(2017-09-03, 01:33 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I know you're sore, I'm poking at peoples important and deeply held belief's... there *is* strange stuff going, I'm a proponent for what it's worth... but this isn't the strange stuff.
I'd hope my contributions to the forum discussions were interesting and useful to people, as some peoples contributions are to me... like Chris pointing out that I had misunderstood a part of this paper... but it makes very little difference to what I said... they didn't control for sound energy between different test states that they wished to compare... and sound is well known for interfering with experimental set ups... particularly those that are very sensitive to sound energy... so deliberately introducing some interference between difference test states is very odd... they should know better... so what's going on...
Don't want this to go on forever but really needed to say this,,,
I don't give a whit about who believes what I believe. Really,,, doesn't bother me a bit. I know all these things can't be proven right now, but I'm OK and reasonably confident with where I stand with things.
In terms of your thoughts about the paper: whatever your thoughts are, are OK by me. You did make some comments about your general opinion of Radin's work, and that seems to tell me that you started with a particular an opinion about him or the work he does,, which is always a red flag. But heck, I don't care. OTOH-that doesn't mean I won't point it out.
FWIW- the reason I point it out isn't for my own need to do so, it's for those who are poking around to find the truth. I want them to know there are other opinions out there. Who, knows, perhaps that's the same reason you participate.
Any negative comments I make (I like to think most of my comments or positive) are either due to my actual knowledge or opinion to the contrary, or occasionally about flawed logic, or else what appears to be significant bias. And it is almost never about being "sore", unless you've said something about my kids or wife. : )
Has any of you ever considered asking Radin himself about this 'flaw'? I mean, we have been playing with the double slit for a while now and as far as I know, we never needed big ass interferometers to do so. Sure, state of the art equipment is always a plus, but will it really change anything? If we take out the New Agey meditator elements, this is not that different from any of the quantum erasers in terms of influence.
(2017-09-03, 02:51 PM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]Has any of you ever considered asking Radin himself about this 'flaw'? I mean, we have been playing with the double slit for a while now and as far as I know, we never needed big ass interferometers to do so. Sure, state of the art equipment is always a plus, but will it really change anything? If we take out the New Agey meditator elements, this is not that different from any of the quantum erasers in terms of influence.
Yup. True that. Still don't understand what new ground is covered with double slit. But maybe the idea is just to add another experiment to the list, so skeptics will have a harder time poking holes in the findings...
Silly Dean. Did he really think that would make them stop?
(2017-09-03, 10:46 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Read it and weep... "..richly harmonic.." feedback noise is turned on for periods of 'concentration'. But this feedback noise is turned off for the 'relax' periods.
They found significant differences between fringe measurements when feedback noise was on, compared to when feedback noise was off.
But they also note that they found no significant statistical difference between measurements of sessions when a subject was present, and identical control sessions when a subject was not present (i.e. room was empty).
They made a number of different environmental measurements inside the room during the testing... but failed to measure sound energy... not surprising as they were deliberately using richly harmonic sound in their experiment, and would have picked it up, and this sound is correlated with their results.
Therefore the most plausible explanation is that sound energy from the headphones can drive the structures and cavities of the laser slit measuring device by resonance which is a well known problem.
Sound energy therefore caused the changes they measured in the fringe recordings of this very sensitive device.
First of all you said you only skim read the paper so I'm now skeptical of your synopsis, and I think it's highly premature to say 'therefore sound caused these changes' - especially as several experiments with different designs found highly significant results beforehand.
However we all want to get to the truth, how would you feel about contacting the author of the paper with your criticisms and letting us (with his permission) see his response?
(2017-09-03, 12:52 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't need to read it in detail to find the 'thing' that had not been controlled for, Radin has done it in all his experiments (that I have read). This guy obviously does the same.
If experimenters could affect their results in the way that Radin claims, different QM experiments, from different experimenters around the world wouldn't turn out the same, so we know it's bunkum anyway.
These are just bad experiments which are not properly controlled, are they deliberate, not sure, but if you look at ION's business model one has to raise the possibility.
