Ganzfeld telepathy example 3

Another ganzfeld telepathy example with Gail and Tom. In this one Tom is the receiver.


Here is the transcript of what Ray said during the 10 minute sending period:

- - -
See a dark background. Colorful images. Very still. I feel outside. Air. Natural elements. Very, very clear, like sky. Something soft and football shaped. Orange-y, orange-y, light orange shape. I hear children. Maybe feathers, did I see feathers? Still see the dark background. Oval shape, oval shape. Images. Images on a background. Images on a dark background. Orange. Orange-y color. Air. Elements. Outdoors.

- - -

Can you guess the target that Gail was sending? When Tom viewed the four images he immediately selected the correct target with high confidence. What this shows is that the words that Tom chose to describe his mental impressions were accurate, but they didn't quite capture his actual experience. That experience allowed him to, as he put it, "bet money" that his selection was correct. And he would have won that bet.

Comments

butterfly said…
That one is very easy to get!
Friday, October 15, 2010
Machina Labs said…
Really? Maybe I'm thick, but (without being him and having his experience) given just the words I feel like it could go nearly equally to either the flowers or the Sphinx, but I would put my money on the Sphinx.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Dean Radin said…
The target was the flower. While the Sphinx matches the dark background and orange color, the flower matches the dark background, orange color, natural elements (meaning multiple things of nature rather than a single man-made object), soft, feathers, oval shapes, and something commonly associated with children (picking daisies).

As I mentioned, Ray selected the correct target immediately. His words did not convey his full experience, which is a limitation of this or any similar experiment that relies on expressing subjective impressions. Still, it works well enough, often enough, to be useful.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
butterfly said…
I discarded the sphinx right away. But I've noticed if you think about it too logically, you make it hard for yourself to do. The words he used *felt* like the daisy.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Gareth said…
The flower was the most obvious choice to me.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Tor said…
I went for flowers too. It's great that you post these transcripts Dean. It gives a more insider feel of Ganzfeld experiments.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Enfant Terrible said…
I picked the Sphinx, because the flower is not oval, but circular. The Sphinx has more an oval format and the color orange has more impact. Both have the element air.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
pluckychickenheart said…
I felt the flower was the intended description right away. In my admittedly limited intentional experiments the first feel and/or impression is the most accurate.
The longer I continue the more likely I am to begin to interpret and thus confuse the reading.

Great job Ray!
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Roger Knights said…
The flowers petals are oval.
Monday, October 18, 2010
matthewx78 said…
Hey Dean,

Have you heard about a Dr. Bem who recently did 9 experiments where students who studied for exams in the future fared better than those who did not study at all.

This article states that "researchers in the past have not met scientific standards, Dr. Bem has met more scientific standards..

After reading your book I have to laugh.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-social-thinker/201010/have-scientists-finally-discovered-evidence-psychic-phenomena

Sorry I missed you the other weekend in the Catskills.... I am a member of Baltimore IONs.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Machina Labs said…
I thought this video was really charming. It may not be totally accurate, but it's fun.

Future Shorts - The Ganzfeld Procedure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a5XOQ5dE0E
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent  Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times  was kind enough to  prepare us to be outraged .  It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake .  I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha  in this blog .  But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psychology  and is available here .  The key
Read more

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Image
Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area
Read more

Show me the evidence

Image
Critics are fond of saying that there is no scientific evidence for psi. They wave their fist in the air and shout, "Show me the evidence!" Then they turn red and have a coughing fit. In less dramatic cases a student  might be genuinely curious and open-minded, but unsure where to begin to find reliable evidence about psi. Google knows all and sees all, but it doesn't know how to interpret or evaluate what it knows (at least not yet). In the past, my response to the "show me" challenge has been to give the titles of a few books to read, point to the bibliographies in those books, and advise the person to do their homework. I still think that this is the best approach for a beginner tackling a complex topic. But given the growing expectation that information on  virtually any topic ought to be available online within 60 seconds, traditional methods of scholarship are disappearing fast. So I've created a SHOW ME  page with downloadable articles on psi a
Read more