07-12-2009, 05:27 PM
I don't believe in frequency's effect on the general public. I think a lot of people do not have psychic abilities, any more than emphatic abilities, so they cannot tune into the frequency of the forest. Say if you are a theme park, and it looks like a forest, and it smells like a forest, then you will enjoy it like the forest. In this case, we physiologically react to the seemingly real forest.
And I can "tune" into the frequency of a forest. So can a lot of people. So can actors. That's how they act out what's in their imagination and the audience would follow along In this case, we react to the forest in our imaginations. The stronger our memory of the forest, the better.
We have physiological and imaginative reflexes wired into our brains, eyes, and olfactory glands.
My claim wasn't that you get the complete benefit of looking at a picture or dynamic video of nature. Conversely, the article says that showing a photo of urban can trigger some stress, not the same stress as if you are in the city.
And I can "tune" into the frequency of a forest. So can a lot of people. So can actors. That's how they act out what's in their imagination and the audience would follow along In this case, we react to the forest in our imaginations. The stronger our memory of the forest, the better.
We have physiological and imaginative reflexes wired into our brains, eyes, and olfactory glands.
My claim wasn't that you get the complete benefit of looking at a picture or dynamic video of nature. Conversely, the article says that showing a photo of urban can trigger some stress, not the same stress as if you are in the city.