It sure would have been nice to have engaged the two researchers here instead of getting mucked up by one poster's fixation on one, narrow aspect of the experimental environment.
Maybe we'll learn to be skeptical and discerning in the future while maintaining a basic level of decorum (as opposed to inferring incompetence or fraud).
(2017-09-07, 09:18 AM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]And I didn't see that post [of Brian's suggesing the possibility that Guy Playfair might not have just been absurdly gullible but makes his living from writing haunted house stories].
It's not surprising that you didn't see that post, Roberta, because it was on another forum (Skeptiko) during a recent period where you were inactive there. It's good to know that you are consistent in applying your principles though.
(2017-09-07, 08:08 AM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Gabriel,
thanks for taking the time to join the discussion. It is much appreciated.
Did participants in your study use mantras and/or chanting during their sessions? If so what precautions did you employ to avoid artifacts caused by those vibrations?
Thanks
Bucky, I emailed Gabriel to let him know that Max_B was still not satisfied, and that you had addressed this direct question to him (Gabriel), and his response was that he had too much work to do to bother dealing with Max's concerns, but he also let us know that in his experiments, "No chanting or voicing was allowed". So, that answers your (and Max's) question, but it seems that further direct engagement is not going to be possible for the moment.
(2017-09-07, 01:20 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ],,,, but it seems that further direct engagement is not going to be possible for the moment.
I don't blame him. I'm sure he recognizes a waste of time when he sees one.
I just don't know why
I don't...
(2017-09-07, 01:20 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Bucky, I emailed Gabriel to let him know that Max_B was still not satisfied, and that you had addressed this direct question to him (Gabriel), and his response was that he had too much work to do to bother dealing with Max's concerns, but he also let us know that in his experiments, "No chanting or voicing was allowed". So, that answers your (and Max's) question, but it seems that further direct engagement is not going to be possible for the moment.
Thanks for relaying his message
His reply clarifies this issue once and for all. Too bad he couldn't engage a bit more, though personally I don't think I had more questions about his study.
Cheers
(2017-09-07, 04:28 PM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for relaying his message
His reply clarifies this issue once and for all. Too bad he couldn't engage a bit more, though personally I don't think I had more questions about his study.
Cheers
Hi, Bucky
This subject doesn't particularly interest me but you and some others seem to understand it very well. Are we basically talking here about collapsing the wave function from a distance ? Or have I got it
about face ? (wrong)
(2017-09-07, 05:22 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Hi, Bucky
This subject doesn't particularly interest me but you and some others seem to understand it very well. Are we basically talking here about collapsing the wave function from a distance ? Or have I got it about face ? (wrong)
Hi there,
Yes that is what the study claims. I am not fully convinced though, to me it looks like a possible demonstration of micro PK more than anything else.
Cheers
(2017-09-07, 06:35 PM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]Hi there,
Yes that is what the study claims. I am not fully convinced though, to me it looks like a possible demonstration of micro PK more than anything else.
Cheers
Thanks, Bucky. Chaos theory, then is it.
(2017-09-07, 06:35 PM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]Hi there,
Yes that is what the study claims. I am not fully convinced though, to me it looks like a possible demonstration of micro PK more than anything else.
Cheers
Are those two ways of naming a single phenomenon?
(2017-09-07, 06:41 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]Are those two ways of naming a single phenomenon?
Good question Typoz... I have no idea
I am not sure that an instance of micro PK justifies the leap to saying that consciousness collapses the wave function.
For starters we don't know if such phenomenon exists (the collapse), secondly I am not sure what it really means that consciousness causes the probability wave to create a specific outcome.
Is it attention that does this? Is it will power? Or is it unconscious? Perhaps all of them?
What about cat consciousness, does it collapse waves too? And what about mosquito proto-consciousness?
Ordinarily we don't need to meditate on collapsing any wave function, yet reality keeps going. So how does it work?
If consciousness makes reality are we really talking just about mental activity of living beings or are we including some all-permeating field, MAL if you wish, which does the "hard work"?
Given the tiny effect that trained meditators exert on the test device I am not sure what role our consciousness really plays.
Sorry, this might be a bunch of confused questions
, but I honestly struggle to understand what the premise of the study really means. To avoid further headaches I've always considered it a micro PK study more than anything else.
cheers