On islands off Japan, one monkey learned a new skill. In turn, this monkey taught this skill to other monkeys. After the critical mass of 100 monkeys had been taught, suddenly all of them knew the skill, even those on nearby islands who no physical contact. Experiments have replicated this effect in humans. There are many examples of human behaviors that suggest this collective consciousness.
Experts theorize that collective consciousness is catalytic and self-feeding. If a group consciousness represents positive emotions like love, empathy, and compassion, it is humanity enhancing. Einstein showed that mass is just another form of energy. Consciousness, itself, is energy. It follows then that consciousness can create our physical reality, especially when collectively amplified.
When reflected in prayer, group consciousness can facilitate powerful healing. British physicist and theologian Dr. John Polinhorne compares group prayer to laser light, which is powerful because its waves are in synchrony. According to Dr. Walter Weston, when synchronizing energy fields can generate immense, exponential power. For example, the power of two people praying would be four times that of a single person (2 x 2), and the power of 10 people praying would be 100 times that of a single person (10 x 10). A large church congregation of 1,000 unified in prayer would have 1 million times the praying power of a single person (1,000 x 1,000).
Can you imagine what the effect of 500,000 people meditating would be on the rest of the world? We’ll see… as for me, I’ll be THERE!
sthira says:
Interesting , but, as always,I cannot refrain from going a little beyond those facts.
“When reflected in prayer, group consciousness can facilitate powerful healing.”
If that were so, then the most religious countries in the world, especially those in which people congregated together to pray every day/week would be the most peaceful, happy and ‘mentally healed’ nations with the most conscientious citizens. However, a glance across the globe and the theory falls flat in your face.
“If a group consciousness represents positive emotions like love, empathy, and compassion, it is humanity enhancing.”
Much more needs to be said about that.
If people are following their religious books during their prayers, one would imagine that those positive emotions would be spelled out in the sermons and the verses. And so, that should have some effect on the many more around. Surely, more energy and power would be generated but what that is put to,is relevant.
And what if the positive emotions represented by the group consciousness are directed only towards a certain group?What happens to the rest of the humanity outside that group?It’s tricky!!
February 9, 2006 — 6:39 pm
Lakshmi says:
In order to facilitate powerful healing through prayer, the group consciousness has to be clear and true. Just sitting in prayer does not mean that one is praying. When you have various stresses and tensions in your mind, whatever ensues will also have the same element of unrest in it.
About religious books and sermons, they talk about love, devotion, compassion. But how many people are in the right state of mind to receive this knowledge? The truth is all around, yet very few recognise it and so therefore, the true import of prayer is lost on most people.
About directing positive emotions towards a certain group – that is something I really have no knowledge about. I think prayers and positive energy have an effect of the entire environment in general. You can refer to various studies conducted on meditation to confirm that.
February 10, 2006 — 6:25 am
madmanraj says:
Prayer
When you pray/visualize we just think about the need/want or desperation of the situation.
Never stress while meditating, be thankful, yes showing gratitude for all the blesings and take it up from that base.
You feel the communion when you are filled with light and the experience a pleasant feeling as in when you see a beautiful landscape.
Regards,
The Wandering Monk -Ray
March 6, 2006 — 10:11 pm
Anonymous says:
i would agree that a prayerful environment can do good and spread the mood from person to person like a butterfly effect but cant agree with the mathematics used here.. if waves/energy fields can simply superimpose and magnify exponentially, things would’ve been so easier in life!
one of my friend used to say he used to feel peace or happiness in his heart on special days like christmas or smtg like that when a lot of people pray. i have tried to go thru it but so far i find it is just a feeling/trick of mind to comply with some idea.
japanese monkeys hmmm.. havent heard of this story.
rocksea
February 9, 2006 — 8:02 pm
Lakshmi says:
if waves/energy fields can simply superimpose and magnify exponentially, things would’ve been so easier in life!
How do you know that things are not easy now? I mean, can you discount the fact that things may have been far worse?
🙂
February 10, 2006 — 6:29 am
cognoscenti85 says:
Pseudo-science,eh?
