tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post5896945543077129045..comments2024-01-26T00:50:50.752-08:00Comments on Entangled Minds: Maybe the check is in the mail?Dean Radinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-81374035418674789312012-04-13T04:14:01.772-07:002012-04-13T04:14:01.772-07:00I understand your point. We don't rely on anon...I understand your point. We don't rely on anonymous info in Wikipedia, some would do this for fun.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.kamagracentre.com/" rel="nofollow">kamagra</a>Jojo P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04518614435354339861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-21814873874147082752010-07-17T13:48:20.541-07:002010-07-17T13:48:20.541-07:00Hi Dean,
Just discovered your blog and I've b...Hi Dean,<br /><br />Just discovered your blog and I've been snooping around. I stumbled on a number of parapsychology blogs today, which is pretty cool. I had been out of the loop, so to speak, just kind of doing my own thing.<br /><br />I am something of an amateur philosopher on consciousness and parapsychology. I have developed a philosophy I call Asabandha, which is a Sanskrit word meaning expectation, confidence, hope, trust and faith.<br /><br />One thing that I find puzzling is the use of the word "intent" to describe the action of psychic influence.<br /><br />I view "expectation" as the root mechanism in consciousness that is responsible for psi effects through quantum resonance, constructive and destructive interference of possibility-waves. Expectation is the anticipated outcome in the event of uncertainty. Our Universe is full of uncertainty, which is exactly what allows psychic influence to work.. So I find the term expectation very appropriate.<br /><br />Furthermore, intent is a function of the self-reflective consciousness; it is a high level thought. Confidence, and the lack thereof (doubt), play on intent and serve to modify its effect. Expectation, on the other hand, is a subconscious function of the consciousness. Expectation matches intent when there is the presence of confidence and faith, but expectation also reflects the effects of doubt and disbelief.<br /><br />This understanding of the functions of consciousness on phenomena makes the failings of many PSI studies more understandable. By thinking not in terms of intent, but rather in terms of expectation, it is easier to understand why it is so difficult to execute reliable experiments in the field of parapsychology. After all, expectations stem from all over the place... Deep within our subconscious -- from the Universal Consciousness, from memories, sensory inputs, etc. With all these variables it is no wonder it is so difficult to create controlled experiments.<br /><br />I was encouraged when reading up on... What's his name, Emoto, that he had defended his findings based on the inherently flawed nature of studies involving "investigators" who disbelieve in psychic influence over phenomena and thus run interference (quite literally) on the experiments.<br /><br />Even publicizing the test causes the general public to form expectations about the outcome, which affects the outcome of experiments. It is very tricky. I actually wrote a blog entry on why I feel it is impossible to ever conduct scientific tests of psychic influence that will meet the criteria of skeptic investigators.<br /><br />Just some thoughts. I would be most honored if you would check out some of my writing and video blogs and leave some feedback. I am quite interested in studying parapsychology, consciousness and metaphysics in a University setting. Stigmas be damned! I am already labeled a nut by the feds... It cannot get any worse.<br /><br />My blog is here: <a href="http://www.quantumcreator.info/" rel="nofollow">Tales of a Quantum Creator</a><br /><br />- RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-65803636347986939032010-07-03T10:35:54.037-07:002010-07-03T10:35:54.037-07:00Pikemann Urge is right. Indeed, Kent Hovind offere...Pikemann Urge is right. Indeed, Kent Hovind offered a prize to anybody that could provide evidence for evolution. Nobody ever won the prize, but that doesn't mean evolution is false...Paprika https://www.blogger.com/profile/01650640416865438605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-1498465613943747112010-07-02T03:15:13.656-07:002010-07-02T03:15:13.656-07:00This won't be the first time I say this: reali...This won't be the first time I say this: reality is not decided by prizes.Pikemann Urgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02587558012877707537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-79196684285893583082010-07-01T20:09:32.562-07:002010-07-01T20:09:32.562-07:00Thanks for your response, Dean.
