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

To help you... here's the paper that the photo came from...

http://www.quantumbiosystems.org/admin/f...082-98.pdf

As you're already aware they don't go into detail in the paper. Radin and Guerrer both have said meditators do better then non meditators at this experiment (Guerrer mentioned this in his paper, I've seen Radin say it in various talks), the audio feedback has been in every experiment, has it not? So why the difference if the feedback is causing the effect? Please answer, if you dodge again I'll have to assume you aren't answering as we both know it disproves you point.

As you're already aware they don't go into detail in the paper. Radin and Guerrer both have said meditators do better then non meditators at this experiment (Guerrer mentioned this in his paper, I've seen Radin say it in various talks), the audio feedback has been in every experiment, has it not? So why the difference if the feedback is causing the effect? Please answer, if you dodge again I'll have to assume you aren't answering as we both know it disproves you point.

If you can't show willing, I'm not wasting my time. Put up, or shut up.

If you can't show willing, I'm not wasting my time. Put up, or shut up.

I have put up, Guerrer mentions it in his paper! Anyway I'm assuming you aren't responding as you know you're wrong on this one, thanks for your time anyway.

I have put up, Guerrer mentions it in his paper! Anyway I'm assuming you aren't responding as you know you're wrong on this one, thanks for your time anyway.

Bye, bye time waster.

A total layman here, but I think any challenger unwilling to put challenging questions in front of the experimenter is very poor form. It seems to clearly say something about the conviction of the challenger's views.

Especially for a forum that seems to be comprised of folks expressing an interest in truth/evidence/etc.

>
[quote pid='3137' dateline='1504435588']
Sound energy therefore caused the changes they measured in the fringe recordings of this very sensitive device.

Sorry, but not so. The feedback in our lab studies, and in Dr. Guerrer's, was provided over noise-cancelling headphones. For our online studies all of the participants were tens to thousands of kilometers away from the apparatus. So sound vibration was not the cause of the observed effects.

- Dean Radin

[/quote]

Sorry, but not so. The feedback in our lab studies, and in Dr. Guerrer's, was provided over noise-cancelling headphones. For our online studies all of the participants were tens to thousands of kilometers away from the apparatus. So sound vibration was not the cause of the observed effects.

- Dean Radin

[/quote]
Love when we have the definitive source of information.

Thanks Dean!

Sorry, but not so. The feedback in our lab studies, and in Dr. Guerrer's, was provided over noise-cancelling headphones. For our online studies all of the participants were tens to thousands of kilometers away from the apparatus. So sound vibration was not the cause of the observed effects.

- Dean Radin

I was hoping that we could get feedback from someone involved in the actual setup (speculating over photos was getting us nowhere). Thanks for your time, Dean.

This photo was taken during development of this experiment. It is not how the apparatus was used during experiments. 

- Dean Radin


You explain what I'm seeing... somebody pointed those speakers directly at the measurement device... it's not like they are paired with a PC... they have been put on the table with that very sensitive bit of equipment for some reason...

Sorry, but not so. The feedback in our lab studies, and in Dr. Guerrer's, was provided over noise-cancelling headphones. For our online studies all of the participants were tens to thousands of kilometers away from the apparatus. So sound vibration was not the cause of the observed effects.

- Dean Radin

This Dean Radin doesn't apparently remember his own papers accurately... he definately doesn't use headphones for all these studies. Dunno why he would mention the different remote study, when that's not the one we're discussing. As for Guerrer's study, he finds no significant statistical difference between experiments when a subject is in the room, or when they run the identical controls after they have left, and the test room is empty.