I believe the use of Einstein and all the scientific terms here is just to pass the theory as “science”.In our times, people respect Science.Just say your theory has scientific basis,cook up a few (fake) relations to Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and people will start respecting the theory.
February 9, 2006 — 8:49 pm
Anonymous says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
I agree with this. People talk about Astrology, palmisty etc. as great science. But they do not meet the requirements of Science and hence are all Fake Science. There should be understandable relationship between the premises and the conclusions. There is no understandable relationship between a line on the palm and whatever those fake scientists forcast. I know that there are so many educated scientists still believing in those fake sciences.
February 9, 2006 — 10:17 pm
Anonymous says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
palmistry is kind of a science like graphology or kinesics is. some bit of science, some bit of statistics, some bit of experience etc.
for eg. by looking at the phsyiology or body language of a person one can tell what kind of a person he is. it is said that the maximum no. of nerver endings are on the palm. hence the importance of one’s palm. your body always reflects what kind of a person you are. the same way your palm also should reflect what kind of a person you are. thatz what you see in palmistry. the color, the shape, the length, the small hairs etc depicts the person carrying them and similarily the lines too. it is all about finding how they do it. if you say there is no understandable relationship between them, it is because you have not tried to understand it. of course, i dont say one should depend on palmistry. it is just a kind of tool in life but is not life.
similarily astrology evolved from the fact that planets and stars affect earth and life in it. of course it does as you can see with changes in positions of moon, sun and all. but again it is just a tool, planets are not the major influences in life.
February 10, 2006 — 12:50 am
Anonymous says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
I do not agree with you. Today, even after having most accurate instruments and measuring systems, we are not able to predict a storm or a tsunami. So what is the justification that one can predit the whole life encompassing several years knowing a line on ones palm. At best, may be these lines can talk about ones health. The following example will tell the meaning of ‘underdtandable relationship’.
During the monsoon, if the sky is full with dark clouds, anybody can predict a rain in the near future. It may rain or may not. But the prediction is logical because the rain after all is the product of clouds.There is logical relationship between the clouds and the rain.
In the same way what is the logical relationship between a line on the palm and the future of several years?
February 11, 2006 — 1:21 am
savyasachi says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
My dear friend, “Indian astrology” was a way to mark time using the positions of planets in the night sky, and NOT an indicator of fates of people or the world. I say this because I do happen to have read up on facts about Aryabhatta, for instance…..
February 11, 2006 — 11:30 pm
srusrid says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
Agree.It probably would be better to term it “Indian Astronomy”.Charting the solar calendar is a mathematical exercise, and jumping from there on to astrology, is well, a jump!
February 13, 2006 — 2:19 pm
Anonymous says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
palmistry is kind of a science like graphology or kinesics is. some bit of science, some bit of statistics, some bit of experience etc.
for eg. by looking at the phsyiology or body language of a person one can tell what kind of a person he is. it is said that the maximum no. of nerver endings are on the palm. hence the importance of one’s palm. your body always reflects what kind of a person you are. the same way your palm also should reflect what kind of a person you are. thatz what you see in palmistry. the color, the shape, the length, the small hairs etc depicts the person carrying them and similarily the lines too. it is all about finding how they do it. if you say there is no understandable relationship between them, it is because you have not tried to understand it. of course, i dont say one should depend on palmistry. it is just a kind of tool in life but is not life.
similarily astrology evolved from the fact that planets and stars affect earth and life in it. of course it does as you can see with changes in positions of moon, sun and all. but again it is just a tool, planets are not the major influences in life.
sorry, forgot to sign 😉
roxy
rocksea
February 10, 2006 — 12:51 am
Lakshmi says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
There is no understandable relationship between a line on the palm and whatever those fake scientists forcast.
Just because one does not understand the relationship does not mean that none exists. The true scientist is one who is open to ideas, is free of binding concepts and in a state of wonder. My view point, entirely…:-)
February 10, 2006 — 6:27 am
quizling says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
And you’re absolutely right. The point, however is that one should ideally believe in something when evidence for it outweighs evidence against it. If (say) astrologers make accurate predictions at least three-fourths of the time, I’d certainly agree there’s something to it. If they make vague or unspecific predictions, or are right only half the time (the success rate is actually lower), it’s not much better than hit-or-miss.
