A very intersting book by some scientists explores the almost vanishingly small but consistent effects humans can have on machine operations. The group that continues this research is PEAR, the Princeton Engineering Anomaly Research laboratory. There is a web site for this group. The book I read is called Margins of Reality and is fascinating. I recommend it.
The point here is that these folks show strong evidence that human thought DOES influence machine operation, which pertains to the alleged effect on inanimate materials. Other plausible claims derive from studies that, I have read, were performed on an elderly couple called the Worrells (spelling?). Supposedly they could influence a cloud chamber's patterns at a distance. Again, thought influence on non-living matter. JBB Marshall Dudley wrote: > > Yes, we had him down as a speaker for the SFF in Baltimore in 1970. He would > always send the plants thoughts when on tour, record the time, then when he > returned verify a response on the polygraph rolls. He claimed to always get a > response. I at one time was able to mentally send the needle to one extreme > or > the other by simply concentrating on a plant hooked up to a galvonic > instrument. > I have no idea if I can still do that or not. > > The really wierd thing that I don't think he ever published was that he > obtained > some carbon filled rubber, used in operating rooms for the surgeons shoe soles > and so forth to dissapate static electricity. When a piece of it was hooked > up > to a polygraph, the needle would respond exactly the same was as if attached > to > a plant. And, if memory serves me right, it reacted to thoughts the same way > as > well. I don't think he ever published that part since people were having a > hard > enough time believing that a living plant could respond to thoughts, he was > likely afraid that the other would tend to discredit the idea completely since > it was inantimate syntetic rubber. > > Marshall > > Trem wrote: > > > Hi Marshall, > > > > I think he was even able to influence plants on the far side of the country > > too with brainwaves. It's been so long since I read it but that still > > sticks with me unless my mind made it up. At the time I had just turned > > vegetarian. At least killing veggies didn't bother me as much as killing > > critters. The critters could watch you do it. The plants didn't try to run > > away. > > > > Trem > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Marshall Dudley" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 12:01 PM > > Subject: Re: CS>Unsupported denials & claims-Placebo effect > > > > > Cleve Backseter, in the early 70's discovered that plants react to thought > > when > > > he was a polygraph expert with the FBI. Published a book by the name of > > "The > > > Secret Life of Plants". Proved that even double blind studies can be > > flawed > > > because even simple plants would react to events in the other room, even > > if the > > > experimenters did not know what was going on in the other room, and would > > react > > > to the experimenters thoughts. > > > > > > Marshall > > > > > > Barbara Liles wrote: > > > > > > > What is the Backster effect? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Marshall Dudley <[email protected]> > > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:12 PM > > > > Subject: Re: CS>Unsupported denials & claims-Placebo effect > > > > > > > > > I think that the Backster effect shows that even in lab surroundings, > > you > > > > really > > > > > can't be sure. Since it can occur with plants, it might with animals > > as > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > Marshall > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On a non-related note, I've been seeing the idea float around that > > the > > > > > > > placebo effect does not apply with animals. This is markedly > > > > untrue...in a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > laboratory setting it is likely true that the placebo effect > > > > > > > will not manifest in animals, but in a home setting it very well > > > > could. > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Digest V102 #508) > > > > > > Now THERE'S theoretical proof; markedly to likely to could. > > > > > > jr > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal > > silver. > > > > > > > > > > > > Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: > > http://silverlist.org > > > > > > > > > > > > To post, address your message to: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > Silver-list archive: > > http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
