6.37 sigma replication of Dean Radin's double slit consciousness experiments

https://osf.io/zsgwp/

Very interesting and I think it's an independent replication as well - exciting stuff!

https://osf.io/zsgwp/

Very interesting and I think it's an independent replication as well - exciting stuff!

Also mentioned here:

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-4-...ml#pid2844

https://osf.io/zsgwp/

Very interesting and I think it's an independent replication as well - exciting stuff!

I find myself in the strange position of saying "so what". Not because I don't find the experiment interesting or illustrative, but because test of this type have been run and verified so many times before with the same finding. 

The fact that in this instance it was performed with the venerable double slit experiment is of interest but no real consequence. The amazement of the double slit is the fact that one can demonstrate the incredible fact that the results are dependent on "a conscious witness" and that fact that this effect is irrespective of even time. It is much less about the fact that a human can affect a physical object using intention.

So while I am glad that once again it has been shown that "physical" elements such as the path of photons or electrons can be influenced, I also realize this has already been proven multiple times before using other tests, and I would expect nothing new to come of this latest test.

Am I missing something momentous here?

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.

Just as I was not terribly impressed by this additional method of demonstrating a human's intention being able to influence "physical" matter, it is equally not surprising that an apparently "obvious" (my description only) flaw would be pointed to in the test procedure.

,,, and the beat goes on.

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.

I haven't read the paper yet, but when I saw your criticism I just dipped into it. Although it does say on page 16 that the subject "stops receiving the feedback information" in the "relax" condition, what this means - according to the description on p. 19 - is not that the sound is switched off altogether, but that it's kept at a steady intensity of 0.3. During the "intention" condition it varies between 0 and 1 according to a calculated p value based on recent measurements, so the average intensity is presumably about 0.5.

Incidentally, it seems that Gabriel Guerrer visited the Institute of Noetic Sciences (where Dean Radin is Chief Scientist) in Spring last year. The introduction to this short interview mentions that he was "preparing a replication of experiments at IONS exploring quantum measurement and consciousness."
http://www.noetic.org/blog/communication...sciousness

That's possible as I skimmed the paper quite quickly and only read the first bit you mentioned.

What I couldn't see in my own skimming was a comparison between the results in the "relax" condition and the control condition. The main results are presented in terms of a significant difference between "intention" and "relax", and a non-significant result for the control condition. But there are a lot of detailed results, so it may be in there.

That's possible as I skimmed the paper quite quickly and only read the first bit you mentioned.

Really? You took the time to claim that the test had a serious flaw and you hadn't even read the report in detail???

What the &($%#^ ?

I guess I'll have to keep that in mind the next time I see "Max_B" at the head of a post.