It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Signs of "Connected Consciousness" Detected on Global Scale

page: 6
65
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


He basically said, why do people have to use quantum mechanics to explain magic or the supernatural.

That would have been me



WHO CLAIMED THESE THINGS WERE MAGIC OR SUPERNATURAL?

If you go back and listen to what I said (the show will be up in the Rewind Player in a few days,) I think you'll find that I was speaking of this tendency in general. As someone who knows something about physics, it annoys me to no end that there are those who know absolutely nothing about physics (or, worse, know a smidgen and think that they understand it,) use it as an explanation of some phenomenon which may or may not be real, but which they think can be "proven" to skeptics by invoking quantum physics.

Quantum physicists will tell you that even they don't really understand what is going on at the quantum level, so it is ridiculous that crackpots like J.Z. Knight have discovered how quantum mechanics makes magic (whatever phenomenon they are promoting) possible.

As I said on the show last night, I don't dismiss paranormal or supernatural phenomenon -- I am, in fact, a real believer in it, as a theist -- what I dismiss is the attempt to explain it through science. Science, by definition, cannot describe or prove the supernatural, so pseudo-scientists should stop trying to do so. Examine the phenomenon, demonstrate that it exists and is reproducible, but stop trying to validate it with a process (Methodological naturalism) that has nothing to do with it.

Thank you for the topic, it was an interesting one. You may enjoy "Into the Fringe", which runs Tuesday nights on ATS Radio, and which exclusively deals with topics such as this, without the interference of skeptics such as myself.




posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Thanks for the thoughtful response,

This was one of the points you made that I disagreed with. Why can't quantum mechanics explain some of these things? Where's this prohibition of quantum mechanics as an explanation of features we see in consciousness that materialist have zero explanation for?

For instance, their was a recent discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubles as predicted by Penrose, who worked with Hawking and Hameroff who are key researchers in the area of the Quantum Mind.

I think skeptics make a HUGE mistake when they do things like bring up J.Z. Knight or throw out terms like quantum woo. I never mentioned J.Z. Knight and yes I think she's a crackpot but everyone that looks into these areas are not crackpots. There's an emerging field of Quantum Biology and people looking into these things are not crackpots like J.Z. Knight. This is why I keep mentioning the call by 100 Scientist to look into these areas and one of the things they mention is Quantum Biology.

A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness


Science thrives when there is an open, informed discussion of all evidence, and recognition that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision. This attitude is in stark contrast with reaching conclusions based solely on a previous set of beliefs or on the assertions of authority figures. Indeed, the search for knowledge wherever it may lead inspired a group of notable scientists and philosophers to found in 1882 the Society for Psychical Research in London. Its purpose was “to investigate that large body of debatable phenomena… without prejudice or prepossession of any kind, and in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned inquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the areas in consciousness they investigated such as psychological dissociation, hypnosis, and preconscious cognition are now well integrated into mainstream science. That has not been the case with research on phenomena such as purported telepathy or precognition, which some scientists (a clear minority according to the surveys conducted en.wikademia.org...) dis-miss a priori as pseudoscience or illegitimate. Contrary to the negative impression given by some critics, we would like to stress the following:

Daryl Bem, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Cornell University, USA

Etzel Cardeña, Thorsen Professor of Psychology, Lund University, Sweden

Bernard Carr, Professor in Mathematics and Astronomy, University of London, UK

C. Robert Cloninger, Renard Professor of Psychiatry, Genetics, and Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, USA

Robert G. Jahn, Past Dean of Engineering, Princeton University, USA

Brian Josephson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge, UK (Nobel prizewinner in physics, 1973)

Menas C. Kafatos, Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics, Chapman University, USA

Irving Kirsch, Professor of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Lecturer in Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA, UK

Mark Leary, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, USA

Dean Radin, Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Adjunct Faculty in Psychology, Sonoma State University, USA

Robert Rosenthal, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Riverside, Edgar Pierce Professor Emeritus, Harvard University, USA

Lothar Schäfer, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Arkansas, USA

Raymond Tallis, Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, UK

Charles T. Tart, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, University of California, Davis, USA

Simon Thorpe, Director of Research CNRS (Brain and Cognition), University of Toulouse, France

Patrizio Tressoldi, Researcher in Psychology, Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy

Jessica Utts, Professor and Chair of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, USA

Max Velmans, Professor Emeritus in Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK

Caroline Watt, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Edinburgh University, UK

Phil Zimbardo, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, Stanford University, USA

And…

P. Baseilhac, Researcher in Theoretical Physics, University of Tours, France

Eberhard Bauer, Dept. Head, Institute of Border Areas of Psychology and Mental Hygiene, Freiburg,


journal.frontiersin.org...

