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

Ask him.

The silence of our more skeptical thinkers is starting to speak volumes to me in this thread (sorry for the pun ).

Seriously, I would be curious to hear if others feel as adamantly negative about this experiment.  Unfortunately, this thread has devolved into a "Max vs everybody" moshpit.  (Another pun-like image comes to mind of Max running around with his fingers stuck in both ears chanting, "I can't hear you.  I can't hear you." over and over.)

Maybe a thread like this is what you're after? 

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/cr...iced.2959/

Seriously though, I think a lot of the "regular skeptics" are treading carefully around the "safe-space" areas of the forum (ECP).

Chris has linked to an important critique of Radin's work in three parts in SvP and I think it is important reading for anyone interested in this field. 

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-276.html post#2

Seriously though, I think a lot of the "regular skeptics" are treading carefully around the "safe-space" areas of the forum (ECP).

That's it mister, you have earned yourself a timeout (sees "warning level" rise to 33.3%)

Chris has linked to an important critique of Radin's work in three parts in SvP and I think it is important reading for anyone interested in this field. 

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-276.html post#2

Now, if we could somehow convince Max to take his diatribe about Radin's 2012 paper there... Maybe, just maybe, we could discuss Guerrer's work with the man. That would be pretty cool.

Did you even realize that some meditators in Radins 2012 experiment appear to have used 'mantra repetition' in his enclosed EM shielded steel room?

In Guerrer's experiment that also seems possible, as they were told to use any style of meditation they liked, and to affect the device in any way they could, in an effort increase the volume of the feedback tones through their headphones.

For anybody who ain't clear what a mantra repetition is... it's supposed to be highly resonant in the body...

Guerrer has already pointed out he used headphones in the control and participant trials. I've asked why the online experiments were significant since they had nobody in the room, you ignore all counters to your points and now you're desperately claiming the few meditators who might have had a mantra/chant are responsible for the effect. Come on, this is embarrassing at this point.

You should have been patient.  Also, consensus is not God so so what if five people have liked Laird's post - I didn't!

Patient for what? Max, and you have both been disproven yet he keeps saying the same thing, hoping people won't have noticed Dean or Guerrer's reply. And if five seperate people think Max overstepped the mark he probably has. Good to see you defending insinuations of fraud though!

Maybe a thread like this is what you're after? 

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/cr...iced.2959/

Seriously though, I think a lot of the "regular skeptics" are treading carefully around the "safe-space" areas of the forum (ECP).

Chris has linked to an important critique of Radin's work in three parts in SvP and I think it is important reading for anyone interested in this field. 

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-276.html post#2

Why is a critique posted in an online blog important? Anyone can make up any criticism (Max is an example of this) and I take the experimenters who did this job more seriously, and as more credible, then people writing online blogs. I'd also take a lot of these critiques more seriously if they A) Carried out experiments themselves (those doing the criticising) B) Posted their critiques in peer reviewed journals and C) Didn't use such condescending language like 'cranks' as the author of that blog did.

Acoustic energy will almost certainly change the interference phase distribution, and cause some destruction of the interference pattern contrast. And now it seems we have the potential for more than enough acoustic energy to be available, with a motivation by the subjects to add as much extra energy as they liked, to increase the volume of the feedback tone.

If you're set up to measure a point slap bang in the middle of a dark fringe with low acoustic energy, you will almost certainly lose some of that fringe contrast at that point with the introduction of more acoustic energy, i.e. photon count will go up.

Guerrer has responded to this point, have you looked? You're wrong. And again, if acoustic energy is responsible, why did the online experiments succeed? 

You also ignored Radin's response, I can't figure out whether you're trolling or whether you just can't handle being wrong.

Chris has linked to an important critique of Radin's work in three parts in SvP and I think it is important reading for anyone interested in this field. 

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-276.html post#2

Yes, it is important if also the comment section is taken into account. The critique alone is not entirely fair and has its own share of bias and issues
 which are well outlined in the comment section.

One criticism I have with these studies, given the teeny tiny size of the effect, is why not testing with mutliple meditators? If one meditator creates a tiny disturbance it would be expected to see a larger effect when, say, 20 meditators are focusing attention on the device.

Granted, this is an arbitrary assumption (more intention = larger effect) but it's what we assume is happening in projects such as GCP (Global Consciousness Projects), in poltergeists and "large scale" meditations for peace or to reduce criminality, and for healing.

In terms of setup it would require better isolation of meditators from the device, but it doesn't sound like it would be that much more expensive. They already used ~30 participants. But they didn't think to put them all to work at once.

I'd love to see something like that studied properly. It would clarify a lot of the ambiguities of the current "consciousness & double slit" experiments.

cheers