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

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

Hi Gabriel,
thanks for taking the time to join the discussion. It is much appreciated.

Did participants in your study use mantras and/or chanting during their sessions? If so what precautions did you employ to avoid artifacts caused by those vibrations?

Thanks

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

Excellent Bucky! This is exactly the sort of pre study prediction that the field needs (and rarely sees).

Patient for what?  Some of us don't get to sit at home on computers all day. First of all, can you quote this insinuation word for word because I really don't remember seeing one in Max's posts.   Secondly, if I suspect possible fraud, I should have the right to express my opinion - it's called free speech and I have previously come closer to the mark than Max supposedly has when I expressed the possibility that Guy Playfair might not have just been absurdly gullible but makes his living from writing  haunted house stories.  Nobody suggested I was being libellous but then Guy is just a Demi-god next to his Holiness, the divine Radin.  Of course, it is perfectly acceptable for people to accuse people like me and Max of stuff isn't it?

Generically speaking, I don't think accusing a researcher of fraud can benefit a discussion like this unless you have subtantial evidence.
If you don't have such evidence playing the "fraud" card  won't add anything to the discussion, besides maybe "stirring the pot" (*)

my 2c

(*)= which I don't think will be tolerated for long.

[Laird]

Just in case anybody is in any doubt (no names mentioned): I can confirm that post #174 is by the real Gabriel Guerrer, whom I emailed at the same time as emailing Dean Radin re this thread, and who emailed back a link to that post indicating that it was his.

Patient for what?  Some of us don't get to sit at home on computers all day. First of all, can you quote this insinuation word for word because I really don't remember seeing one in Max's posts.   Secondly, if I suspect possible fraud, I should have the right to express my opinion - it's called free speech and I have previously come closer to the mark than Max supposedly has when I expressed the possibility that Guy Playfair might not have just been absurdly gullible but makes his living from writing  haunted house stories.  Nobody suggested I was being libellous but then Guy is just a Demi-god next to his Holiness, the divine Radin.  Of course, it is perfectly acceptable for people to accuse people like me and Max of stuff isn't it?

Accusing people of fraud doesn't come under 'free speech' - free speech is freedom to criticise the government etc, none of us have any divine right to post on this forum either. So nice try, but no dice. And I didn't see that post - i would have called you out if I had. And the 'divine Radin' comment, just lol. 
Also, calling you guys out for insinuating fraud isn't the same as insinuating fraud - glad to clear that up for you though.

Hi Gabriel,
thanks for taking the time to join the discussion. It is much appreciated.

Did participants in your study use mantras and/or chanting during their sessions? If so what precautions did you employ to avoid artifacts caused by those vibrations?

Thanks

Wow. An actual civil question to an actual expert. Nice move Bucky!

Hi Gabriel,
thanks for taking the time to join the discussion. It is much appreciated.

Did participants in your study use mantras and/or chanting during their sessions? If so what precautions did you employ to avoid artifacts caused by those vibrations?

Thanks

Actually I have a question or two for the experts if they are still watching....

Dean and Gabriel:

Do you think that if you are others work on replicating this test, would further attention to sound be worth some attention or would you find that unnecessary/unwarranted? And why?

Would you consider separating the mediators from the apparatus to eliminate sound and other physical influences from the equation? Since this would be simple to do, is there a reason not to take this step? If they need to see the gear as part of the protocol how about a glass partition? 

Thanks for listening and responding even if some of the dialog is less then constructive.

[Laird]

That's incorrect, you've asked that I should retract words I never wrote. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate about what I wrote, or it's meaning as far as I'm concerned.

In my capacity as moderator: Max, since you refused to retract your defamatory insinuations, I have edited them out of your posts.

I will shortly start a public thread in the Forum Questions and Suggestions forum to invite members to comment in general on what action they support moderators taking on defamatory posts, and to indicate whether or not this particular action meets their approval. We have discussed this privately as moderators, and have some ideas, but have not yet reached a concrete decision. I think it's important that the community has a say.

Excellent Bucky! This is exactly the sort of pre study prediction that the field needs (and rarely sees).

To be fair I think lack of funding/researchers is at least partly behind this - but I agree it's a good question and should be looked into.