tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post574273873131860065..comments2024-01-26T00:50:50.752-08:00Comments on Entangled Minds: Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is provenDean Radinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-29082179426580739372014-05-22T19:52:31.133-07:002014-05-22T19:52:31.133-07:00"...this thing (whatever it is) deserves to b..."...this thing (whatever it is) deserves to be studied, investigated, creatively chewed on...no matter what. <br />It took a hell of a lot of pontificating to get to that bit of eden." <br /><br />Bingo.<br /><br />-Teresa<br /><br />Teresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327561168518093470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-44787570648189680222014-05-22T17:58:32.481-07:002014-05-22T17:58:32.481-07:00> this thing (whatever it is) deserves to be st...> this thing (whatever it is) deserves to be studied, investigated, creatively chewed on...no matter what. <br /><br />Exactly. We are presented with an anomaly that a few scientists are attempting to study while many more (mostly non-scientists) try to stop it from being studied.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-5244509569000477712014-05-22T17:15:04.119-07:002014-05-22T17:15:04.119-07:00I know that this thread has been threaded long ago...I know that this thread has been threaded long ago but I just happened upon it today and hope that someone sees my quick comment and replies. That comment being: OK, great. There is a ~37% chance that something has been «seen»...now what? Are we prepared to drop a bomb on some facility that might be harboring bad guys given those odds? What are we talking about, really?<br />And the only conclusion I can reach, after wading through this thread, is that this thing (whatever it is) deserves to be studied, investigated, creatively chewed on...no matter what. <br />It took a hell of a lot of pontificating to get to that bit of eden.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03356847107588244540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-2172668121238574682012-11-24T19:40:12.181-08:002012-11-24T19:40:12.181-08:00Even though this is an old post I'm taking a s...Even though this is an old post I'm taking a shot in the dark to ask:<br />Mr. Radin, what are your thoughts on Astral Projection? Have you even done it? Studied it? Believe it's possible? Thank you! ~LesliJuniperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17417147046724209351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-43533811793253586522010-08-22T04:07:48.992-07:002010-08-22T04:07:48.992-07:00Just as well the 'flat earthers" weren...Just as well the 'flat earthers" weren't given the same amount of wiggle room or we'd all be afraid to take our boats out too far lest we fall off the edge. I'm stunned at the small mindedness of some people. This sort of fear of the unknown is holding back the release of scientific advancements in the energy field that could be saving our planet. The military industrial complex who, by the way are responsible for this conditioning, find it a lot easier to keep this technology hidden because of people such as these. It exists, the military and the spooks have been using remote viewing for over 20 years, why? BECAUSE IT WORKS!Flixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05045663860202165286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-4653182566949160942010-08-22T03:58:26.980-07:002010-08-22T03:58:26.980-07:00How blind they are. So now the damned food skeptic...How blind they are. So now the damned food skeptics (the irrational variety) want to move the goal posts. The demand for more proof in the case of certain phenomena e.g. UFOs and the paranormal shows that the skeptics are, as I've always suspected, driven by their own belief systems and the need to debunk phenomena that their small minds cannot accept. Their knee jerk attempt to change the rules to suit themselves exposes their narrow view of reality and their desperate attempts to mold the perception of everyone else into their state of extreme conditioning. These people are dangerous and their attempts to hold back the growth of humanity's consciousness is nothing short of diabolical.<br />A red car needs more proof than an Alien's jalopy? Why? They're both in the driveway, one's red and the other's silver, happens to have a better form of propulsion and the driver happens to like longer drives. Apart from that they're the same; Vehicles of metal sitting in my drive. The difference in the saucer's case is the viewer is desperate to deny its existence even though millions have seen them and it's parked with one wheel on his foot, yet he still looks the other way. Damned nitwit!Flixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05045663860202165286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-35056540613301321842010-06-18T14:10:07.376-07:002010-06-18T14:10:07.376-07:00Apparently, Wiseman clarified his position and sta...Apparently, Wiseman clarified his position and stated that he was referring to ESP in general, not just remote viewing. Here is the update about that and analysis and significance:<br /><br />http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2010/04/richard-wiseman-evidence-for-esp-meets.htmlWWu777https://www.blogger.com/profile/04368933194799864846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-1769238761999846642010-02-14T20:07:29.299-08:002010-02-14T20:07:29.299-08:00Wiseman said,
>> I think that [psi effects]...Wiseman said,<br /><br />>> I think that [psi effects] do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim. <<<br /><br />But "extraordinary" vs. "ordinary" is not necessarily an objective distinction. And ironically, in this case, the effects ARE ordinary - the majority of people have experienced these things at one point or another.Paprika https://www.blogger.com/profile/01650640416865438605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-11260108103596221642009-11-20T11:11:56.885-08:002009-11-20T11:11:56.885-08:00Bingo! Science has it's own politics. He and ...Bingo! Science has it's own politics. He and someone else have made ambiguous statements that are pivotal. When thinking shifts and the taboo becomes acceptable mainstream he's ready. He can shift right along with it.<br /><br />~TeresaTeresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327561168518093470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-41328253137117190082009-11-20T11:04:04.070-08:002009-11-20T11:04:04.070-08:00alex.tsakiris said...