February 10, 2006 — 9:45 am
Lakshmi says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
If we are talking about astrology, I think the problem lies not in the science but in the practitioners. Did you know, the original intention of astrology was to help a person go beyond what possibly can happen in his/her life and to actually make him/her aware of his/her spiritual potential?
What we call predictions are possibilities…astrology does tell you about the possibilities. It raises the person’s awareness of some inherent tendencies he or she has so that the individual can work on them to handle different circumstances in life and go inward.
Astrology never mentions any kind of inevitabilities.
February 10, 2006 — 10:06 am
quizling says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
> If we are talking about astrology, I think the problem lies not in the science but in the practitioners.
I’m afraid this is an old, old excuse. If most practitioners are corrupt, or unreliable, what’s the way to identify the genuine ones? If you say there’s no clear test to weed out the fakes, astrology is far from being a science, let alone an exact science. Wouldn’t it be wiser to acknowledge that there are some things we’ll probably never know, and ignore astrology completely?
February 10, 2006 — 10:18 am
Lakshmi says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
Well, knowledge does not come easy, does it?
Wouldn’t it be wiser to acknowledge that there are some things we’ll probably never know, and ignore astrology completely?
That’s your judgment entirely. All I am saying is, we shouldn’t label things that we necessarily do not understand.
February 10, 2006 — 1:28 pm
Lakshmi says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
It only limits us from ever knowing what they are.
February 10, 2006 — 1:49 pm
cognoscenti85 says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
All I am saying is, we shouldn’t label things that we necessarily do not understand.
Thats is a very scientific viewpoint.Certainly true.
But what if some things try to pass off as science,with no “real” scientific evidence?Just quoting Einstein and by inserting a few vague “scientific” explanations arent enough for something to become a science.One can choose to follow what he/she likes,but when people try to mislead others by saying that “this has been scientifically proved,einstein said so and so etc etc”,there is a problem.
February 10, 2006 — 8:26 pm
fugney says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
You are beginning to frighten me. Take care.
February 11, 2006 — 6:11 am
Lakshmi says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
:-)Don’t freak out, dude.
February 11, 2006 — 6:28 am
Anonymous says:
Re: Pseudo-science,eh?
Same reply as to the earlier one. Rational thinking is the biggest tool a man has got to understand the matters. Next to it are the scientific theories which are based on inductive logic and are very reliable. And there are certain requirements for any theory to be acceptable to science. The so called pseudo sciences like palmistry, astrology, witchcraft, face reading etc. do not meet the requirements of science. One need not have the in depth knowledge of science itself to know and understand the basics of sceince.
February 11, 2006 — 1:33 am
quizling says:
> Can you imagine what the effect of 500,000 people meditating would be on the rest of the world?
Unfortunately, it would still be 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1… that is, 1 itself. Though meditation seems to help individuals, it’s not a power that can be exponentially harnessed. The brain’s “waves” or “energy fields” are not things that can be synchronized and consolidated through meditation. Of course, that doesn’t imply meditation is worthless.
