Unknown to me until now, Lynne McTaggart (author of The Field and The Intention Experiment, discussed in my previous post) has apparently been spearheading a series of actual "intention experiments" online. This is done by giving online readers a certain task to "intend" upon, and observing the results.
I found a very interesting discussion thread on the JREF Forum that details the various iterations of McTaggart's website over the last several months. Apparently, every "intention experiment" promoted by the website is referred to as "the first intention experiment." When that experiment fails or produces inconclusive data, the next experiment is called the "first," and so on.
The "experiments" themselves appear to be completely nonsensical. For example, one of the experiments was to measure the emissions of "biophotons" from plants that were being intended to glow by distant observers. According to the website:
Our first experiments examined the alteration in the tiny light — called biophoton emissions — being emitted from living things. We chose to look at this tiny current of light, because it is infinitely more subtle than, say, cellular growth rate.
Of course! Why measure something tangible, when you can measure something "infinitely more subtle"!
The current incarnation of the Intention website doesn't even brag about the results of the experiments anymore, but instead directs visitors to purchase McTaggart's books and DVDs, and join an online community that's reminiscent of some kind of sad, pathetic support group for people who are uncomfortable saying, "won't you pray for me?"
Here's an example of the Intention website's community posts:
...In 2001 I was diagnosed with Breast Cancer. I had a mastectomy & chemo (experimental) that just about killed me. I had a bad reaction that left me with nerve damage and constant bone/joint/muscle stiffness & pain. Last week I had my annual mammogram on the remaining breast. I rec. a letter saying there was a "suspicious" area, so I have to return on 8-8-07 for more films/sonogram. I would really appreciate as many members as possible to send the intent that all will be fine...
Wait a minute... for some reason that has a very familiar ring to it. What if we replace the word "intent" with the word "prayer"? Isn't this the exact same thing?!
Who are they trying to kid? Instead of praying to an invisible supernatural deity, they're simply praying to an invisible supernatural "field"! Well, I'm afraid the old adage still applies: Nothing fails like prayer.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
You are entitled to your opinion. That does not make you absoulutly right. You should try to be more open minded about this beautiful mystery..... there are too many unexplained coincidences.I will pray for you....
June 29th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Robbi:
Instead of contributing something constructive to the conversation, your comment contains nothing but condescension, which is regrettable. Just because I don't share your beliefs doesn't mean that my mind is closed. Unlike you, I've actually researched the facts, read books and medical journals, and heard just about every crackpot theory from New-age fanatics. This is what my conclusions are based upon -- not feel-good testimonies, nor the pseudo-intellectual hogwash of McTaggart or Neale Donald Walsch, but the straightforward evidence gathered over the centuries by hard-working scientists.
If you'd like to contribute further, then try clarifying this for me:
- Name some coincidences that you feel are "unexplained," and why you feel that way. What is the meaning behind these coincidences?
- When you pray for me, which god will you pray to? And, for the record, what precisely will you pray for? This could be a good opportunity to find out if prayer works. If you pray for something sufficiently unlikely, and it comes true, then I assure you I'll reevaluate my conclusions.
January 17th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I am a pretty open minded person, and this stuff seems cool, but just out there. From what I hear, some of this stuff defies physical laws that have been around for many many years, such as, matter can not be created or destroyed. Maybe we could have been wrong about it, but for now, I highly doubt that. But hey, if someone proves it, then awesome. I don't think they will, and I feel as though this whole thing is a bunch of bullshyt.
November 1st, 2010 at 12:46 pm
So, you have reviewed the research and made a scientific conclusion here?
November 1st, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Dave,
The experimenters haven't produced any research from which conclusions can be drawn. Are you referring to something specific?
November 14th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
You go girl. I am proud of you. I spent much of my live believing in prayer, which in my mind would be the same thing as sending intentions for some thing to change. IT DOES NOT WORK!! My thinking is now completely scientific based. The Intention Experiment is the same con job that people like Oral Roberts and others like him have used to take advantage of people.
April 12th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Oh, DB, you're so darned cute when you're supercilious!
It would appear that your exhaustive research hasn't included Brian Greene's 'The Hidden Universe.' Too bad...
April 12th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
@hag,
You're adorable when you spit out one-liners and never return for a meaningful exchange of ideas.
There's absolutely no connection between Brian Greene's writings (or anything currently done in modern physics) and the nonsense perpetuated by McTaggart and the like. Where exactly do you see a connection, by the way?