These people are not crackpots or J.Z. Knight. They're Scientist who seriously look into these areas and they're tired of the knee jerk reaction from skeptics who will say they're practitioners of woo just for daring to ask questions especially when materialism has no answers.

Like I said, I enjoyed the conversation but the priori that quantum mechanics can't be used to explain some of these things when you have serious Scientist who have been published in many fields looking into these areas, doesn't hold up. You can't use J.Z. Knight as a blanket example of everyone whose looking into these things.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


This was one of the points you made that I disagreed with. Why can't quantum mechanics explain some of these things?

I'm not saying that it can't, I'm saying that it's not the de-facto explanation, and that when it comes to quantum mechanics, I want my explanation coming from researchers in that field, not pseudo-scientists, because I trust a quantum physicist to know something about the field, while I am fairly self-assured that "pitchers of woo" (I don't like that term, but…) know nothing about it and instead toss it out there as a "here's how it could happen" explanation of some phenomenon, real or not.

I brought up Knight and her ridiculous movie last night in conjunction with this subject because I went and looked at the "Mind Lamp" that you noted in the OP and it looks like nonsense to me and something along the lines of Masaru Emoto's "magic water" that he sells for $35 a bottle, and which was featured in What the *bleep* Do We Know?, that's all. Maybe there is something to the Mind Lamp, but if there is, I couldn't find anything in my admittedly cursory examination of their web site, which appears to be a way to separate people from $250 in exchange for a lamp that changes colours randomly (which, again, I wrote software to do last year with Phillips Hue LED lights.)

So I agree -- bring on the scientists and leave the crackpots behind! Which, again, upon re-listening, should be the message that you take away from my skepticism last night. If it isn't, that's my fault in my presentation, because that's what I am in favour of.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

How do you know it's not the de-facto explanation? I'm not saying that it is, but you can't say that it isn't. Quantum mechanics holds the key to a lot of things. Whether it could be areas of consciousness or quantum gravity. I think people like J.Z. Knight use quantum mechanics in a willy nilly sort of way but again, the problem I have is why even bring J.Z. Knight into the discussion when I never mentioned J.Z Knight? I've talked about Scientist like Utts, Jahn, Penrose or Hameroff. I never mentioned J.Z. Knight or the movie What the Bleep do we know.

Again, that's a way of debating the issue without actually debating the issue. It's a common misdirection tactic in a debate. You mention J.Z. Knight and What the Bleep movie because you don't want to debate about the 100 serious Scientist who are looking into these areas that I have mentioned. Like I said I never mentioned J.Z. Knight or What the Bleep movie so you can't debate against those things when I never mentioned them as a foundation for this thread.

You then mentioned the Mind Lamp and again bring up What the Bleep movie. When it comes to the Mind Lamp, I personally have one and I mentioned over and over again the technology and research that went behind the Mind Lamp.

So far, skeptics haven't debated the actual science or research behind it. They're constantly using misdirection because they can't debate the issue. So instead of debating the science behind it, you want Emoto's Magic Water. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You want to lump these things together instead of debating the science and research behind the Mind Lamp. Here's some of the research.


Years of research at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab at Princeton University have shown that consciousness (the mind) can influence the behavior of physical devices known as random event generators (REGs), through an unknown mechanism.

An REG converts a quantum physical phenomena (“electron tunneling”) into a probabilistic data output. Under normal conditions, this REG output is consistent with known statistical behaviors.

However, PEAR research shows that conscious intention can affect the statistical characteristics of the REG's output. The effect often exceeds chance expectations in the direction of intention.

When conscious intention changes, the statistical characteristics of the REG output can also change to follow the new direction of intention. This also can significantly exceed chance expectations.


www.mind-lamp.com...

There's more here. A 16 minute video that explains some of these things.

vimeo.com...

Here's publications and research.

www.princeton.edu...

Here's more research listed by Dean Radin.


The following is a selected list of downloadable peer-reviewed journal articles reporting studies of psychic phenomena, mostly published in the 21st century. There are also some important papers of historical interest and other resources. A comprehensive list would run into thousands of articles. Click on the title of an article to download it.

The international professional organization for scientists and scholars interested in psi phenomena is the Parapsychological Association, an elected affiliate (since 1969) of the AAAS, the largest general scientific organization in the world.

Commonly repeated critiques about psi, such as “these phenomena are impossible,” or “there’s no valid scientific evidence,” or “the results are all due to fraud,” have been soundly rejected for many decades. Such critiques persist due to ignorance of the relevant literature and to entrenched, incorrect beliefs. Legitimate debates today no longer focus on existential questions but on development of adequate theoretical explanations, advancements in methodology, the “source” of psi, and issues about effect size heterogeneity and robustness of replication.


www.deanradin.com...

