Wednesday, April 20, 2011

SSE Meeting June 9 - 11, 2011




SOCIETY FOR SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION
30th Annual Meeting, Boulder, Colorado
9-11 June 2011
www.scientificexploration.org


Program Committee: Bill Bengston, Chair, Dick Blasband, Courtney Brown, Adam Curry, Brenda Dunne, Robert Jahn, Dominique Surel. Local Arrangements: Dominique Surel

WEDNESDAY EVENING, June 8 - Millennium Hotel Gardens, Boulder, Colorado

6:00 pm - Opening Reception and Registration. Poster set-up

THURSDAY MORNING, June 9 - Ballroom
Theme I: IMPLICATIONS OF NON-LOCALITY

9:00 Welcome and Introductions

9:10 Pamela Rae Heath, Diverse Perspectives: What Distant Healing, Remote Viewing, and the Afterlife Suggest about Non-Locality

9:50 Jane Katra, After Death Communication Involving the Ongoing Work of Two Bonded Parapsychologist Healers

10:10 Walter Semkiw, Advances in Reincarnation Research: A Tribute to Ian Stevenson

10:30 Gary Schwartz, Photonic Measurement of Apparent Presence of Spirit using a Computer Automated System

10:50 BREAK

11:10 Larry Dossey, Precognition As Preventive Medicine

11:50 Julie Beischel, Michael Biuso, Mark Boccuzzi, Adam Rock, Anomalous Information Reception by Research Mediums under Quintiple-Blind Conditions: Can the Mind Exist without the Body?

12:10 Chuck Lear, The Bell Inequality and Non-Local Causality (sponsored by Dean Radin)

12:30 LUNCH BREAK - Young Investigators' Meeting

THURSDAY AFTERNOON - Ballroom
Theme II: THE SCIENCE OF THE SUBJECTIVE

2:00 Robert Jahn & Brenda Dunne, Towards a Science of the Subjective

2:40 Mark Boccuzzi, Three Methods for Examining Experimenter Effects in Investigations of Psychokinesis (sponsored by Julie Beischel)

3:00 Maria Syldona, Science of Subjectivity – Key to understanding the nature of Reality

3:20 BREAK

3:40 Dean Radin, Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments

4:20 York Dobyns, Using Parapsychology to Test Fundamental Physics

4:40 J. Kenneth Arnette, Subjectivity is Constitutive: Consciousness is to Energy as Energy is to Matter

5:00 Bernard Haisch, Is There a Consciousness Underlying the Universe?

5:20 Dan Ward, Planetary Geometry

5:40 BUSINESS MEETING

FRIDAY MORNING, June 10th - Ballroom
Theme III: CONSCIOUSNESS AND LIVING SYSTEMS

9:00 Announcements

9:10 Larissa Cheran, Beyond Quantum: Consciousness in Action

9:50 Richard Shoup, How Consciousness is Like Las Vegas - and Where the Real Focus Should Be

10:10 Igor Dolgov, Self Organized Design: The Mechanism Behind Mindless, Yet Intelligent Natural Selection

10:30 BREAK

10:50 Bill Bengston, Healing with Intent: Some Reflections on Cancer Experiments on Laboratory Mice

11:10 Samuel Sandweiss, A Case Presentation about the Nature of Consciousness

11:30 Carl Medwedeff, Chemical Biology in Radionics and Healing (sponsored by Erik Schultes)

FIELD TRIP – RED ROCKS PARK

12:30 - Bus departs at 12:30 sharp
Pre-ordered lunch to be picked-up in lobby before boarding the bus

4:00 Bus leaves Red Rocks to return to Hotel (arrive around 5pm)

5pm – 7:30 Free time for dinner

FRIDAY EVENING - Ballroom
CONSCIOUSNESS, Part II

7:30 Rollin McCraty, Coherence: Bridging Personal, Social and Global Systems Health

8:10 Roger Nelson, Similarities of Global and Individual Consciousness

8:30 Garret Moddel, Zixu, Zhu, Adam Curry, Machine Consciousness: Experimental Evidence

8:50 Glen Rein, Bio-Information and Non-Local Distant Interactions between Biological Systems

SATURDAY MORNING, JUNE 11th - Ballroom
Theme IV: PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF ANOMALIES RESEARCH

9:00 Announcements

9:10 John McMichael, Resonant Molecular Signaling: From Theory to Practice

9:50 Joie Jones, Yury Kronn, Experiments on the Effects of Subtle Energy on the Electro-Magnetic Field: Is Subtle Energy the 5th Force of the Universe?