To be called a “science”, results have to be proven under a variety of conditions involving independent subjects (including skeptics). By that simple yardstick, astrology, palmistry, homeopathy, feng shui, numerology, reiki, faith healing etc. are not sciences. They may seem to work occasionally for people who believe in them ardently enough, but that’s not quite the same thing! 🙂
February 10, 2006 — 7:22 am
sat_chit_anand says:
Get the math right
I didnt think you got the math which Locks mentioned over here “For example, the power of two people praying would be four times that of a single person (2 x 2), and the power of 10 people praying would be 100 times that of a single person (10 x 10). A large church congregation of 1,000 unified in prayer would have 1 million times the praying power of a single person (1,000 x 1,000). “
This means there is relationship of n squared, so I dont know how you came up with 1 X 1 X 1 X 1………
“To be called a “science”, results have to be proven under a variety of conditions involving independent subjects (including skeptics). By that simple yardstick, astrology, palmistry, homeopathy, feng shui, numerology, reiki, faith healing etc. are not sciences. They may seem to work occasionally for people who believe in them ardently enough, but that’s not quite the same thing! :)”
Can you list me any research which has actively tried to validate if any of the things that you say arent sciences works or not? Isn’t science also a collection of principles which explain human experience so far? some of the things you listed have explained certain experiences that people have had. What we have to ask ourselves is “Who does the burden of proof to disprove or prove something as science lie on?” Is it the people who accept some system as scientific or people who reject it or both. By rejecting something as non-science without proper investigation or understanding of the underlying principles makes it akin to dogma – the kind which made so many societies in the past stuck without any expansion. Spirit of science is inquiry – genuine inquiry without rejection until proven. Only a person or a group which knows everything (omniscient) can reject something without inquiry. Do you think the current state of scientific knowledge is omniscient?
February 10, 2006 — 8:33 am
quizling says:
Re: Get the math right
You’re entitled to your opinion. Peace.
February 10, 2006 — 8:59 am
quizling says:
Some scientific obervations
> Can you list me any research which has actively tried to validate if any of the things that you say arent sciences works or not?
Oh, I’m so sorry, I missed the genuine question among the rhetorical ones. There are indeed plenty of such studies, the results of which are self-evident. To acknowledge them, however, one would need to have an open mind and a willingness to accept facts.
Take homeopathy, for instance. A cogent, scientific explanation why this branch of medicine is highly dubious can be found here. A bunch of links to opinions by medical doctors and scientific teams, and respected publications such as Lancet, can be seen here. If you can explain to me in scientific terms how exactly homeopathy works (rather than “it just does”) I’d be eternally grateful.
If you want specific links to academic studies debunking any of the other pseudosciences, do let me know. Below, in no particular order, are some links that may be of interest to those who would like to hear what some voices of rationality have to say.
Scientific American
Skeptic News
Bad Astronomy
ScienceBlogs
James Randi archives
Crank Dot Net
Bad Science
The Quackerywatch Blog
I admit this is getting one-sided. Since I like to hear both sides of a case, why don’t you share with us the positive results of some startling research in the so-called “sciences” mentioned above? Double-blind trials and multiple confirmations are manadatory, because one-off instances could simply be coincidences. I’d be the first to change my opinion, given sufficient evidence. Leaps of faith, alas, don’t count.
Sorry, Lakshmi, for using your blog to host an intellectual debate!
February 10, 2006 — 10:09 am
Lakshmi says:
Re: Some scientific obervations
Sorry, Lakshmi, for using your blog to host an intellectual debate!
Debates are fine.. as long as there are no nasty comments..:-)
February 10, 2006 — 1:30 pm
sat_chit_anand says:
I think you have listed some sites which have some interesting opinions by a host of people. On Bad Science website, I didnt find any research papers talking about outcomes. It appeared to me that there were like minded people who wanted to host their opinion on all things they beleive as pseudo-science. My whole point of asking for research is to understand what is behind labelling anything psuedo-science. Mind you at no point of time did I mention that any of the things listed are science. But what I want to get to is that it has become very habitual within the scientific community to label something psuedo-science without approaching it from the spirit of science i.e. a spirit of inquiry. I am also aware of scientific magazines, and just listing them doesnt mean that they give both sides of the argument. Even within so many theories within science, whether you talk about evolution of universe, quantum physics etc. there are theories and counter-theories. By publishing a counter theory does it mean that the point is proven. The body of science is ever expanding, to label anything as science or non-science is indeed a tough job. Geo-centric theory was also once science and then an heretic (so-called) like Galileo stated otherwise and now that has become science. Such is the nature of knowledge and science – ever expanding as human experience. Jumping on a conclusion or having the intention of concluding in one way based on ones conviction is not the true spirit of science. Instead like you said having an open mind is important. I truly appreciate your points – it indeed is an interesting question. Something to wonder about!!!!