Brian Greene simply uses grandiose and flowery terminology to get laypeople excited about modern developments in physics, for which I applaud him, but it leads some people (like you, apparently), to believe that Greene endorses new-age bullshit.
It's like when Einstein said that "God doesn't play dice with the universe," he was using "god" as a metaphor and didn't mean that he actually believes in a deity.
Modern physics does not predict humans to be able to influence the world using "intentions," no matter how you twist Greene or any other respectable physicist.
April 13th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
So sorry, DB, but I haven't seen much here in the way of "a meaningful exchange of ideas."
I don't believe I ever said that Greene's writings support McTaggart et al., about whom I've already expressed a less-than-flattering opinion. [I do wish you'd stop jumping up and down about McTaggart and The Field when you're addressing me.] Rather, Greene's material is much more relevant to some of the teachings of any number of mystics, quite a different matter.
You're entitled to your opinions and experience and research; so am I. As I remember, you dismissed Reiki in toto as silly. Obviously, your experience with it is much different than my own. By all means, conduct an experiment if you like. Or not. I don't need to convince you that your experience of Reiki is anything other than that it is silly, although you seem to find it necessary to denigrate my experience. [BTW, I happen to have 30 years in physical rehabilitation; I know something about nerve damage, causes, and reversibility.] To loosely quote one of my all-time favorite people, I don't have research, I have results.
I know what I've seen and experienced, not only with Reiki but with a number of other modalities and techniques. Honestly? I was raised in an extremely rational/left-brain household and didn't believe in anything remotely outside the realm of good old Reality with a capital 'R;' it took me probably a couple of decades of...odd experiences to come to grips with the limitations of Horatio's philosophy. It has certainly been a long strange (and at times, crushingly disappointing) trip, but ultimately a rich one.
Out of mere curiosity, whose writings do you find palatable?
hag
April 19th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
@hag,
I do hope that you don't take any of my superciliousness personally. I never meant to "denigrate" your experiences with Reiki, and you certainly have every right to pursue any healing modality you like, if you believe it works for you.
What I meant to do was to denigrate Reiki itself, not your personal experience with it, and certainly not you for wanting to try it.
I'm generally careful to say things like "Modality X is stupid", instead of saying "You're stupid if you use Modality X". I never intend for it to sound like the latter.
Anyway, the reason I jumped to the conclusion that you implied Brian Greene's book lent support for McTaggart's theories is that you wrote about it in a comment to a blog post about McTaggart. What other conclusion would I draw?
Even after your clarification, I still fail to see what specific aspect of Greene's book lends support to any mystical teachings. If I may make a prediction, you're probably taking one of Greene's descriptions of quantum theory (watered down for laypeople), and making it seem like it fits with some pre-scientific mystical teaching. Greene himself doesn't believe anything of the sort, by the way.
I understand that your experiences with prolonged pain and rehabilitation must have had a profound influence on your choices of treatment, and I can't begin to empathize with that kind of pain. However, I also know that the body itself is an amazing self-healing machine, and placebo effects are very real.
The fact is that successful Reiki treatments are not repeatable, which is why it's ruled out as a scientifically valid modality.
The notion that Reiki "worked" for you simply means that your body healed itself around the same time as when you received the Reiki treatment. This should be the default assumption until proven otherwise. (until a double-blind study shows that Reiki actually "does" something)
What I always remember in the back of my mind is that my senses are fallible, and very easily deceived (and so are yours). Therefore, when I come across something that might initially appear "odd" or even "supernatural," I adopt a default skepticism towards it. And, time and time again, upon a closer and more objective look, I can derive a perfectly rational, natural, and much more satisfying and convincing explanation for it. And so can anyone.
P.S. Some (nonfiction) writers whose works I enjoy: David Hume, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, etc.
April 20th, 2012 at 1:22 pm
DB;
Thank you for your clarification.
I wrote that it was my dog who was healed by Reiki, not myself. [I did, in fact, blow out a disc myself some years later. Yes, it healed itself without Reiki or any other intervention but it was a very long and arduous process eventually resulting in spontaneous fusion.] My dog went from moderate+ neurological impairment to, literally, overnight complete recovery with no more signs/symptoms the rest of his life. I would be genuinely interested in a logical, allopathic explanation for this.
Greene basically says (among other things) that none of us actually experience "reality." Sort of like you last paragraph before the p.s., but more so.
Cheers.