedly amanita muscaria is the closest thing to NDE. i have not tried yet. christmas is coming, maybe this year
