What the bleep

I attended the San Francisco premier of Down the Rabbit Hole last night. The theater was at maximum capacity (about 400 people). The movie itself is long (2 hours 40 minutes) and is essentially an extended version of the original What the Bleep, with some very good new animation and nearly all new interviews. Those expecting an entirely new film will be disappointed, but if you're looking for a more in-depth version of the first film you'll be satisfied. For those who still can't get enough, a 5 hour DVD version is in the works.

Realistically you're not going to learn quantum mechanics from watching this film, or for that matter the biochemistry of addiction, or the mystical foundations of religion, or the ontological implications of living in a holistic universe. But it's an entertaining introduction to very some complex and fascinating topics.

After the show, Mark Vincente (the director), Fred Alan Wolf and I did a Q&A with the audience for about an hour. This film has clearly touched some people very deeply, and if nothing else it gets people thinking seriously about some of the "big questions." I don't recall the last time I've seen a movie that encouraged an audience to think. Feel, sure. That's the bread and butter of Hollywood.

But think? That's unusual, and this movie accomplishes that goal.

Comments

Dean Radin said…
The new interviews were myself, Lynne McTaggart (author of "The Field") and Dr. Emoto (author of "Messages of Water"). The new topic was quantum entanglement. The theme of the movie is the same, but it's deeper in the sense that there's more talking head time and less theatrical movie time. I'm told that the experiment I conducted as part of the interview will be in the 5 hr DVD version.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Saravana said…
Hi Dean,

Good to see a blog of a Scientist working on concepts I like (Entanglement).

I'm an Indian presently trying to understand what ancient Indian sciences say for eg: Astrology and Predicting Future and their explanations from a scientific viewpoint.

btw could you tell me how can I get this DVD in India at Indian costs ?? or should I get it in standard american rates ??

Thanks a lot
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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 Psycho...
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