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

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.

How should I have known who it was...? It's just a name on a web forum.

(PS... You've already banned a member for impersonation).

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.

It's the one that's just described in the abstract as "statistically equivalent samples" for the control sessions. Obviously that has to be a comparison between two things, and for some time I couldn't work out what was being compared. Then the penny dropped that the whole control session is like the participant session, with "intention" and "relax" conditions alternating, and in each case the author is comparing those two conditions. But I don't think it's clearly described.

It's the one that's just described in the abstract as "statistically equivalent samples" for the control sessions. Obviously that has to be a comparison between two things, and for some time I couldn't work out what was being compared. Then the penny dropped that the whole control session is like the participant session, with "intention" and "relax" conditions alternating, and in each case the author is comparing those two conditions. But I don't think it's clearly described.

"The results couldn’t be simply explained by environmental factors, hence supporting the previously claimed existence of a not yet mapped form of interaction between a conscious agent and a physical system."

I don't know how they can say that, as the paper completely ignores vibration effects from sound energy (air pressure), and makes no attempt to control for it, indeed it uses different sound energy levels between experiments,  and doesn't monitor for sound at all. But these devices are known to be *highly* sensitive to sound energy.

"Care was taken in order to isolate the experiment from mechanical vibrations and electromagnetic waves, as well to monitor the magnetic field and the temperature over different places."

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.

OK. So I am staying out of the detailed discussion about the test procedure because honestly the damn report is just too detailed and convoluted (no dis on the report, apparently just my capacity for grasping it   ) for me to get a clear understanding of the thing. So I'll shut up on that matter. BTW: would love a layman's explanation of the thing w/o all the jargon. Hint hint... : )

But on the other hand- am I correctly understanding that Max is at this point suggesting that ambient noise in the room is potentially affecting the test results? 

I really wonder whether Max and people who share his feelings about this version of the DS test also feel that the traditional DS test setup should be taking into account ambient sound levels? You know, the test that has been used for, let's see,,, about 100 years, to prove the basis of QM? You know: the most famous, verified, and indisputable test in all of science? Yeah, that one. 

Am I missing something? I can't recall ever hearing ambient sound as being a point of contention,, what with the huge variety of DS tests that have been run over the years. Why now? Is it because is it because this is an "extraordinary claim" so it must be subjected to extra scrutiny? 

Please tell me that's NOT what's going on here! If so, I may just melt down into: I don't know,,,  a puddle of ectoplasm or something.

I still want to know why anyone here is continuing to take Max's 'concerns' seriously. Radin has answered his comments and he refuses to answer my questions. If sound is the reason for the results as Max claims, why do meditators get a much better result then non meditators? Surely there would be no difference if sound/vibration was responsible for the results?

I still want to know why anyone here is continuing to take Max's 'concerns' seriously. Radin has answered his comments and he refuses to answer my questions. If sound is the reason for the results as Max claims, why do meditators get a much better result then non meditators? Surely there would be no difference if sound/vibration was responsible for the results?

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.

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.

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)

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?

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