Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FRINGE SCIENCE
>
Telepathic Communication Between Humans and Plants
Perhaps we should consult Prince Charles on this one. He doesn't just talk to his plants, he instructs them and swears they respond...as per this Daily Mail article - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...Does this mean vegetarians should immediately become meat-eaters?
Must away. There's a lettuce in my garden looking a little forlon. I best go and cheer him up with a few kind words...
Dennis wrote: "I have recently come across several studies that have identified a telepathic (or energetic) communication between plants and humans.In multiple studies, plants have presented a measurable response..."I believe it, but tend to think the phrase "energetic communication" would be more apt than "telepathic communication".
James wrote: "Dennis wrote: "I have recently come across several studies that have identified a telepathic (or energetic) communication between plants and humans.In multiple studies, plants have presented a meas..."Perhaps "energetic immagination" would be even more apt...
Lance wrote: "Perhaps "energetic immagination" would be even more apt......"I think there's a fair amount of scientific research to validate it or at least make it very hard to dismiss.
James wrote: "Lance wrote: "Perhaps "energetic immagination" would be even more apt......"I think there's a fair amount of scientific research to validate it or at least make it very hard to dismiss."
More speculation than hardcore research I suspect.
Here's just one relevant report relating to plant perception...
"The television show MythBusters performed an experiment (Season 4, Episode 18, 2006) to verify or disprove the concept (of plant perception). The tests were done by connecting plants to a polygraph galvanometer and employing actual and imagined harm upon the plants or upon others in the plant's vicinity. The galvanometer showed some kind of reaction about one third of the time. The experimenters, who were in the room with the plant, posited that the vibrations of their actions or the room itself could have affected the polygraph. After isolating the plant the polygraph showed a response slightly less than one third of the time. Later experiments with an EEG failed to detect anything. When the presenters dropped eggs randomly into boiling water, the plant had no reaction whatsoever, and the show concluded that the results were not repeatable, and that the theory was not true.(Wikipedia).
Jury's still out methinks...
James- I think energetic communication is a much better reference. Thanks for the suggestion!Lance - I was not aware of those statistics you just provided. (Not sure how I feel about them being from Wikipedia). But I don't remember those being the results. I will go back and re-watch the episode. The links should be attached to the article I provided. Also, I'm not sure how an egg being dropped in boiling water was supposed to trigger a reaction, unless it contained a live chick. In the original documentary, brine shrimp were dropped into a pot of boiling water. The scientist allowed for a random timer to trigger the release into the water so he was in no way able to consciously impact the study. He left the office, and upon a later review of the data, the instant the shrimp went into the water the plant registered a significant reading on the machine. I will try to find the link to the original documentary. It seems to be one of those vids that continues to disappear whenever it gets posted.
Thanks for your feedback, gentlemen!
Okay well maybe I'm wrong, but I just sense there must be a way for all living things to create some form of communication...even if just very basic communication...I mean, only half a century ago people would have said it's impossible for humans and dolphins to communicate.
Maybe being blind (with other senses heightened) Stevie knew something the rest of us don't...
Edward, most people don't want to consider such a possibility because to realize that there may be a level of communication is to see that we may have forgotten how to listen. It's easier to criticize an artist when they make such a claim than it is to accept our own faults.
James, you're right. The links attached to my articles have a few videos that demonstrate a plans ability to communicate. Also, if you've ever listened to Gregg Braden, he does a great job explaining how all matter communicates on a quantum level; how consciousness can influence particles. It's fascinating.
Thanks Dennis - I believe
A very interesting topic. I agree with James- that there must be a way for all organisms to communicate, even if it's very simple. I believe it could be possible for plants to "read" human minds, it seems a bit far fetched though, yet like James also said, "only half a century ago people would have said it's impossible for humans and dolphins to communicate." So I believe that energetic plant communication may be possible. I'm on the edge though, not entirely convinced.I enjoy your bit of humor Lance, ha ha.
Fay wrote: "A very interesting topic. I agree with James- that there must be a way for all organisms to communicate, even if it's very simple. I believe it could be possible for plants to "read" human minds, i..."Thanks Fay. Glad someone does! Good to know there's one fan out there at least. (Besides me that is)...
Fay, it's such a neat topic. There should be a link to some videos connected to that article. One of them discusses how plans can communicate with chemicals. They found evidence that plans of the same kin will share nutrients, but plans not "related"will compete for them.
Come on people, we all know Prince Charles is crackers: it's all that aristocratic inbreeding! Similar to your plants/communication hypothesis I have a generic issue for you all to discuss which can be phrased abstractly as follows: Given any event X and any unrelated event Y
Discuss evidence for X affecting Y
Waste hours of your time looking at the connections. Then conclude that the "jury is still out", which of course it would be as there is no evidence. This is basically what you've done above.
