(2017-09-06, 04:16 PM)guerrer Wrote: [ -> ]All sessions in my study used the headphone with a moderate volume for providing feedback to the participant. The same occurred in control sessions, the headphone playing the feedback was laying on the couch where the participants used to sit.
If the sound was causing any artifact it should appear in the controls as well. Besides that, it should be unidirectional. As opposed, the data revealed an anti-correlation between V1 zp sign and the slit enhancement proposal by each experiment (see section 2.5). It's challenging to explain how oscillations in the air medium could favor more light passing through one slit as compared to the other. Even more challenging is the fact the enhanced slit correlates to what was proposed by the feedback mechanism.
Thank you for clarifying that point. I had thought the sound feedback might have been present in the control sessions, but wasn't sure.
So any differences between the "relax" and "intention" conditions in the participant sessions due to the sound feedback, should also exist between the "relax" and "intention" conditions in the control sessions where there is no participant. In fact, the differences in sound level should if anything be greater in the control sessions, because there will be less leakage of sound from the headphones when they're attached to someone's head.
(2017-09-06, 05:16 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Not necessarily, the main way for air to escape through these active headphones is through the tuned ports, they don't function well without them, as air cannot escape easily when they are sealed on the users head. Presumably that condition changes when the headphones are not sealed to somebodies head? Neither do we know what happens when all that energy is tuned to a certain frequency by the port size and shape, and we don't know what happens to noise cancellation when the headphones are not sealed to somebodies head, bearing in mind there is a microphone inside them picking up ambient noise and attempting to compensate for it. You also still need to look at all vibration effects from air pressure, and how they affect the measuring device and it's parts at its fundamental frequency and upwards. And you still need to bear in mind the basic idea of the experiment has a problem, as attention sessions have feedback with increased SPL's, and the relax condition has no feed back with reduced SPL's. Also non control sessions didn't have a subject present who was asked to breath in and out deeply 3 times, I know these devices can be sensitive to air currents, depending in their construction. I also vaguely understood that the inside of the test area had no audio visual monitoring during sessions, and that mediators were not given instructions to remain quiet, or not to make any sound to influence feedback, but rather they had complete freedom to affect the device using any meditative technique they wished to use. As I recall those mediators who produced the greatest effect were also invited back. Radin's 2012 experiment seems to suggests that 'mantra repetition' and mindfulness meditation were two styles of mediation used by his subjects, and that "No attempt was made in the present studies to assess differences among reported meditation style". That suggests to me that some subjects may have been making a noise.
As far as I'm concerned the results are almost certainly caused by noise in the experiment that has not been accounted for, and they will need to do more work to eliminate it to see if the effect remains.
And if they had put the headphones on mannequin heads to enclose the tubes, Max would be going on about the differences between the density of Styrofoam vs human tissue, and for a better match, if they put them on cadaver heads the issue would be the fact that coagulated blood in the tissue resonates at a different frequency, and if,,,,,
Guys, you can't make progress on this. You are confusing Max with someone who actually cares about getting to the bottom of this. But it's interesting watching you try. And it actually serves a useful purpose, because it exposes the core of Max's thinking, which illustrates the ultimate emptiness of the argument.
In the end it seems: given half a chance, cream rises to the top and other stuff sinks to the bottom.
(2017-09-06, 05:54 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Guys, you can't make progress on this. You are confusing Max with someone who actually cares about getting to the bottom of this. But it's interesting watching you try. And it actually serves a useful purpose, because it exposes the core of Max's thinking, which illustrates the ultimate emptiness of the argument.
Well, the author of the paper has kindly clarified what the experimental conditions were, so we're in a better position to judge whether acoustic noise from the feedback was a problem. That seems unlikely to me.
(2017-09-06, 05:16 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I'm concerned the results are almost certainly caused by noise in the experiment that has not been accounted for, and they will need to do more work to eliminate it to see if the effect remains.
So now it comes down to unspecified, vague "noise" that you happen to "know" has was caused only by meditators and not by non-meditators, and you "know" that the experimenters didn't account for.
To be "certain" of all that requires Uri Geller levels of ESP. Can you also read my car's plate number from there?
(2017-09-06, 05:57 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Did you know that some of the mediators were using mantra repetitions...?
Not in the study linked in the OP.
The silence of our more skeptical thinkers is starting to speak volumes to me in this thread (sorry for the pun
).
Seriously, I would be curious to hear if others feel as adamantly negative about this experiment. Unfortunately, this thread has devolved into a "Max vs everybody" moshpit. (Another pun-like image comes to mind of Max running around with his fingers stuck in both ears chanting, "I can't hear you. I can't hear you." over and over.)
(2017-09-06, 06:14 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]It's not only likely, it's now certain. Some mediators in Radins 2012 experiment appear to have used mantra repetition, and in this experiment they were told to use any style of meditation they liked, and to affect the device in any way they could, in an effort increase the volume of the feedback tones through their headphones.
Had it even crossed your mind from reading the paper, that this might be the case?
I still haven't read all of the paper, and - as I mentioned - I hadn't read any of it when I saw your suggestion about the feedback sound being important.
(2017-09-06, 06:27 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]The silence of our more skeptical thinkers is starting to speak volumes to me in this thread (sorry for the pun ).
Seriously, I would be curious to hear if others feel as adamantly negative about this experiment. Unfortunately, this thread has devolved into a "Max vs everybody" moshpit. (Another pun-like image comes to mind of Max running around with his fingers stuck in both ears chanting, "I can't hear you. I can't hear you." over and over.)
If I could, I would have given your post two likes...
Hilarious.
(2017-09-06, 06:14 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]It's not only likely, it's now certain. Some mediators in Radins 2012 experiment appear to have used mantra repetition, and in this experiment they were told to use any style of meditation they liked, and to affect the device in any way they could, in an effort increase the volume of the feedback tones through their headphones.
Had it even crossed your mind from reading the paper, that this might be the case?
Max, see the previous page... The man (Guerrer) is here,
now is your chance to engage him. Dump all your concerns and rebuttals about this particular study at once, let your EMFs fly.
(2017-09-06, 04:16 PM)guerrer Wrote: [ -> ]All sessions in my study used the headphone with a moderate volume for providing feedback to the participant. The same occurred in control sessions, the headphone playing the feedback was laying on the couch where the participants used to sit.
If the sound was causing any artifact it should appear in the controls as well. Besides that, it should be unidirectional. As opposed, the data revealed an anti-correlation between V1 zp sign and the slit enhancement proposal by each experiment (see section 2.5). It's challenging to explain how oscillations in the air medium could favor more light passing through one slit as compared to the other. Even more challenging is the fact the enhanced slit correlates to what was proposed by the feedback mechanism.
Gabriel
Thanks for taking the time to comment Gabriel and for putting the sound vibration 'theory' to rest!