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

[Laird]

Dean gave me permission to quote publicly in this thread the following, which he wrote to me in an email. I think it further hammers down the nail in the coffin of the "sound vibration caused the anomalous experimental results" theory:

As for our double-slit studies, all participants in the lab-based experiments were told to remain still and quiet during test sessions. No sounds were heard from the participants by myself or my research assistant during these sessions. We've conducted quite a few studies involving meditators, and none ever chanted during experiments -- even if that was their usual meditative practice -- because we specifically ask them to remain quiet. If someone violated the instructions of a session, meditator or not, then that session was disqualified. But such events were very rare. I can recall just one session out of hundreds (in various experiments) that had to be disqualified, and that was because a participant became uncomfortable inside the shielded room (due to claustrophobia), so we had to end the session prematurely.

I... 

Already considered it micro-PK...???

Regardless if it's actual collapse or "simple" photon redirection, Guerrer went out there looking for mind-matter interaction... And solid evidence for either would still prove the hypothesis, wouldn't it?

Personally I find the study interesting but given the teeny tiny effect I'd like to see if it's possible to get a stronger one by having a group of meditators working together. This would also help to cross-confirm the hypothesis of the GCP and clear some of the ambiguity that is still present.

Another point of improvement in these studies would be blinding the researcher(s) from knowing which data set they are analyzing, as that's another potential pitfall for subtle bias. If I recall correctly this is not implemented neither in Guerrer's nor in Radin's study.

Again, with a bigger effect this would probably be less of a concern, but here it still is.

About collapse: in a scenario where there is no collapse there could still be a mental interaction (micro PK) between the agent and the interference pattern, causing a modification in the expected ratio of photons going through the slits.

However, to be fair the paper also mentions this in the hypothesis section (Radin mentions this also in his 2012 paper):

 f) are retro-causal, i.e. obtainable even when the participant acts in previously recorded data that was kept unseen by any participant or the experimenter prior to the session

This is nothing new in parapsychology ( see here ) and it makes things even more complicated. So I might be totally wrong on this point.

Especially if the claim is extraordinary.

Extraordinary is subjective. But subjectivitiy is an illusion ... ergo there is no extraordinary claim

Personally I find the study interesting but given the teeny tiny effect I'd like to see if it's possible to get a stronger one by having a group of meditators working together. This would also help to cross-confirm the hypothesis of the GCP and clear some of the ambiguity that is still present.

If a stronger effect can be achieved in correlation with increasing the number of participants cooperating in the 'influence/visualization' phase, that would be an extraordinary step forward. 

And, maybe, there already is a framework in which to work towards the coordination needed to do so. I have read a few accounts of 'group' telepathy during meditation. All anecdotal, but perhaps a hint that it's possible for several minds to work in unison during the mediative session... If that state can be preserved during the 'influence' phase, the results should be quite interesting.

Another point of improvement in these studies would be blinding the researcher(s) from knowing which data set they are analyzing, as that's another potential pitfall for subtle bias. If I recall correctly this is not implemented neither in Guerrer's nor in Radin's study.

Again, with a bigger effect this would probably be less of a concern, but here it still is.

Yeah, this is fair criticism. It's logical to think that now that we are moving beyond the 'proof of concept' (something that in parapsychology doesn't seem to happen without independent replication, many studies just... Laying there, dormant) the goal post is going to be moved in the same manner that it happened to ganzfeld.

About collapse: in a scenario where there is no collapse there could still be a mental interaction (micro PK) between the agent and the interference pattern, causing a modification in the expected ratio of photons going through the slits.

Exactly. Either case supports the hypothesis (mind-matter interaction).

However, to be fair the paper also mentions this in the hypothesis section (Radin mentions this also in his 2012 paper):

This is nothing new in parapsychology ( see here ) and it makes things even more complicated. So I might be totally wrong on this point. 

Not to parapsychology nor to the double slit (i.e. it's one of the interpretations of the mind-numbing delayed-choice quantum eraser). But, I'm not sure how it would account for the meditators doing better unless the researchers themselves influence the outcome... In which case, we still end with Micro-PK, only from an unexpected source. There is no escaping the polarization.

[Laird]

It's your website, so you can do what ever you want.

Nah, this isn't Skeptiko. This is not my website, it's the community's forum. Moderators act on behalf of the community: if the community doesn't like the decisions we make, then we modify our decisions based on the community's wishes. It's totally possible that the community decides: you know what, in the end, whilst Max's comments might have ridden the line, they should be allowed on the principle that applying the same standards to all discussions would curtail the ability for skeptical posters to raise potential criticisms (Chris's point) - and in that case, I'd restore the comments in your post (I've saved copies of the originals).

Not to parapsychology nor to the double slit (i.e. it's one of the interpretations of the mind-numbing delayed-choice quantum eraser). But, I'm not sure how it would account for the meditators doing better unless the researchers themselves influence the outcome...

Exactly. If consciousness affects matter, does it do only when focusing attention or is it a process always at work? Maybe it also happens at an unconscious level, just like breathing and balancing hormones etc...

In which case you have also the experimenter's interaction, and if distance does not matter (which seems to be the case) we also have the global effect of all other conscious beings... and I guess I am already smelling smoke coming out of my ears at this point!!

cheers

No, Steve. We know that at least some complexity is required to be an 'observer'. You can't really sanitize anything to the point where each and every microorganism is wiped and if it was simply a matter of having some sort of primitive environmental awareness, then bacteria or viruses would be capable of causing the proverbial wave function collapse. That doesn't happen. If it did, it's arguable if we would even know of the existence of the WFC, since it would happen a priori To our involvement with the system unless we ran the test under extrairdinary conditions.

Inserting complexity is where you go wrong. Do you know what this word "observer" means in it's use by physicists? It means a disturbance of some kind on the quantum system. Photons are capable of causing a disturbance as are other other things. It means taking a measurement. A human could be involved or a machine it matters not the result would be the same. Consciousness is not required.
Ok, leave simple cell animals out. For that matter leave only humans. Better yet leave only infants whom  have  no concepts of how this universe works. And yet it works the same for them as it does for everyone else. No matter where you live, the particular philosophy you like, religion or not, skeptic or believer the universe unfolds exactly the same for each and everyone of us. Why if it's preached humans can control reality? That's what Radin et.al. is really testing for.

Extraordinary is subjective. But subjectivitiy is an illusion ... ergo there is no extraordinary claim

I guess your right that influencing reality via your will isn't extraordinary.

Extraordinary is subjective. But subjectivitiy is an illusion ... ergo there is no extraordinary claim

I guess your right that influencing reality via your will isn't extraordinary.

Sorry I can't see how your reply has anything to do with the quoted text.
Maybe you are referring to something else?
Or is it some kind of Klingon humor that I don't understand... ?