The problem as many of you might be aware is that studies of X versus Y are rarely done from a proper statistical basis. Some studies will show a connection between X and Y purely by chance. If you do enough studies, there will be one that proves that X causes Y. This is an issue which scientists struggle with all the time.
When you measure a process then you should also measure the uncertainty of the measurement. Using those statistics you can deduce that the probability of an event occurring by chance might be, say, 5%. It is only by doing more and more tests that you can narrow that uncertainty.
The problem also is that humans are often very selective in what they will look at. For example suppose you have 10 unrelated things that you want to force a relation on, then that will give 90 different pairs of relationships. If 5% of them are related by chance then 5 of the relationships will seem promising even though they're simply chance occurrences. Being human we focus on those 5 events, whether it's talking to plants or not.
What often happens then, is that as we investigate a given relationship more, the statistics asserts themselves, and we often find a relationship collapse.
I think the book "bad science" goes into this a bit in the context of pharmaceutical companies. They invent a drug and they run trials with a small number of people. They get a significant result and then go to market even though the drug does no more than a placebo. Often the performance of a drug declines as the number of people in the trial goes up --- the result of the proper science asserting itself above the statistical noise. I think modern drug trials take account of the statistics properly, though.
The proper way forwards to investigate effects is to think of a hypothesis: X causes Y. By all means do the statistics to show that it is not a chance occurrence. However, before doing very much you need to have a mechanism that is measurable. The plant hypothesis doesn't have a measurable mechanism. Get a mechanism before wasting any more time on this.
John wrote: "Come on people, we all know Prince Charles is crackers: it's all that aristocratic inbreeding! Similar to your plants/communication hypothesis I have a generic issue for you all to discuss which ca..."And there we have it folks. Science has spoken. I guess that's the end of the debate then. Ah well, it was good while it lasted...
I wonder if anyone will run the theory.. of sound waves and the way they interact. With Growth of these plants. Each sound wave creates a certain pattern.
Oh, come on! There must be somebody who disagrees with me!
John wrote: "Given any event X and any unrelated event YDiscuss evidence for X affecting Y.."
Not all phenomenon can be squeezed into your X and Y equations.
John wrote: "Come on people, we all know Prince Charles is crackers: it's all that aristocratic inbreeding! Similar to your plants/communication hypothesis I have a generic issue for you all to discuss which ca..."I find your argument frustrating, John. Starting with your statement about "wasting hours of time" looking at connections. I don't think it is a waste of time at all. Whether the time I spend proves or disproves what I am investigating, either way something has been learned. If the problem is not solved, it is still not a waste of time because often during the process of research and investigation, we learn things we never set out to learn in the first place. As a teacher, this is incredibly valuable. As a former intelligence agent, this often proved to be useful.
As far as "proper statistics" are concerned, what does that even really mean? I have seen numbers manipulated so many times to fit a particular proof (ie to sell X drug) or more recently to convince a population that students are failing because the "data" of their skewed tests reflects failure.
You are right - if you do enough studies, you will find a way to prove anything you want. But in relation to the tests were X result happens 5% of the time, why isn't that significant? What variables are in place that cause that result to manifest 5% of the time. I don't think dismissing that fact, no matter how small it may be, is wise or conclusive. That is the % I am interested in knowing more about. Sometimes there may be more to something than chance.
This reminds me of DNA (with my limited knowledge). Wasn't the majority of DNA considered Junk DNA because science couldn't figure out what it did? Talk about arrogance! If I can't explain it, it must be a waste. OR, maybe science isn't looking in the right places.
My other problem with the scientific method is that it can be too restrictive and too scientific! What ever happened to just wondering about something, and trying to figure it out? Personally, I have had so much fun exploring this topic and this possibility. I have taken a lot of inspiration from it, and adopted an even greater respect for nature and the world around me.
I understand the value that the scientific method brings, but sometimes a lack of evidence or proof only means the right method of investigation has not been applied.
Lastly, I don't understand why you felt the need to inform us to "get a mechanism before wasting any more time on this." If you find this wasteful, then simply scroll past our discussion. The last time somebody told me I was wasting my time, I ignored them and kept pushing. As a result, we ended up identifying a terrorist cell that was plotting against us. By telling people to stop wasting time, it creates tension, hostility, and conflict. But we are all simply trying to explore an idea that to some of us (me) is so incredibly exciting. Why do you have to try to bring that down? Instead of speaking in vague scientific method explanations, set out to disprove the hypothesis and present us with tangible data.
Dennis wrote: "Fay, it's such a neat topic. There should be a link to some videos connected to that article. One of them discusses how plans can communicate with chemicals. They found evidence that plans of the s..."Thanks Dennis. I'll check the videos out, I hadn't seen them before.