wow... his clarification is...alex.tsakiris said... <br />wow... his clarification is even stranger than his original quote... he's admitting that all these psi phenomena have been proven. <br /><br />I think Wiseman (and other otherwise intelligent skeptics) are trying to give themselves wiggle-room for their future flip-flop.<br /><br />-------<br />Bingo! Scientific politics. I said that on another board about somebody else. They've got one or two pivotal statements so when the shift happens and the taboo becomes the popular opinion they're in. <br /><br />~TeresaTeresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327561168518093470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-17262673547932778922009-11-20T10:12:51.563-08:002009-11-20T10:12:51.563-08:00wow... his clarification is even stranger than his...wow... his clarification is even stranger than his original quote... he's admitting that all these psi phenomena have been proven. <br /><br />I think Wiseman (and other otherwise intelligent skeptics) are trying to give themselves wiggle-room for their future flip-flop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-41831499209304948852009-11-07T19:04:37.662-08:002009-11-07T19:04:37.662-08:00A clarification about my original post, found on t...A clarification about my original post, found on this site: <br /><br />http://podblack.com/2009/09/dr-richard-wiseman-on-remote-viewing-in-the-daily-mail-clarification/<br /><br />That blog entry, from an admirer of Richard Wiseman, wondered whether he was quoted correctly. Wiseman replied: <br /><br /><i>“It is a slight misquote, because I was using the term in the more general sense of ESP - that is, I was not talking about remote viewing per se, but rather Ganzfeld, etc as well. I think that they do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim." </i>Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-87339114596165295392009-11-07T17:05:42.457-08:002009-11-07T17:05:42.457-08:00There is no supernatural only natural if it happen...There is no supernatural only natural if it happens it is natural. I have tried remote viewing at home and had way more success than I should have. <br /><br />Proof for science has to be the same for all experiments.Lost Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00527327195071733310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-86078335933462822992009-10-12T15:09:14.950-07:002009-10-12T15:09:14.950-07:00Methinks that what we urgently need is a new Max P...<i>Methinks that what we urgently need is a new Max Planck Institute...for the Accelerated Vanishment of Sceptics.</i><br /><br />Let's not sugar coat it. Give it a name with more historical precedent, maybe something like "the final solution" to "the skeptic problem."<br /><br />Maybe that will raise the consciousness of those who can't tolerate differences of opinion, and force them to think about why it is that they can't tolerate other people having views deviating from their own views.Keith Augustinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16718427136116646031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-75702659820447366282009-10-10T19:57:06.216-07:002009-10-10T19:57:06.216-07:00A mass-market doco, Dean, a mass-market doco. This...A mass-market doco, Dean, a mass-market doco. This is what it will take to get your brilliant, groundbreaking work taken seriously.<br /><br />Case in point: Nobody much cared about environmental trauma before Al Gore painted it all out for us mainstreamers. Then (armed with the scientific 'evidence' presented in a way that we could easily understand), well we cared! And our caring and newfound passion was that which fueled the powers that be to care...and five years on, it's on every agenda in every nation. A green revolution, nothing less.<br />The timing for a scientifically intelligent doco, put forth in mainstream speak, every-day language (what you do so very well, Dean) about your industry's incredible work investigating and proving paranormal science has never been better. You've got a boom in all things paranormal in mainstream TV viewing anyway, so you'll have half the Western world tuned in before you know it (Medium, Charmed, Psychic CSI or whatever it is). The Secret, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Esther & Jerry Hicks, What The Bleep? have all paved the path for you. We want MORE! Entangled Minds as a doco? Absolutely - and the time is now for this information to go mass-market. We're ready, make no mistake. And you get enough of us involved and convinced, just as with putting the environment on the agenda (one doco the veritable catalyst for the entire green revolution), we mainstream types carry the revolution for you. People want this - they want their 'paranormal' and 'consciousness' experiences taken seriously and investigated and explained - by people we trust. Go mass-market Dean.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18246143975250651675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-67540586716383576712009-10-03T16:03:51.526-07:002009-10-03T16:03:51.526-07:00But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day, If your...<i>But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day, If your Snark be a Boojum! For then You will softly and suddenly vanish away, And never be met with again!</i><br /><br />Hahahaha!