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

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

- Dean Radin

Yeah, it definitely looked like it was being set up with with vibrations from 'air pressure' at the forefront of the researchers mind. But in the paper this photo comes from, vibrations from air pressure changes are never once mentioned to the reader.

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.

I don't get the point of the sweeping statement. Why is the result of "all these studies" relevant? IMO, only those that actually influenced the setup of Guerrer's study should be, at least for the purpose of this thread.

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.

He definitely doesn't? You're sure of this? Why should we take your word over his? 

You mean in the relax condition vs the control condition? Or are you now claiming that there's no difference at all between humans and the control and that the results are made up?

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.

He's mentioned the distance experiment as there's was no sound equipment in the room with the measuring device but the results were still significant. Face it, you're criticisms and nasty insinuations of fraud are false.

He's mentioned the distance experiment as there's was no sound equipment in the room with the measuring device but the results were still significant. Face it, you're criticisms and nasty insinuations of fraud are fase.

Oh, your not back again, and now you want to move beyond these papers with sound energy problems, to another completely different Radin paper about remote effects.

He definitely doesn't? You're sure of this? Why should we take your word over his? 

You mean in the relax condition vs the control condition? Or are you now claiming that there's no difference at all between humans and the control and that the results are made up?

Hey Roberta, why don't you try reading a paper, I gave a link to one a few posts back. Then you can find out for yourself what these researchers did, and stop wondering who's word you value more.

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.

If I understand correctly, in Guerrer's study the baseline drifts quite a lot during each session (participant or control), and this drift has to be removed before comparisons can be made. So he can't compare measurements within different sessions. In particular, he can't compare the participant sessions with the control sessions - he can only compare the participant "intention" condition with the participant "relax" condition, and the the control "intention" condition with the control "relax" condition. He finds a significant difference for the first comparison, and a non-significant difference for the second.

If I understand correctly, in Guerrer's study the baseline drifts quite a lot during each session (participant or control), and this drift has to be removed before comparisons can be made. So he can't compare measurements within different sessions. In particular, he can't compare the participant sessions with the control sessions - he can only compare the participant "intention" condition with the participant "relax" condition, and the the control "intention" condition with the control "relax" condition. He finds a significant difference for the first comparison, and a non-significant difference for the second.

What I wonder is isn't the goal when setting up a control to have the two sessions be identical except for the variable being investigated?

What about an experiment where the control involves the same person but they are given a different task instead of concentrating on the double slit. Say instruct them to memorize a word list. The instructions for both could be given on a computer screen rather than audio headphones to avoid those problems. The experimenter could even be blind as to which session is which. 

It would be interesting to see if a blind judge, or a computer analysis could figure out which was which. 

Another version could be the computer assigns the subjects randomly to either concertrate on 1 or 0, or up or down whatever the case may be. With the experimenter blind to which. And again a blind analysis to see if can correctly ascertain which was which. 

I'm sure it's more complicated, the point being to design the experiment so only 1 variable is changed between subject and control.

[Laird]

This Dean Radin [...]

If you are implying that "this" Dean Radin is not the real Dean Radin, then I can assure you that you are categorically wrong. At another member's request, I contacted Dean by email on his publicised email address (@noetic.org) to let him know about your criticisms in this thread and he (Dean) confirmed in an email reply that he had posted his response to the forum.

If I understand correctly, in Guerrer's study the baseline drifts quite a lot during each session (participant or control), and this drift has to be removed before comparisons can be made. So he can't compare measurements within different sessions. In particular, he can't compare the participant sessions with the control sessions - he can only compare the participant "intention" condition with the participant "relax" condition, and the the control "intention" condition with the control "relax" condition. He finds a significant difference for the first comparison, and a non-significant difference for the second.

You might be right, I know nothing about statistics so can't interpret those. But I'm struggling to find the part in the paper again where he mentions the insignificant result.

However, why no mention of vibration from sound (air pressure) anywhere in the paper, it's one of the three major sources of vibrations?

I'm concerned about why they are using active noise cancelling headphones? What environmental sound are they trying to cancel out? These designs have a tuned external port, which is a potential problem.

There is no monitoring of subjects, and they are left to use their own experience to influence the results... although they have an odd request made to breath deeply three times, and not to get tired. How do we know that subjects ain't doing some sort of Zen chanting or making resonant noises in the meditation phase? The paper suggests the researchers have no access to the internal state of the experimental room during testing.