Lance wrote: "Fay wrote: "A very interesting topic. I agree with James- that there must be a way for all organisms to communicate, even if it's very simple. I believe it could be possible for plants to "read" hu..."Ha ha, you're welcome.
Dennis wrote: "John wrote: "Come on people, we all know Prince Charles is crackers: it's all that aristocratic inbreeding! Similar to your plants/communication hypothesis I have a generic issue for you all to dis..."Well said Dennis. Your responses are spot on and kinda encapsulate the essence and spirit of this group. Bottom line is...ALL viewpoints are welcome here... Absolutism and autocracy aside (of course).
Thanks, Lance. I appreciate your support and am glad your group has the same approach. These debates and discussions, besides the value they hold, are a lot of fun!
Am picking up some disturbing vibes from my troubled lettuces again. Must go check. Back soon...
In the book Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey Into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism, Daniel Pinchbeck posits the theory that plants (and fungi) have co-evolved with humans to rule the world through them. The means of communication by which they do this is not telepathy, the postulate goes, but is via the minds of shamans, who have been present in nearly all cultures through history, are often leaders, and who almost always use plants as the means of opening up the door between the physical and the spiritual/ancestral world before acting upon what they see there. Shamanic influence is not as prominent in the modern day in most places, but drug taking is, so plants continue to exert a strong, if diminished, influence on human spiritual behaviour.I think that is a pretty cool theory. The telepathy thing I find a lot harder to digest. Take a garden: the gardener will generally feel negatively towards the weeds and positively about the plants he wants to grow. Do the weeds care, or have any reaction at all, to the fact that the gardener intends to harm them? My bet is no - they just carry on growing. Conversely, a lot of the well-tended plants will die despite all the affection.
Back! Pleased to report my troubled lettuces are no longer troubled. Beamed a few kind thoughts their way (oh, and I watered them, too) and they've perked up no end...
Lance wrote: "Back! Pleased to report my troubled lettuces are no longer troubled. Beamed a few kind thoughts their way (oh, and I watered them, too) and they've perked up no end..."Ha ha ha, Oh Lance, thank you.
Lance wrote: "Perhaps we should consult Prince Charles on this one. He doesn't just talk to his plants, he instructs them and swears they respond...as per this Daily Mail article - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new..."LOL
If we acknowledge emotion as a force, when projected towards others, then we can see that in human affairs, let alone plants. Having someone stare at you who is angry and has murderous intent, usually leads to people averting their gaze or freezing in position, in order to avoid provoking the person
Tony, that's a very submissive behavior. ..i don't think everyone would look away...meaning, we are not all submissive.
Lisa wrote: "Tony, that's a very submissive behavior. ..i don't think everyone would look away...meaning, we are not all submissive."Know but looking would mean engaging and that would lead to confrontation, unless you are very good at disarming people non-violently (and I have seen that happen)
Tony wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Tony, that's a very submissive behavior. ..i don't think everyone would look away...meaning, we are not all submissive."Know but looking would mean engaging and that would lead to co..."
You don't necessarily have to be good at it. I think it shows your 'opponent' that you are not going to be an easy target.
This is getting a little off target. I was trying to point out that energy and intention is dispersed this way and that if humans can feel it from other humans, then why not plants as they react to heat, rain, sunlight etc?
Tony wrote: "This is getting a little off target. I was trying to point out that energy and intention is dispersed this way and that if humans can feel it from other humans, then why not plants as they react to..."yea, there are some books on it that I need to read...I've been a little torn on the subject and not sure exactly where I stand. There has been some research done on it that I'd like to look into. Of course there could be energies that haven't been explored and should not be ruled out.
Back again. Since my last scientific report I divided the lettuces in my backyard garden into two rows (Row A & Row B). I've directed nothing but smiles and kind thoughts toward those in Row A, and I glared at those in Row B directing nothing but ill-will toward them. I can report they are now ALL troubled, traumatized even.
My conclusion: It seems plants may respond to negative vibes and unkind thoughts, but not to kind thoughts.
My penpal Charles (that's Prince Charles to you) advised me the Row A lettuces may have picked up on the ill will shown to their Row B neighbors...so I am now relocating the B-lot from my backyard to frontyard before continuing the experiment.
Summary: The jury's still out.
Watch this space!
lol....that's probably why I kill all plants I try to grow!
Tony, in response to your original comment, I agree. Emotion can be a force, and that force can be felt without physical contact which is why sometimes we can sense when someone is staring at us even if we aren't looking at them.Lance - Loved the write-up! I've been doing more digging on this subject, and actually decided to dedicate a chapter to it in my book. Cleve Backster, who is credited with discovering this phenomenon, discovered that plants are constantly scanning their environment for other lifeforms and will imprint on whatever is near them. In some cases its another plant, a person, or even bacteria.
