(2017-09-04, 10:45 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]I get what you are saying but,,, here's the way I look at it.
It's not good enough to ignore the posts. If claims are outrageous they need to be clearly and repeatedly pointed out as so, if only for the benefit of others who are trying to absorb all this information, and make decisions about what to allow into their world-view.
This is important stuff to MANY people. They are discarding old, long held beliefs and replacing them with new "strange" ones. The deserve to have the benefit of other critical minds looking at what's being said and commenting.
This is the real value of a place like this. They can go anywhere on the web and find bizzaro theories. They will come here because the claims are being well vetted from ALL SIDES, and they will be able to compare and decide.
We are ALL doing important work here I think.
Seems like a valid point.
We've talked about this in another thread: "outrageous" claims or not, experiments must take into account every source of interference, including of course that generated by the meditator themselves. Chanting, mantras, coughing, whatever can perturb the sensitivity of the intruments.
Maybe this has been addressed in the experiments but was not clarified in the paper? Unfortunately I did not have the time to go through the details.
(2017-09-04, 11:05 AM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]Seems like a valid point.
We've talked about this in another thread: "outrageous" claims or not, experiments must take into account every source of interference, including of course that generated by the meditator themselves. Chanting, mantras, coughing, whatever can perturb the sensitivity of the intruments.
Maybe this has been addressed in the experiments but was not clarified in the paper? Unfortunately I did not have the time to go through the details.
But my question is: did the original DS experiment deal with these objections? (ambient sound affecting the measurements)
(2017-09-04, 11:05 AM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]Seems like a valid point.
We've talked about this in another thread: "outrageous" claims or not, experiments must take into account every source of interference, including of course that generated by the meditator themselves. Chanting, mantras, coughing, whatever can perturb the sensitivity of the intruments.
Maybe this has been addressed in the experiments but was not clarified in the paper? Unfortunately I did not have the time to go through the details.
... and my implication is, if this was never an issue with DS in general why now?
Just feel like there is an ulterior motive. Sure we should check into how things may affect the outcome of the test, but there are an infinite number of things that could. Are these things just part of an endless line of crap to throw in the way of having to accept valid data?
(2017-09-04, 11:42 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]But my question is: did the original DS experiment deal with these objections? (ambient sound affecting the measurements)
If you're referring to the classic DS experiment that didn't make use of an interferometer, so I guess the question is valid only for the DS experiments based on those devices.
Cheers
(2017-09-04, 12:06 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]... and my implication is, if this was never an issue with DS in general why now?
Sure.
I guess it's even more complicated than that because interferometers comes in all shapes and size (and costs) and I presume their susceptibility to external interferences will differ as well.
(2017-09-04, 12:06 PM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]If you're referring to the classic DS experiment that didn't make use of an interferometer, so I guess the question is valid only for the DS experiments based on those devices.
Cheers
Iterferometers have been used for years. Are you suggesting that this is a new application of the device? Or that sound level is a typical factor in their use? If not, what is the special situation here?
(2017-09-04, 12:08 PM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]Sure.
I guess it's even more complicated than that because interferometers comes in all shapes and size (and costs) and I presume their susceptibility to external interferences will differ as well.
Lots of maybes and guesses here.
Not trying to be negative but I haven't heard anyone say definitively if this is a reasonable consern. While I know Dean Radin doesn't think so.
One might say that we need to check IDs at the polling booth because "you never know who might be voting".
OTOH- one might say the same thing because they don't like who is visiting the polling booth. (sorry about the politics reference but it is a fit)
The motivation for the question is often an important thing to take notice of.
(2017-09-04, 12:13 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Iterferometers have been used for years. Are you suggesting that this is a new application of the device? Or that sound level is a typical factor in their use? If not, what is the special situation here?
You asked this:
Quote:did the original DS experiment deal with these objections? (ambient sound affecting the measurements)
I was just pointing out that the earlier DS experiments did not use an interferometer. I believe QM experiments haven't used one untill the 1960s or so.
Other than that I think it would be interesting to know why sound energy should (or should not) be a concern with interferometers. But maybe there are even more distinctions to be made based on the actual device.
(2017-09-04, 12:34 PM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]You asked this:
I was just pointing out that the earlier DS experiments did not use an interferometer. I believe QM experiments haven't used one untill the 1960s or so.
Other than that I think it would be interesting to know why sound energy should (or should not) be a concern with interferometers. But maybe there are even more distinctions to be made based on the actual device.
Fine. I'm not trying have a big thing about this.
But if they've been used in DS experiments for 50 years or so, I'm thinking the bugs have been worked out. I mean the delayed choice experiment , validation of entanglement, and experimentation of conscious observation have all been tested using some variation of this setup. It's considered basic boilerplate stuff at this point. It's not like its a brand new thing. And I don't see anyone expressing concern.
I would ask Max what his credentials are, but he already said that he knows nothing about statistical analysis, so I think we can rule him out when it comes to test of this type. No insult intended here Max: I'm not qualified in this area either... But then again,. I don't have a PhD so I don't feel too badly about it.
I guess lacking further comments, and given Dean's response I feel comfortable accepting the data and moving on.
(2017-09-04, 11:05 AM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]Seems like a valid point.
We've talked about this in another thread: "outrageous" claims or not, experiments must take into account every source of interference, including of course that generated by the meditator themselves. Chanting, mantras, coughing, whatever can perturb the sensitivity of the intruments.
Maybe this has been addressed in the experiments but was not clarified in the paper? Unfortunately I did not have the time to go through the details.
I'm pretty sure that the instruments were in a shielded chamber separated from the meditators etc.