If you don't ...Thanks for your response, Dean.<br /><br />If you don't mind indulging me further:<br /><br />Have similar control experiments been done for ESP tests--i.e., has a comparison been made between two sets of (ostensibly) randomly (computer) selected sender targets to see if there are correlations between the two sets above what would be expected by chance?<br /><br />In other words, targets to be "sent" are automatically, randomly selected from the same pool of potential targets in two different trials of equal length, where no one is actually attempting to send or receive the targets, just to compare the two automatically generated chronological trials that result against each other to see if the correlations between them exceed what would be expected by chance.<br /><br />(I hope I'm being clear here.)Keith Augustinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16718427136116646031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-26844053672641094682010-06-27T14:53:13.380-07:002010-06-27T14:53:13.380-07:00Yes, the eeg cap and the other conditions you ment...Yes, the eeg cap and the other conditions you mentioned probably made it much more unfavorable than the ordinary ganzfeld experiments. <br /><br />I am excited about the DOPS at the University of Virginia since they write they want to test exceptional subjects. I feel that is the way to go to learn more beyond proof. <br /><br />Thanks for the info Dean :)Torhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832780160218654422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-52911820905976437592010-06-27T12:52:37.069-07:002010-06-27T12:52:37.069-07:00The subjects, perhaps yes. But the rest of the tes...The subjects, perhaps yes. But the rest of the testing conditions, not so much.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-53425299848442943782010-06-27T12:21:14.923-07:002010-06-27T12:21:14.923-07:00Hmm.. Well, if others experienced similar uncomfor...Hmm.. Well, if others experienced similar uncomfortable conditions it is to expected. If it was only you though it is a bit strange and ironic since the study subjects were there exactly to optimize conditions for good results. I almost feel like I can see the Trickster at work here, but I don't like this trickster notion.Torhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832780160218654422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-22407119278363232972010-06-27T11:50:36.080-07:002010-06-27T11:50:36.080-07:00I don't think it showed a significant overall ...I don't think it showed a significant overall effect. Positive, if memory serves me correctly, but not significant.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-18670298036802750622010-06-27T11:37:14.485-07:002010-06-27T11:37:14.485-07:00Hehe.. Yes, I can imagine that wasn't very psi...Hehe.. Yes, I can imagine that wasn't very psi enhancing. Sounds like a good test for claustrophobia though :)<br /><br />If this happened for other subjects too I guess this study didn't go that well as a whole either. Any idea what the total results ended up being?Torhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832780160218654422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-44059154787820562142010-06-27T10:57:11.428-07:002010-06-27T10:57:11.428-07:00Offhand I can't recall any such studies, but I...Offhand I can't recall any such studies, but I do have the sense that some have been conducted.<br /><br />The Stanford study was completed, but I don't recall that it was ever published. <br /><br />I was one of the subjects in that study because of my background in classical violin performance. But my experience was not pleasant because they forgot to turn on the red light, so I spent a half hour in total darkness, in a little booth, wearing an uncomfortable, increasingly hot, 32 channel EEG cap. Needless to say, I didn't do very well in that session!Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-52765039891930090402010-06-27T07:44:38.866-07:002010-06-27T07:44:38.866-07:00Dean, a bit off topic, but do you know of any stud...Dean, a bit off topic, but do you know of any studies exploring correlations between creativity and psi that have been done apart from the one Marilyn Schlitz did in 1992 and the other one Kathy Dalton did in the late 90s?<br /><br />There is an older page on the IONS site (from 1999) referring to a then ongoing replication involving more exploratory work by Schlitz, LaBerge and Dalton. It says it was ongoing at Standford University. Was this study abandoned?Torhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832780160218654422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-42053791123445966172010-06-26T18:50:27.139-07:002010-06-26T18:50:27.139-07:00> Have such experiments ever been done compared...> Have such experiments ever been done compared to control experiments--that is, random number generator trials where no subject was trying to mentally influence the RNG outcome?<br /><br />Yes. Control conditions are commonly run. E.g., the many PK-RNG studies at PEAR always included a "no influence" condition.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-2034706748989475582010-06-26T16:17:40.691-07:002010-06-26T16:17:40.691-07:00Hi Dean,
I have a quick question--my apologies if...Hi Dean,<br /><br />I have a quick question--my apologies if this is the wrong place to ask it.<br /><br />I know that a number of PK experiments have been done and their success has been measured compared to odds against chance.<br /><br />Have such experiments ever been done compared to control experiments--that is, random number generator trials where no subject was trying to mentally influence the RNG outcome?<br /><br />It seems to me that this would well control for the possibility of artifactual results or any other possibility that the RNG was not truly random.Keith Augustinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16718427136116646031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-58852087512225442052010-06-25T16:33:23.890-07:002010-06-25T16:33:23.890-07:00Sandy,