10:10 Marsha Adams, Do Atmospheric Aberrations Precede Seismic Activity?

10:30 Dale Graff, Precognition and Synchronicity: Implications for Safety and Survival

10:50 BREAK

11:10 Francesca McCartney, Energy Medicine University: Education at the Frontier of Science

11:50 Dominique Surel, Transformational Effects of Remote Viewing

12:10 Alexis Champion, Remote Viewing Software: The Key to Profitability

12:30 LUNCH BREAK

SATURDAY AFTERNOON – Century Room 1st Floor

Theme IV: PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS (CONTINUED)

2:00 Courtney Brown, The Creation of the Asteroid Belt: Using Remote-Viewing Data to Investigate the Exploding Planet Hypothesis

2:20 John MacLean, Premonitions and other Psi in Reliability Engineering

2:40 John Alexander, Signal to Noise: A Fundamental Problem for Phenomenology

Theme V: THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENTIFIC EVOLUTION

3:00 Jonathan Schooler, The Decline Effect: Exploring Why Effects Sizes often Decline Following Repeated Replications

3:40 Henry Bauer, From Dawn to Decadence: The Evolution of Modern Science

4:00 BREAK

4:20 Ron Westrum, Closed Minds and Battered Kids: How Science Resists Knowledge of Anomalies

4:40 Claude Swanson, Dark Matter, Torsion and ESP Reception

5:00 Alexander Trofimov, Kozyrev’s “Remote Viewing” of the Universe

5:20 Walter Cruttenden, The Cosmic Influence: A Framework for Epochal Changes in Consciousness

CLOSING BANQUET
6:15 - Cocktails

7:00 – Dinner

8:00 - Panel Discussion on Future Directions for the SSE – panelists to be announced.

15 comments:

Tor said...

I wish this meeting was in my back yard as this is seems to be an extremely interesting and stimulating event. I see you will be talking about six double-slits and consciousness experiments. This is one series of experiments I am really curious about. Will there be a publication on this work around the time of the meeting?

MickyD said...

looks very interesting, especially your sponsored presentation on Bell's Inequality. Good to see Dr Yount presenting again, although I prefered it when he was discussing his Qigong research (machine consciousness?). Looking forward to reading / viewing the presentations when they become available.

Dean Radin said...

Our double-slit experiments have been submitted to a physics journal. With some luck we might be able to say it is in press by the time of the conference, but time will tell.

Tor said...

Glad to hear it has been submitted to a physics journal. Nothing is better than to expose the physics community directly to this. They have been shying away from the problem of observation for too long. I hope the last couple of decades development in quantum mind/consciousness theories have made editors more open minded, if only because of familiarity with the concepts. It should at least prevent them from just dismissing it out of hand.

francisco.j.93 said...

I hope they get published, because that would add to the mainstream psi publications. Dean, why do you think public opinion about psi is moving on the positive side? I still see the same skeptics with the same lame arguments that are just gross misiterpretations... By the way, the Gaia's dreams, the unconscious psi, and presentiment parts of "entangled minds" have a lot of inportant data that many skeptics do not look at. I think those experiments are the most convincing (excluding ganzfeld because that is the most known one)

MickyD said...

Massive surprise: the attempt by Wiseman, French and Richie to replicate Bem has failed.... and there is a big article in the Guardian by (Skeptic) Ben Goldacre. Be funny if it wasn't so predictable and damaging.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/23/ben-goldacre-bad-science?CMP=twt_fd

julio siqueira said...

I, too, am pretty much looking forward to knowing deeper about this paper by Radin (six double-slit experiments) and about this recent failed experiment by Wiseman and gang.