You are effectively accusing Radin and IONs of fraud now - you do realise that right? It's pretty funny when people think there's money in Parapsychology. Anyway it's easy to say these things behind the anonyminity of the internet. Why not contact Radin with your concerns? Easy to throw mud like this when the person can't respond.
I've been trying to understand the statistical analysis technique, which is pretty complicated. I'm giving up for the time being. But it seems that in the control sessions, where no participant was present, there were alternate "intention" and "relax" conditions, and the non-significant p value mentioned in the abstract reflects the difference between these. I suppose this means that the visual feedback produced by an LED operated during the control "intention" condition, but I'm not clear whether they also had a set of headphones sitting there producing the audible feedback. (If they did, that would apparently show that the observed effect wasn't an acoustic effect due to the feedback, as Max suggested.)
(2017-09-03, 04:35 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I know you don't like my ideas, but these developments are coming anyway, whether you like them or not... it's inevitable. It would be very strange for me to be able to gather so much research which all points in the same direction...
If you look at recent ideas from a respected quantum physicists like Matt Fisher...
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-spi...-20161102/
Well respected mainstream scientists like Frank Prato...
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vla...eories.pdf
Intuative and creative scientists like Luca Turin...
https://vimeo.com/114917327
Danny Adams from Tufts who stumbled across the apparent significance of EM effects on development, that informs on Matt Fischer's ideas...
http://ase.tufts.edu/biology/faculty/adams/index.asp
Adrian Thompson's stunning work on evolvable hardware... and the strange disconnected circuits that made the hardware work.
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/PCW/evolware.htm
[Adrian has totally disappeared from public view for many years now, but we can guess that work has not stopped, I think he may potentially be the Alan Turing of our age.]
the list goes on and on... these ideas are not going away, they are getting stronger...
Yes, I've had a quick look at those links, Max (one of them doesn't work). You seem to have an awful lot of hope invested in these EM field theories. Theories are all they are, unfortunately especially the one by Fisher who believes he's discovered something about phosphorous molecules that show that the brain has quantum effects.
I'm not qualified to comment on that other than to say that the brain certainly is a computer but the mind or our consciousness, certainly isn't. I feel quite happy to state that no one will ever be able to understand the mechanism or the construct of consciousness and that's what we're dealing with when we address near death experiences.
The sense of self "relocates" away from the body. That sense of self is not solely composed of strings of information (EM or whatever), Information is not consciousness. We can be conscious without any information.
And Fisher's theory receives criticism
Even Hore and Olaya-Castro are skeptical of the latter, particularly Fisher’s rough estimate that the coherence could last a day or more. “I think it’s very unlikely, to be honest,” Olaya-Castro said. “The longest time scale relevant for the biochemical activity that’s happening here is the scale of seconds, and that’s too long.” (Neurons can store information for microseconds.) Hore calls the prospect “remote,” pegging the limit at one second at best. “That doesn’t invalidate the whole idea, but I think he would need a different molecule to get long coherence times,” he said. “I don’t think the Posner molecule is it. But I’m looking forward to hearing how it goes.”
Maybe one of the admins can extend an invitation to Radin/Guerrer or both to formally join the forum? I'm sure that they would only peek every once in a while (like Bernardo), but it could be illuminating to see where they are coming from.
RE Influencing outcomes: I once again mention the quantum erasers, especially the delayed choice variant. It is also the most parsimonious interpretation of the basic double slit, but people freaked out and created a bunch of rubbish to delay the process by several decades... Which is why we are still debunking hidden variable theories and the such.
(2017-09-03, 07:13 PM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe one of the admins can extend an invitation to Radin/Guerrer or both to formally join the forum? I'm sure that they would only peek every once in a while (like Bernardo), but it could be illuminating to see where they are coming from.
Yes, I think that's a good idea. I had been thinking I might contact Guerrer myself when I'd had a few more days to digest the paper, to ask one or two questions and to suggest he might like to look at the forum.