<br /><br />Methinks that what we urgently need is a new Max Planck Institute...for the Accelerated Vanishment of Sceptics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-84344324438650199332009-10-02T17:49:48.537-07:002009-10-02T17:49:48.537-07:00"So some things hunted may not wish to be see..."So some things hunted may not wish to be seen, and if they are accidentally seen, then you may no longer be seen!"<br /><br />This may relate to recent experiments in quantum physics. One is the experimental confirmation of Hardy's Paradox, which questions that rock hard, brute fact observed and interacted with things are really absolutely "True". Or are all things really only true to a certain depth? Mind bending. Maybe Carroll was psychic. <br /><br />At http://www.answers.com/topic/hardy-s-paradox# :<br /><br />Hardy's paradox is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics devised by Lucien Hardy in which a particle and its antiparticle may interact without annihilating each other. The paradox arises in that this may only occur if the interaction is not observed and so it seemed that one might never be able to confirm this.<br /><br />Experiments using the technique of weak measurement have studied an interaction of polarized photons and these have demonstrated that the phenomenon does occur. However, the consequence of these experiments maintain only that past events can be inferred about after their occurrence as a probabilistic wave collapse. These weak measurements are considered by some to be an observation themselves, and therefore part of the causation of wave collapse, making the objective results only a probabilistic function rather than a fixed reality.dawnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05448082256829038405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-40933632827498000182009-10-01T16:44:28.674-07:002009-10-01T16:44:28.674-07:00Speaking of snarky articles....
One of my favorit...Speaking of snarky articles....<br /><br />One of my favorite poems is Lewis Carroll's <i>Hunting of the Snark.</i> I like this poem because it suggests that some snarks -- those of the boojum variety -- have an observation-sensitive aspect. So some things hunted may not wish to be seen, and if they are accidentally seen, then <b>you</b> may no longer be seen!<br /><br />- - -<br /><br />But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day, If your Snark be a Boojum! For then You will softly and suddenly vanish away, And never be met with again!Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-35760039994632516882009-10-01T15:35:37.785-07:002009-10-01T15:35:37.785-07:00I read the snarky article (linked below) before r...I read the snarky article (linked below) before reading all the way through the "radin_crystal2" pdf.<br /><br />As I thought, the snarky article was using weasel words to get past a statistical significance issue in the original paper.<br /><br />The original reads:<br /><i><br />It should be noted that the distant controls were judged as being slightly <br />(nonsignificantly) more beautiful than the treated samples when considering all trials, but <br />for the comparison of main interest (treated vs. proximal controls) the results were in <br />alignment with the previously reported pilot test. <br /></i><br />Title: "Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation: A Triple-Blind Replication"<br />Authors: Radin, Lund, Emoto, Kizu<br />http://www.ions.org/emails/ishift/articles/radin_crystal2.pdf<br /><br />The snarky article at:<br />http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Latest+Message+from+Water:+Is+Dr.+Emoto+a+Spiritual+Madoff%3F-a0206951893<br /><br />doesn't mention the fact that the paper discusses distant versus proximal controls, and that the beauty issue was not statistically significant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-68846546243646580202009-10-01T15:22:16.787-07:002009-10-01T15:22:16.787-07:00Can someone with a subscription of JSE answer the ...Can someone with a subscription of JSE answer the following?<br /><br />At<br /><br />http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal.html<br /><br />I see a nice list of articles. The most recent pdf is from 2007. There are more recent titles without pdfs.<br /><br />At<br /><br />http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Latest+Message+from+Water:+Is+Dr.+Emoto+a+Spiritual+Madoff%3F-a0206951893<br /><br />I found a snarky article, dated 1 May 2009, that mentions Masaru Emoto's work in 2006 as a success, then says:<br />[quote]<br />But a better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published this winter in the Journal of Scientific Exploration<br /> didn't work out so well. <br />...Interestingly, the crystals, both "treated" and not, on average were not particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). And while the treated crystals were rated slightly more beautiful than one set of controls, they were rated ever-so-slightly less beautiful than the other set of controls. <br />[end quote]<br /><br />Looking at the JSE website, I don't see any titles that seem to correspond to this. Also, I wonder if weasel words like "ever-so-slightly" are being used to camouflage the statistics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-7719894334916394432009-10-01T14:59:25.706-07:002009-10-01T14:59:25.706-07:00@Sandy ' So if deep down you don’t believe tha...