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

Which paper is that quote from?

This is getting silly, dude...

Your comments reflect both your own interpretation, and your own choice of words Laird.

Further more, it is not what I wrote. What I wrote I'm completely happy with.

Since five people have liked Laird's post, and not one have liked your response, clearly it's not just Laird who thinks your comments are inappropriate and out of place. Maybe have some humility not and do what Laird reasonably asked of you, or dig your your heels in and drag the rest of us down with you.

All sessions in my study used the headphone with a moderate volume for providing feedback to the participant. The same occurred in control sessions, the headphone playing the feedback was laying on the couch where the participants used to sit.

If the sound was causing any artifact it should appear in the controls as well. Besides that, it should be unidirectional. As opposed, the data revealed an anti-correlation between V1 zp sign and the slit enhancement proposal by each experiment (see section 2.5). It's challenging to explain how oscillations in the air medium could favor more light passing through one slit as compared to the other. Even more challenging is the fact the enhanced slit correlates to what was proposed by the feedback mechanism.

Gabriel

All sessions in my study used the headphone with a moderate volume for providing feedback to the participant. The same occurred in control sessions, the headphone playing the feedback was laying on the couch where the participants used to sit.

If the sound was causing any artifact it should appear in the controls as well. Besides that, it should be unidirectional. As opposed, the data revealed an anti-correlation between V1 zp sign and the slit enhancement proposal by each experiment (see section 2.5). It's challenging to explain how oscillations in the air medium could favor more light passing through one slit as compared to the other. Even more challenging is the fact the enhanced slit correlates to what was proposed by the feedback mechanism.

Thank you for clarifying that point. I had thought the sound feedback might have been present in the control sessions, but wasn't sure.

So any differences between the "relax" and "intention" conditions in the participant sessions due to the sound feedback, should also exist between the "relax" and "intention" conditions in the control sessions where there is no participant. In fact, the differences in sound level should if anything be greater in the control sessions, because there will be less leakage of sound from the headphones when they're attached to someone's head.

Not necessarily, the main way for air to escape through these active headphones is through the tuned ports, they don't function well without them, as air cannot escape easily when they are sealed on the users head. Presumably that condition changes when the headphones are not sealed to somebodies head? Neither do we know what happens when all that energy is tuned to a certain frequency by the port size and shape, and we don't know what happens to noise cancellation when the headphones are not sealed to somebodies head, bearing in mind there is a microphone inside them picking up ambient noise and attempting to compensate for it. You also still need to look at all vibration effects from air pressure, and how they affect the measuring device and it's parts at its fundamental frequency and upwards. And you still need to bear in mind the basic idea of the experiment has a problem, as attention sessions have feedback with increased SPL's, and the relax condition has no feed back with reduced SPL's. Also non control sessions didn't have a subject present who was asked to breath in and out deeply 3 times, I know these devices can be sensitive to air currents, depending in their construction. I also vaguely understood that the inside of the test area had no audio visual monitoring during sessions, and that mediators were not given instructions to remain quiet, or not to make any sound to influence feedback, but rather they had complete freedom to affect the device using any meditative technique they wished to use. As I recall those mediators who produced the greatest effect were also invited back. Radin's 2012 experiment seems to suggests that 'mantra repetition' and mindfulness meditation were two styles of mediation used by his subjects, and that "No attempt was made in the present studies to assess differences among reported meditation style". That suggests to me that some subjects may have been making a noise.


As far as I'm concerned the results are almost certainly caused by noise in the experiment that has not been accounted for, and they will need to do more work to eliminate it to see if the effect remains.

And if they had put the headphones on mannequin heads to enclose the tubes, Max would be going on about the differences between the density of Styrofoam vs human tissue, and for a better match, if they put them on cadaver heads the issue would be the fact that coagulated blood in the tissue resonates at a different frequency, and if,,,,, 

Guys, you can't make progress on this. You are confusing Max with someone who actually cares about getting to the bottom of this. But it's interesting watching you try. And it actually serves a useful purpose, because it exposes the core of Max's thinking, which illustrates the ultimate emptiness of the argument. 

In the end it seems: given half a chance, cream rises to the top and other stuff sinks to the bottom.

Guys, you can't make progress on this. You are confusing Max with someone who actually cares about getting to the bottom of this. But it's interesting watching you try. And it actually serves a useful purpose, because it exposes the core of Max's thinking, which illustrates the ultimate emptiness of the argument. 

Well, the author of the paper has kindly clarified what the experimental conditions were, so we're in a better position to judge whether acoustic noise from the feedback was a problem. That seems unlikely to me.