February 10, 2006 — 11:08 am
Anonymous says:
hi Lakshmi, Its me ….Darshan…i have gone thru a few of ur blogs and they are good i have my pwn blog as well…http://edarshan.blogspot.com
February 10, 2006 — 11:12 am
Lakshmi says:
Hi! Shall check out your blog soon…:-)
February 10, 2006 — 1:28 pm
hemya says:
the other monkeys also need to be willing to learn….my dad’s been practicing meditation for the last 12 years and has tried on number of occasions to get me into it…he was big time into SSY…which i think is similar in some ways to AOL right???…i think finally he gave up……nothing against his techniques…..but for the moment that is not my cup of tea…..
February 10, 2006 — 12:41 pm
Lakshmi says:
Well, whatever skill these monkeys learned was at a gross level. Whereas the vibrations created by meditation are so subtle.. willing or unwilling, you’ll be benefited by them anyway!
I am not familiar with SSY, sorry!
February 10, 2006 — 1:31 pm
hemya says:
i know eventually it is something i will try….but as of now for some reason i am prejudiced….so wanna approach it when i completely ready……what Ma told me is that they originate from the sam eschool of thought and there was something else which i cant recall abhi
February 10, 2006 — 1:36 pm
hemya says:
your fascination and devotion to AOL is similar to the phase dad went through with SSY…..and its nice to see that…so dont get me wrong when i sound scpetical…..its just that at a personal level i am not yet convinced for some reasons….but he maintains that SSY (siddha samadhi yoga)is responsible for his blood pressure being in control for which he has never had to take any dava…..
February 10, 2006 — 1:39 pm
Lakshmi says:
It is commonly known that meditation has multiple benefits. 20 minutes of meditation can be more restful than 8 hours of sleep. Any action that can give you such deep rest is inherently healing, I think.
February 10, 2006 — 1:52 pm
hemya says:
shall keep that in mind:)
February 10, 2006 — 1:55 pm
dunefield says:
the strangest connection developed when i went through your profile.
i did my junior college at fergusson pune between 1995-1997.i was in division e.i was in pune for 9 years before i moved to the u.s of a in 2004.
the world is round i guess.
February 11, 2006 — 12:08 pm
Anonymous says:
Trust, confidence etc. lead to mental peace which in effect helps one physically also. After all, mind and body are closely related.
You know that most of the deaths due to snake bites are not because of poison but out of fear. In villages, in olden days there used to be certain people who cure snake bites using ash and blowing air. Here the confidence of the patient on the person who treats destroys the fear and likely get cured.
The same is applicale for those who belive in God. That belief and trust give him mental peace which helps him physically also. other that that, there is no explanation or proof for God which itself is not clearly defined.
February 11, 2006 — 1:51 am
savyasachi says:
First, the mathematical illustration is entirely misguided – exponential growth is MUCH faster than what you describe, which is JUST x^2.
Having crossed that rather shallow mathematical remark, what is the sense of “Consciousness is Energy”?! This is an ASSERTION, no proofs attached, and nothing but ” spiritual intuition” of some kind to guide us. What then, can I possibly make of the rest of this argument/statement?
Thirdly, you are talking here about three ENTIRELY different things – an experiment, prayer, and meditation. My understanding is that these three have very little to do with each other, if anything.
Lets us take the experiment first. Is this in a refereed publication? If so, has someone repeated the experiment with the exact same result? If not, why is no one interested in doing it? If yes, has someone done a statistical significance test on all such experiments performed? Has anyone looked into the experiment, its design, its priors, its methodology etc.?
Prayer – there is something that is THOUGHT to be universally understood, but NEVER is. For instance, most people would call “asking for better living conditions” prayer, and in many senses, THIS IS wishing for better human condition, but in its narrowest, and therefore utterly useless form. How can you talk of prayer and meditation in the same breath then?
Perhaps I am merely confused as to what your point really is…..
February 11, 2006 — 11:26 pm
madmanraj says:
excatly
If you have the time google two numbers for me (2012) and (1.618)
also check out http://www.crystallotus.com
and tell me if you speak the same tongue.
Regards,
Ray
March 6, 2006 — 10:08 pm