Esalen photo

This is a funny shot of me and actor John Cleese, at a research seminar on survival of consciousness held at Esalen Institute a few years ago. John is as funny in person as in the movies.


Marci said…
What on earth is that funny man doing to you?
Deni said… photo! Must have been a "trip" to meet him....
LesleyinNM said…
I adore John Cleese! I am totally jealous that you got to hang out with him.
Dean Radin said…
We're both standing up in this photo. John is quite tall compared to me. Or for that matter, compared to most people.
Tom said…
I hope John's consciousness survives.
Blue Mystic said…
Wow, John Cleese. Very nice. Color me envious.
Book Surgeon said…
Dr. Radin, this is totally off topic, but I wondered if you might respond to this essay by Ray Hyman:

Seems to me that he's engaged in some rhetorical tricks here, but I lack the background to challenge his assertions.
Dean Radin said…
I responded to Hyman's comment (and more) via this post:
Tor said…
These Esalen seminars seem interesting.

You seem to meet a lot of interesting people in your work Dean.

As to the Skeptical Enquirer article you linked to book surgeon, it is amusing to see how much certain skeptics can twist the facts.

I remember when I read the AIR review, with the two reports by Utts and Hyman. When I read the Hyman report I was surprised. He actually used this argument to refute psi the anomalous cognition claims:

I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered.

To say that an experiment can never be free from flaws in principle, and use it as reason to discard an entire field of study is ridiculous.

Since then I have found time and time again that these academic skeptics that seem to have clever arguments on the surface, when you dig into their claims, there actually is nothing there. And sometimes they grossly twist the facts and boarder to the dishonest. There should be no room for such tactics in science.
Tor said…
Oh, and btw, for those of you that like John Cleese's humor, have a look at his:

"John Cleese Podcast #32: The Scientist at Work"

Funny man :)
Book Surgeon said…
Well done. Thank you.
Unknown said…
Only slightly off-topic, my lovely people: Scientific American have had a far more reasonable article on spiritual/non-materialist neuroscience as discussed previously:

Interestingly, a commenter on the article mentioned something dear to our nonlocal hearts:

"A real religious experience is not induced but spontaneous, so how can you possibly record anything unless you happen to have someone have a religious experience while wired up to your equipment. Furthermore you need to distinguish between religious experience, which still includes a sense of ego self and true mystical experience, in which the sense of personal self is gone. Why not examine insightful perception instead, without the double blinds that block such perception and with relationship which is necessary for insightful perception. For instance a person is insightful of a distressing image about to be viewed on a pc screen in what are known as precognition experiments. This perception points to the mind being a non-physical reality. it would be very interesting and maybe even provide some infor that may help solve the quantum measurement problem in modern physics".

Drinks are on Dean, Tor buys the cookies and I'll reserve the pool tables.
Dean Radin said…
Very nice. Ok, drinks are on me. First round, anyway.

Popular posts from this blog

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Show me the evidence