Tony Fraser said...

"Massive surprise: the attempt by Wiseman, French and Richie to replicate Bem has failed.... and there is a big article in the Guardian by (Skeptic) Ben Goldacre. Be funny if it wasn't so predictable and damaging"

I used to like Ben Goldacre and the Guardian, but now I realise the Goldacre is an incredibly smug and self righteous, plus when you have Wiseman and French they will deliberately design experiments to fail. The Guardian also is incredibly biased towards the materialist atheist view point so there is no chance of a fair review of experiments from Dr Sheldrake which was shot down in flames a couple of years ago although he wrote a rather decent rubbutle. It is a shame because unless Dawkins, French, Wiseman, Atkins et al all die suddenly and the Guardian and BBC go out of business (not that I want that because I like the BBC and a few Guardian writers or that I want people to die) there is no way that the British public will take the PSI/NDE etc research seriously.

on a completely different note, it's great to see more info from Julie Bieschel. Will there be audio files on the IONS website?

francisco.j.93 said...

Richard Wiseman actually designed one experiment so it fails with the girl Natasha Damnika. He wanted her to get 5 out of the 7, she got four and they discredited her. 4 out of 7 is good, it is more than chance and you can see it if you do some calculations. A physicist who's name I cannot remember right now did it and found that if you got 4 out of 7 it was statistically significant. However, Hyman answered with his mantra "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", and said she could have got sensory clues. First of all, we know the mantra is false. Second, If he believes that the experiment could give the girl sensory clues (It did not because it was carefully designed. HELLOOOO, designed by skeptics!)why didn't he try to design a more controlled experiment? One wonders if that organization really cares about research. The girl did not got any clues. She got four right and this shows us how CSI just try to find excuses to not accept psi phenomena. Excuses based on fictional things, because supposedly they are skeptics who design the best experiments with no sensory leakage. They are just self-contradicting...

Lawrence said...

Wiseman has zero credibility re objectivity on psi. Look at how he misrepresented the facts about Sheldrake's animal telepathy experiments (with the dog Jaytee). See what Sheldrake has to say there - namely how Wiseman misrepresented and quashed his own (that is Wiseman's) impressive data findings here, for years no less.

What on earth is Courtney Brown doing at this SSE meeting? He does not give RV credibility, only the opposite. How can John Alexander and D Graff stand to be in the same room as him? Sorry but this is a blunder on the SSE organisers' part. Courtney Brown is representative of the very worst of New-Age wooziness. Sheesh.

Kaviraj said...

Hi Dean, I just wanted to bring this (negative article) to your attention:

http://barenormality.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/feeling-the-future/

I'm not sure who the poster is, but there seems to be a new player in town

MickyD said...

Dean, I'm sure you've already seen this but thought I would post it. It's the recent psi and psychology debate at Harvard. I found it very stimulating viewing. Sam Moulton appears to be going down the token skeptic route!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Tdiu5kwjKs

Pikemann Urge said...

if you got 4 out of 7 it was statistically significant. However, Hyman answered with his mantra "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

Any evidence for 'extraordinary'claims is by its very nature extraordinary. I don't see why skeptics have such a problem with this.

And here's the thing: if an experiment fails, then surely the authors of the experiment weren't doing it right. Obviously.*

*Actually, no; but just because some skeptic can't get results doesn't mean there is nothing there.

Dean Radin said...

> I'm not sure who the poster is, but there seems to be a new player in town.

Looks like a simple repetition of nonsense and ignorance. In any case, an anonymous blog is the refuge of cowards.

The Raving Chemist said...

The Wagenmakers et al paper is a joke.

They call out Dr. Bem for supposedly using statistics to come up with the hypotheses after the fact, then call those effects confirmed.

Wagenmakers and company use statistics after the fact, setting the bar higher after already knowing the level of significance in the data, and say, "Presto, we just confirmed the null hypothesis."

That's just about as good as Moulton claiming that the brains of subjects using ESP look exactly the same as the brains of subjects exposed to normal stimuli, despite not having any ESP effect in his study to compare. Brilliant.