Talk at Aqus Cafe
This is a streaming video of an informal talk I gave recently at an Irish pub and cafe located near our office in Petaluma, California. The talk itself is about 40 minutes, followed by about an hour of Q&A.
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
Comments
based on mind to mind interactions.
The idea is to share a piece of information between online participants (an image) and see what it inspires to them. There is no real emitter here, everybody is the emitter, or the slit.
http://ganzfeldinterference.blogspot.com/
I do have a different opinion than you regarding anecdotes (i.e. unpublished experiences). There certainly is a significance to anecdotes. The catch is that they are unable to tell us anything very specific; and that they must be abundant, from independent sources.
The better the record keeping the better, of course. Notarization is better still. Of course cynical critics will not accept any of it. They prefer the one experiment that doesn't work to the two that do work. That's how they roll.
Is this experiment (the collapse of the probability function under an observer's attention through internet)really different from an attempt to influence the macroscopic outcome of many coin's flips? there will always be a statistical deviation and you will always have the burden to prove that this deviation is not within normal range or is not due to a biais in the coin or in the experiment.
But at least you try, i give you that.
Every time i do this experiment (the slit), i think that it's impossible and at the same time, i remember that if the 'mind' is really an immaterial entity, then somehow this entity can interact with the material brain...therefore mind-matter interactions must exist.
But I have the sentiment that this interaction is only possible with infinitively complex systems and does not involve any energy or transfer of energy. By analogy with a black hole, perhaps the brain, when it reaches a certain level of complexity, creates some sort of singularity that introduces infinite terms in the description of itself and its information content...
Oh, really? Hmmm...
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-god-particle-m,0,4435571.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews+%28L.A.+Times+-+Top+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
Your attention is invited to a paper by Persinger and Dotta entitled Temporal Patterns of Photon Emissions Can Be Stored and Retrieved Several Days Later From the “Same Space”: Experimental and Quantitative Evidence.
A pdf is located at http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/467.
Scientists in laboratories do puzzling experiments to show the future, writes Bob Holmes
http://www.omantribune.com/index.php?page=leisure_details&&id=6414&heading=Special%20Features
I would like to nominate you to speak at Ted, but they require me to list your email address and phone number. Is there one that you use for this sort of thing? Is this something in which you'd be interested?
Or perhaps you could nominate yourself...? Although I think more nominations means higher probability of getting invited.
http://www.ted.com/nominate/speaker
Tony
My contact information is noted on this page at the IONS website: http://noetic.org/directory/person/dean-radin/