In one experiment in the film "The Secret Life of Plants," they placed 2 plants next to each other in an empty room. A scientist came in and completely shredded one of the plants with his bare hands. He left the room, but when he returned later the second plant spiked a reaction to his presence as if it had remembered his harsh action. So it is quite possible that your second row of lettuce was being affected by your negativity towards the lettuce in row A! :)
Dennis wrote: "I've been doing more digging on this subject, and actually decided to dedicate a chapter to it in my book. Cleve Backster, who is credited with discovering this phenomenon, discovered that plants are constantly scanning their environment for other lifeforms and will imprint on whatever is near them. In some cases its another plant, a person, or even bacteria. ..."Very interesting research you've uncovered Dennis.
Makes sense to me.
Dennis wrote: "Tony, in response to your original comment, I agree. Emotion can be a force, and that force can be felt without physical contact which is why sometimes we can sense when someone is staring at us ev..."Interesting. Thanks Dennis. I shall bounce this off Charles and let you know what his response is. Stand by. I'll be back...
Yes Dennis, Rupert Sheldrake in the UK has carried out experiments on this but it was through a large glass panel with a group of people, staring at rush hour commuters, which means most didn't react because they were focused on getting to work, however I do remember seeing one guy turn round as this was filmed and shown on British television some years back.
I also remember a study was carried out on communication, which disclosed most is non-verbal (body language), followed by tone of voice (emotion) and lastly (at a few percent) intellectually content (the words themselves). This is why you get mixed messages of say someone saying he loves somebody else but the tone of the voice and body stance says 'I loathe you' instead.
James, I think plants respond to negativity by withdrawing but positive reactions are just the plant growing (sigh of relief equivalent perhaps?).
Tony wrote: "Yes Dennis, Rupert Sheldrake in the UK has carried out experiments on this but it was through a large glass panel with a group of people, staring at rush hour commuters, which means most didn't rea..."Sheldrake rocks! A very open-minded scientist who conducts cool experiments.
Tony wrote: "I also remember a study was carried out on communication, which disclosed most is non-verbal (body language), followed by tone of voice (emotion) and lastly (at a few percent) intellectually conten..."Did Hitler understand this? Is that why he was able to convince so many to accept his evil ideas? Because he knew how to influence the minds of millions using voice tones and the perfect rhythym of speech and perhaps symbolism?
Tony - you bring up some great points. They say something like 97% of all communication is non-verbal. When I worked in law enforcement, I relied more on a persons body language than on what they were actually saying. Taking it a step further, as an empath I often get a sense of a persons intentions or feelings just by standing in the same room with them. I'm actually writing about this level of energetic communication between organisms in my new book now. As energetic beings, we are constantly transmitting a field that contains all of our "data." Some people are more sensitive to receiving that data and can easily interpret it - much like the plants.
Rollin McCraty, Ph.D. published a paper that focused on the electromagnetic fields generated by the heart and stated they "may act as a synchronizing signal for the body in a manner analogous to information carried by radio waves." He explained that this energy is both transmitted to our brains but is also detectable to others within range.
I also suspect that since we are dealing with frequencies, they can influence the frequencies of those around them. As an empath, crowds are overwhelming because I start to feel everyones stress and frustration. In watching recent events in the news, the Mob Mentality makes so much more sense now. If people start vibrating at a frequency of agitated, as more people arrive, that frequency will be strengthened and the agitation will increase.
James - I think Hitler was well aware of this and used it to his advantage. Great comment!
sounds like a very interesting book you are working on, Dennis. I've wondered about energy...if it's something we create based on our presumptions or if it is actually being emitted...like when people say that they can feel someone staring at them...can we read such things without using our eyes or is our brain playing 'tricks' on us. It doesn't matter how good you are at reading body languages if you can sense individuals not in your line of vision.....if we assume that plants are sentient beings, then do they also have electrical fields? auras?
What about the phenomenon of for instance hearing somebody walk in the door, but nobody is there, but a few minutes later, an individual walks in the door. I've heard so many similar stories of people experiencing forewarnings, if you will, but not sure they are real....this part has nothing to do with plants. ...sorry.
Lisa as a side issue, I've remembered the incident where someone acted in an unexpected way. I think it was Dan Milman or a martial art expert, on the Tokyo underground. A hefty guy walked down the carriages, shouting and threatening passengers, so this man psyched himself up for a fight. Suddenly a little old man jumped up and said you poor man, you must be suffering terribly. At which point the burly man burst into tears and explained his wife had died that morning.
If plants can indeed read human thoughts, what does this say about nature and our relationship to it. Are we capable of an avatar-like communication with the natural world. If so, why do you think this information is not being taught in every single school around the world?
You can read more about this here:
http://www.serviceofchange.com/plants/