Pseudo-skeptics certainly know how to crea...Sandy,<br /><br />Pseudo-skeptics certainly know how to create a hostile environment for anyone open to the idea of psi. I feel they are like the playground bullies. It isn't about right or wrong, but about shouting and hitting hard and creating the impression that anyone interested in these things are idiots or at best self delusional. What gets me frustrated sometimes is that in some ways this has been accomplished. Not that informed, open minded and critical people positive towards psi feel like idiots, but being human they do not want to be pointed out as ones. Myself I did not feel good while reading those reviews. Not because all my "weak minded delusional beliefs" were threatened, but because the kind of language used ( insinuations and so on) makes me feel bad. This kind of writing tries to get to your emotions, to invoke an avoidance reaction that will make you turn over to the dark side (it is dark.. why the heck to these people have to vomit negativity all the time??)<br /><br />It is ironic that pseudo-skeptics end up becoming the very thing that they are so afraid of. Many of them do act like irrational mobs on the internet (I hope this is part of the Internet A..hole syndrome (IAS) and that most are better people in real life).<br /><br />I think it is possible to be open about belief in psi. Fortunately most people are open minded abut these things. They have no strong opinions either way. We only feel it is problematic because we get exposed to it through certain channels. Pseudo-skeptics aren't that many, but they have positioned themselves so as to give easy access to media channels. And that is all one needs to create confusion and false impressions. <br /><br />It is all this negativity that is being associated with psi research that is frustrating. I have no problem with people being skeptical or even refusing to look through the telescope, as long as they behave politely and with respect.Torhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832780160218654422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-36172833151343099162010-06-25T10:54:24.113-07:002010-06-25T10:54:24.113-07:00Tor,
When I see things like that I think there is...Tor,<br /><br />When I see things like that I think there is no way I'm ever coming out of the closet as a believer in psi phenomenon. It isn't as if I believe in psi based solely on my personal experiences. I had to look at a lot of material, and I still keep questioning what I read. I even took part in experiments, so I have first-hand evidence in a controlled environment to consider. Even with all that it is hard to accept certain things.<br /><br />I do have some sympathy for the skeptics. That being said, I'm afraid of them too. Because of such attitudes, I don't think I'll ever be able to openly admit what I think some pretty good evidence has compelled me to believe. <br /><br />That sucks.butterflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04152024854187616472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-28336025239511200702010-06-25T10:46:56.534-07:002010-06-25T10:46:56.534-07:00> Even if he does, however, I still won't b...> Even if he does, however, I still won't believe it.<br /><br />And this is why I regard it a waste of time to debate such people. They simply aren't interested in discussing evidence.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-40587374692229132552010-06-25T01:17:35.857-07:002010-06-25T01:17:35.857-07:00I read the wiki article on Dean Radin just to see ...I read the wiki article on Dean Radin just to see if it had been cleaned up since i looked at it a couple of years ago. It seemed better than the last time at least.<br /><br />Then I checked on of the "mixed" book reviews referred to and ended up reading two reviews by Robert T. Carrol (of EM and CU). Words like angry and grumpy comes to mind. This is really low level stuff..<br /><br />I especially like his conclusion from the CU review:<br /><br /><i>I’ll conclude by saying that if I thought that these studies of psi or spirits were likely to lead anywhere significant, I’d be on board. There is no reason to think that this will happen. We are in a much better place today than we were one hundred and fifty years ago to understand why people believe in spirits and psi. These should be matters for psychology. We are in a very good place today to understand why the defenders of psi and spirits are capable of deceiving themselves into thinking they have solid scientific evidence for their beliefs.<br /><br />......<br /><br />No doubt Radin can cite a meta-analysis that shows that we can eliminate Helicobacter pylori by mental intention with odds against chance of ten zillion to one.<br /><br />Even if he does, however, I still won't believe it.</i><br /><br />(The web links can be found on the Dean Radin wiki page)<br /><br />It is amusing how much emotionally loaded rubbish some manage to spread around. Seems it doesn't matter if it is self contradictory either.Torhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832780160218654422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-23995195380481309422010-06-24T17:59:11.260-07:002010-06-24T17:59:11.260-07:00Hi, Dean