@Sandy ' So if deep down you don’t believe that ghosts can hurt you, they can’t.'<br /><br />Even I wouldn't suggest telling astral pranksters to inflict *harm* on humans. I was thinking they could show up in mirrors, spill soup on neckties, shake the target's hand when he's in front of witnesses, etc. <br /><br />The idea is that a lot of loud skeptics are deeply *afraid* of spirits because they have a deep intuition that spirits are real. Deep down, they do believe the spooks can get them, but consciously they put up a good front. Of course, deeply sincere people wouldn't be bothered - I don't think 'hodgepodge skeptics' are sincere!<br /><br />Further, I recognize that he who hires pranksters is more likely to get pranked, so I wouldn't tell the goblins to do anything I would really hate to be done to me. <br /><br />On a slightly different note, in the more recent thread, Dean has linked to:<br /><br />http://www.noetic.org/publications/godeeper_books.cfm<br /><br /><br />which has an awesome list of journal articles. In particular:<br /><br /> INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE INTENTION IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD <br /> <br />has links to the kind of studies that might be relevant to the "astral prankster" project.<br /><br />As a start, one could try sending "astral messengers" to easier targets than skeptics. E.g., one might use distant intention to nourish one potted plant, to blight a second plant, and leave a control potted plant unvisited. (Yes, I am willing to harm potted plants in the name of Science. I am a cruel person.)<br /><br />The goal would be to see if hypothetically independent astral spirits could perform the same role as a skilled psychic. (Of course, one could dispute whether these 'spirits' were the subconscious psi of the operator or genuinely independent entities.)<br /><br />I think potted plants would be cheap, but if the study had a biologist, it could try cultured cells, as in paper at the linked page: 'Effects of healing intention on cultured cells and truly random events.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-32659694948824643022009-10-01T12:40:32.754-07:002009-10-01T12:40:32.754-07:00FB, I love your idea, but the best defense against...FB, I love your idea, but the best defense against the spirit realm is being a skeptic. For whatever reason, it takes some kind of an agreement or acknowledgement between two consciousness’ to allow for any kind of interaction, good or bad. Usually that agreement is unconscious. So if deep down you don’t believe that ghosts can hurt you, they can’t.butterflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04152024854187616472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-59191786767682347142009-10-01T12:00:20.512-07:002009-10-01T12:00:20.512-07:00> if the results from the current AWARE study a...> if the results from the current AWARE study are negative<br /><br />Let's see how this study goes. There's not much use offering an opinion without data in hand.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-19116298348554534782009-10-01T07:37:53.620-07:002009-10-01T07:37:53.620-07:00Dean,
Still no comment on your view on the implic...Dean,<br /><br />Still no comment on your view on the implications for psi, if the results from the current AWARE study are negative. I know it's not your field (NDE research) but am intrigued by your answer.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Michael.MickyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05798927295708682347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-60207872712626039362009-09-30T23:42:46.074-07:002009-09-30T23:42:46.074-07:00@anonymous: thanks for the links:
'... collec...@anonymous: thanks for the links:<br /><br />'... collectively termed "hodgepodge skepticism" by Stephen Braude. Looking at the actual quality and quantity of the testimony, this is so unlikely as to be tantamount to denying the general value in any sense of human testimony.'<br /><br />I have written a delightful experimental protocol for dealing with hodgepodge skeptics. <br /><br />First, one gets a highly skilled medium, shaman, or astral traveler who is well-acquainted with some of the troublesome lifeforms of the astral plane.<br /><br />Second, one secures a "hodgepodge skeptic" who claims there are no such things as spirits.<br /><br />Third, one says, "Since spirits don't exist, you won't mind verbally affirming that you give permission to all the meddlesome spirits in this room to play pranks on you, and as token of permission, you surrender to them some fingernail clippings?" <br /><br />Fourth, so long as the fingernail clippings remain in the possession of the medium, the medium continues to remind the mischievous spirits to play pranks on the fingernail-clipping donor.<br /><br />If the astral plane really is inhabited by ethereal pranksters and other spirits, it should be possible to produce an observable run of "bad luck" and "Murphy's Law" incidents. There should be no ethical objections, since the skeptic gave permission to be harassed by spirits.<br /><br />The experiment wouldn't be expensive; the only difficulty is finding a skilled medium who regards it as ethically acceptable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com