- Forum Info
- Additional Info
- Signature
- Contact
Forum Info
Joined:
2017-08-13
2017-08-13
Status:
(Hidden)
Last Visit:
(Hidden)
Time Spent Online:
(Hidden)
Additional Info
Total Posts:
44 (0.02 posts per day | 0.08 percent of total posts)
[Find All Posts]
Total Threads:
1 (0 threads per day | 0.02 percent of total threads)
[Find All Threads]
Members Referred:
0
0
| Arouet's Most Liked Post | ||
| Post Subject | Post Date/Time | Numbers of Likes |
| RE: 6.37 sigma replication of Dean Radin's double slit consciousness experiments | 2017-09-04, 08:21 AM | 2 |
| Thread Subject | Forum Name | |
| 6.37 sigma replication of Dean Radin's double slit consciousness experiments |
Extended Consciousness Phenomena
Parapsychological Research into Psi Phenomena (ESP, PK, Remote Viewing, etc.)
|
|
| Post Message | ||
| Chris Wrote: (2017-09-04, 07:57 AM) -- If I understand correctly, in Guerrer's study the baseline drifts quite a lot during each session (participant or control), and this drift has to be removed before comparisons can be made. So he can't compare measurements within different sessions. In particular, he can't compare the participant sessions with the control sessions - he can only compare the participant "intention" condition with the participant "relax" condition, and the the control "intention" condition with the control "relax" condition. He finds a significant difference for the first comparison, and a non-significant difference for the second. -- What I wonder is isn't the goal when setting up a control to have the two sessions be identical except for the variable being investigated? What about an experiment where the control involves the same person but they are given a different task instead of concentrating on the double slit. Say instruct them to memorize a word list. The instructions for both could be given on a computer screen rather than audio headphones to avoid those problems. The experimenter could even be blind as to which session is which. It would be interesting to see if a blind judge, or a computer analysis could figure out which was which. Another version could be the computer assigns the subjects randomly to either concertrate on 1 or 0, or up or down whatever the case may be. With the experimenter blind to which. And again a blind analysis to see if can correctly ascertain which was which. I'm sure it's more complicated, the point being to design the experiment so only 1 variable is changed between subject and control. | ||
| Arouet's Received and Given Likes | ||
| Likes Received | Likes Given | |
| Last week | 0 | 0 |
| Last month | 0 | 0 |
| Last 3 months | 0 | 0 |
| Last 6 months | 0 | 0 |
| Last 12 months | 0 | 0 |
| All Time | 16 | 12 |
| Most liked by | ||
| Laird | 3 | 19% |
| Doug | 3 | 19% |
| malf | 3 | 19% |
| berkelon | 3 | 19% |
| Doppelgänger | 1 | 6% |
| Most liked | ||
| fls | 7 | 58% |
| malf | 3 | 25% |
| Hjortron | 1 | 8% |
| Paul C. Anagnostopoulos | 1 | 8% |