(2017-09-07, 09:34 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Some one said that this paper wasn't yet final?. G might make some amendments to his paper before it's published to make that point clear, as it's unclear from the paper, and it appears to be a deviation from at least one of Radin's papers. Perhaps this discussion has been useful to him.
In my experience very few researchers welcome criticism of their paper, they tend to be very defensive and protective of their work. But that's what the papers are for, somebody makes a claim in a paper, and other people will come out and challenge the claim.
Especially if the claim is extraordinary.
(2017-09-07, 10:10 PM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]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
We are a self involved species of animal. It's only human consciousness that's important and the only one that matters. That's the message I've been hearing from the Skeptiko crowd and its defectors generally, present company excluded
(2017-09-07, 08:34 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Patient for what? Some of us don't get to sit at home on computers all day. First of all, can you quote this insinuation word for word because I really don't remember seeing one in Max's posts. Secondly, if I suspect possible fraud, I should have the right to express my opinion - it's called free speech and I have previously come closer to the mark than Max supposedly has when I expressed the possibility that Guy Playfair might not have just been absurdly gullible but makes his living from writing haunted house stories. Nobody suggested I was being libellous but then Guy is just a Demi-god next to his Holiness, the divine Radin. Of course, it is perfectly acceptable for people to accuse people like me and Max of stuff isn't it?
The difference is that you didn't have Playfair come in here, directly contradict your claims/observation/conclusions and carry on as if they never bothered posting a rebuttal to your claims.
And for the record, I do remember mentioning that a proponent had once made a case against Playfair (before you) in that Skeptiko thread.
(2017-09-07, 06:35 PM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]...to me it looks like a possible demonstration of micro PK more than anything else.
I...
Already considered it micro-PK...???
Regardless if it's actual collapse or "simple" photon redirection, Guerrer went out there looking for mind-matter interaction... And solid evidence for either would still prove the hypothesis, wouldn't it?
(2017-09-07, 11:35 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]We are a self involved species of animal. It's only human consciousness that's important and the only one that matters. That's the message I've been hearing from the Skeptiko crowd and its defectors generally, present company excluded
No, Steve. We know that at least
some complexity is required to be an 'observer'. You can't really sanitize anything to the point where each and every microorganism is wiped and if it was simply a matter of having some sort of primitive environmental awareness, then bacteria or viruses would be capable of causing the proverbial wave function collapse. That doesn't happen. If it did, it's arguable if we would even know of the existence of the WFC, since it would happen a priori To our involvement with the system unless we ran the test under extrairdinary conditions.
Dean gave me permission to quote publicly in this thread the following, which he wrote to me in an email. I think it further hammers down the nail in the coffin of the "sound vibration caused the anomalous experimental results" theory:
Dean Radin Wrote:As for our double-slit studies, all participants in the lab-based experiments were told to remain still and quiet during test sessions. No sounds were heard from the participants by myself or my research assistant during these sessions. We've conducted quite a few studies involving meditators, and none ever chanted during experiments -- even if that was their usual meditative practice -- because we specifically ask them to remain quiet. If someone violated the instructions of a session, meditator or not, then that session was disqualified. But such events were very rare. I can recall just one session out of hundreds (in various experiments) that had to be disqualified, and that was because a participant became uncomfortable inside the shielded room (due to claustrophobia), so we had to end the session prematurely.
(2017-09-08, 01:14 AM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]I...
Already considered it micro-PK...???
Regardless if it's actual collapse or "simple" photon redirection, Guerrer went out there looking for mind-matter interaction... And solid evidence for either would still prove the hypothesis, wouldn't it?
Personally I find the study interesting but given the teeny tiny effect I'd like to see if it's possible to get a stronger one by having a group of meditators working together. This would also help to cross-confirm the hypothesis of the GCP and clear some of the ambiguity that is still present.
Another point of improvement in these studies would be blinding the researcher(s) from knowing which data set they are analyzing, as that's another potential pitfall for subtle bias. If I recall correctly this is not implemented neither in Guerrer's nor in Radin's study.
Again, with a bigger effect this would probably be less of a concern, but here it still is.
About collapse: in a scenario where there is no collapse there could still be a mental interaction (micro PK) between the agent and the interference pattern, causing a modification in the expected ratio of photons going through the slits.
However, to be fair the paper also mentions this in the hypothesis section (Radin mentions this also in his 2012 paper):
Quote: f) are retro-causal, i.e. obtainable even when the participant acts in previously recorded data that was kept unseen by any participant or the experimenter prior to the session
This is nothing new in parapsychology (
see here ) and it makes things even more complicated. So I might be totally wrong on this point.
(2017-09-07, 11:19 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Especially if the claim is extraordinary.
Extraordinary is subjective. But subjectivitiy is an illusion ... ergo there is no extraordinary claim
(2017-09-08, 06:11 AM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]Personally I find the study interesting but given the teeny tiny effect I'd like to see if it's possible to get a stronger one by having a group of meditators working together. This would also help to cross-confirm the hypothesis of the GCP and clear some of the ambiguity that is still present.
If a stronger effect can be achieved in correlation with increasing the number of participants cooperating in the 'influence/visualization' phase, that would be an extraordinary step forward.
And, maybe, there already is a framework in which to work towards the coordination needed to do so. I have read a few accounts of 'group' telepathy during meditation. All anecdotal, but perhaps a hint that it's possible for several minds to work in unison during the mediative session... If that state can be preserved during the 'influence' phase, the results should be quite interesting.
(2017-09-08, 06:11 AM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]Another point of improvement in these studies would be blinding the researcher(s) from knowing which data set they are analyzing, as that's another potential pitfall for subtle bias. If I recall correctly this is not implemented neither in Guerrer's nor in Radin's study.
Again, with a bigger effect this would probably be less of a concern, but here it still is.
Yeah, this is fair criticism. It's logical to think that now that we are moving beyond the 'proof of concept' (something that in parapsychology doesn't seem to happen without independent replication, many studies just... Laying there, dormant) the goal post is going to be moved in the same manner that it happened to ganzfeld.
(2017-09-08, 06:11 AM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]About collapse: in a scenario where there is no collapse there could still be a mental interaction (micro PK) between the agent and the interference pattern, causing a modification in the expected ratio of photons going through the slits.
Exactly. Either case supports the hypothesis (mind-matter interaction).
(2017-09-08, 06:11 AM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]However, to be fair the paper also mentions this in the hypothesis section (Radin mentions this also in his 2012 paper):
This is nothing new in parapsychology ( see here ) and it makes things even more complicated. So I might be totally wrong on this point.
Not to parapsychology nor to the double slit (i.e. it's one of the interpretations of the mind-numbing delayed-choice quantum eraser). But, I'm not sure how it would account for the meditators doing better unless the researchers themselves influence the outcome... In which case, we still end with Micro-PK, only from an unexpected source. There is no escaping the polarization.
(2017-09-07, 11:46 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]It's your website, so you can do what ever you want.
Nah, this isn't Skeptiko. This is not my website, it's the community's forum. Moderators act on behalf of the community: if the community doesn't like the decisions we make, then we modify our decisions based on the community's wishes. It's totally possible that the community decides: you know what, in the end, whilst Max's comments might have ridden the line, they should be allowed on the principle that applying the same standards to all discussions would curtail the ability for skeptical posters to raise potential criticisms (Chris's point) - and in that case, I'd restore the comments in your post (I've saved copies of the originals).