I was trying to show in the wikipedia...Hi, Dean<br /><br />I was trying to show in the wikipedia's article about Leonora Piper that the criticisms by Martin Gardner are clearly wrong. Look the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leonora_Piper:<br /><br />The views of the psychical researchers are presently represented in the article, e.g. William James et al believed Piper could contact spirits. Including long polemics against critic Gardner puts undue weight on the minority viewpoint. - LuckyLouie <br /><br />Me: Are you saying that Gardner can write all the lies he wants and Wikipedia can't do anything about that? <br /><br />As a mainstream encyclopedia, Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. It's not the place for righting great wrongs. - LuckyLouie <br /><br />Me: So it's ok to Wikipedia to repeat a lie over and over again? Gardner does not express the opinion of the mainstream either. <br /><br />I think then, your beef is with the New York Times. They cited Gardner's opinions of Piper. We just summarize what they reported. Wikipedia can only include what is published in reliable sources. - <br /><br />Me: And what makes you think that the NYT is a reliable source in this case? Do they have peer-review like in scientific journals? Even parapsychology journals have peer-review. You accept the review of the NYT about Deborah Blum's book, but you did not accept the reviews published in scientific journals of the mainstream of Irreducible Mind. My sources are clearly more reliable than yours. <br /><br />Well, Wikipedia works not only by policies like WP:RS but also by gathering consensus on which sources are reliable and which are not, so you might take your issue with the NYT to a noticeboard such as WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN and let the community give you feedback and advice on how to solve your problem. Involving a wide range of experienced editors might be best at this point, rather than continuing to try to 'edit war' your opinions into the article. LuckyLouie <br />--------------------------<br /><br />It's really amazing what Lucky Louie said: "Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth." <br /><br />That's why Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.Enfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-59578746235817505352010-06-23T09:06:04.576-07:002010-06-23T09:06:04.576-07:00Hi Dean
There is an interesting experiment that y...Hi Dean<br /><br />There is an interesting experiment that you may want to do. The experiment is as follows...Get a number of decks of new cards. Shuffle thoroughly. Have deck face down on table. Try to predict the card on top of the deck before pulling the card. If you predict the card correctly, study your experience and try to find something that consistently provides correct answers (eg. if you see a shadow in your mind that reminds you of a spade and it proves true ie you actually pull a spade.)mikorangesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17057151496490867622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-53056932844477438852010-06-22T23:04:59.902-07:002010-06-22T23:04:59.902-07:00Ha! Funny you should mention a check in the mail ...Ha! Funny you should mention a check in the mail in the same post with freezing.... This kind of thing is so frustrating to good faith actors in the world.wimpyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00073194470627227599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-52441908479049618312010-06-22T22:17:16.578-07:002010-06-22T22:17:16.578-07:00It appears that a miracle has occurred because a f...It appears that a miracle has occurred because a few portions of this article on Wikipedia were revised, possibly due to my blog post. The Wiki article is still incorrect, but at least it has moved in the right direction.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-29020232343632647102010-06-21T10:29:22.177-07:002010-06-21T10:29:22.177-07:00It's clear that wikipedia favors the scientifi...It's clear that wikipedia favors the scientific orthodoxy and extreme skepticism regarding unconventional claims.<br /><br />In his blog, Henry Bauwer has commented about some of the problems of the anonymous contribution to wikipedia, see for example this post:<br /><br />http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/the-unqualified-without-qualifications-gurus-of-wikipedia/<br /><br />Bauer argues "<b>Further insight into Wikipedia as an in-group cult comes from looking at the posted procedures for resolution of problems, and especially at the people in charge: 11 names are given that may well be genuine names of real persons, plus 11 IDs; 3 of the latter are linked to pages that give apparently real names, and another couple yield photos, but half-a-dozen remain completely anonymous</b>"<br /><br />Tim Bolen, the nemesis of skeptic-debunker Stephen Barrett, is considered almost as an enemy of wikipedia, due to Bolen's legal problems with Barrett and other "Quackbusters" (=debunkers of alternative medicine). See for example this:<br /><br />http://bolenreport.com/feature_articles/feature_article088.htm<br /><br />And this:<br /><br />http://bolenreport.com/feature_articles/feature_article077.htm<br /><br />In principle, wikipedia seemed to be a great idea, but it seems clear now that it's being misused as a propaganda instrument to favors certain circles and interests (orthodoxy)<br /><br />Sadly, most people, specially young people, seems to believe in Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.Jimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12817742150756784876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-6931393991645477322010-06-18T13:41:29.247-07:002010-06-18T13:41:29.247-07:00Randi has backed out of challanges for the mill be...Randi has backed out of challanges for the mill before<br /><br />"Randi Backs Out of Challenge with Homeopath George Vithoulkas"<br /><br />http://www.naturalnews.com/025627.htmlmatthewx78https://www.blogger.com/profile/16424638890765844772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-7836996652445933562010-06-16T16:44:49.337-07:002010-06-16T16:44:49.337-07:00Dean,
The Prize Check is just as much a Gimick fo...Dean,<br /><br />The Prize Check is just as much a Gimick for the "Rationalist" as bent keys by Uri Gellar are for people like us..... <br /><br />We have to sort out the weeds on both sides of the fence, and then maybe we have a glimpse at the truth..matthewx78https://www.blogger.com/profile/16424638890765844772noreply@blogger.com