I don't even know what magic water is. I know why you mentioned it. It's a common misdirection tactic in a debate instead of debating against the things that were actually said.

The key here is, human intention seems to cause random systems to behave in a non random way.

You then mention $250.00 like people charging for these things in order to raise more money for research is a new phenomena. There's not a lot of research dollars and SURPRISE people sell things to make money. You see it on Kickstarter when people may pay a lot for a reward in order to support the project that's listed. With D-Wave quantum computers, they charge like 10-15 million and of course skeptics called them a scam and now Google and NASA are working with these computers to do more research into Artificial Intelligence. What about the website that charges $40.00 for a book that you can get on Amazon for $20.00? Are they scamming you? In many cases the answer is no and they charge more for the book in order to raise money.

So, if we're going to debate, let's debate the things I have actually said without bringing magic, supernatural, woo, pseudoscience, magic water, J.Z. Knight or the What the bleep movie into the discussion. I never mentioned any of these things and it's a common debate tactic that really doesn't work anymore.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


So, if we're going to debate, let's debate the things I have actually said

Again, I'm not debating, because I agree with you, for the most part, that there may be something to supernatural phenomenon. I just disagree with non-physicists trotting out quantum mechanics as an explanation for how magic can be real, and that's what I said on the show last night. Leave science to the scientists, not to the speculators.

That said, I don't see anything on the "Mind Lamp" site to dissuade me that it is evidence of anything, because it's all anecdotal evidence and speculation as to what, if anything, is going on with the product.


Here's publications and research.

In a quick perusal of some of the posted articles, I didn't see anything that was particularly compelling. If you want to cite a particular favourite, we can talk about that, because I may have missed the quality stuff.

I also looked into PEAR, and see that it was shut down by Princeton in 2007, apparently for lack of results. Those associated with the program went on to found the company that is producing the Mind Lamp, which makes sense, I guess.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Again, you can't post without mentioning magic. What magic are you talking about? What magic have I mentioned? I have been talking about things like consciousness, microtubules, quantum biology, random event generators, quantum tunneling and more. I have talked about Utts, Penrose, Jahn and Hameroff.

When you say, HOW MAGIC CAN BE REAL, exactly what magic are you talking about? When have I said anything about magic? There's many Scientist looking into these areas and I mentioned many of them in a previous post but you kept bringing up J.Z. Knight.

You said:


That said, I don't see anything on the "Mind Lamp" site to dissuade me that it is evidence of anything, because it's all anecdotal evidence and speculation as to what, if anything, is going on with the product.


This statement isn't saying much. Can you be more specific based on the research behind the technology that I listed in the last post.

The problem here is, you have already made up your mind. Therefore no amount of evidence will persuade you. You can't to a quick perusal of all this information and say I didn't see anything compelling. If you really want to look at this objectively, you will do more than a 5 minute look at the evidence. It's obvious this is the case because you're not being very specific as to the technology and science behind these things and what you did or didn't see.

Here's what a skeptic Hyman said who was paid to look into these areas objectively:

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

PEAR lab closed after 28 years. That's a long time and they continue their research at the Global Consciousness Project. Jahn is older and closed things down. He said this:


"We have accomplished what we originally set out to do 28 years ago, namely to determine whether these effects are real and to identify their major correlates. There are still many important questions to be addressed that will require a coordinated interdisciplinary approach to the topic, but it is time for the next generation of scholars to take over." Jahn and Dunne said.

“For 28 years, we’ve done what we wanted to do, and there’s no reason to stay and generate more of the same data,” said the laboratory’s founder, Robert G. Jahn, 76, former dean of Princeton’s engineering school and an emeritus professor. “If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will.”


PEAR also went through independent revues looking for any irregularities in their work and none were found. Like I said, they have lasted 28 years with minimal resources because of the knee jerk, blind response from skeptics.

Look, if there's nothing there, then science will bear that out in the end. The problem is, many skeptics want to declare it's woo, magic or pseudoscience beforehand.

Why not rigorously look into these areas and let science decide instead of blind skepticism?

Science is looking into all sorts of areas that have less evidence and research than you see in the areas of Psi. String theory, parallel universes, Hawking Radiation, quantum gravity, inflation and more.

Here's a real example.

The Mind Lamp goes from color to color in a random way at similar intervals. When I focus my intention to say, writing a post or looking for a different color, the Lamp doesn't go from color to color in a random. It slows down and then it will even stop on say the color red. When I leave the room, it will then start going from color to color again in a random way with similar intervals.

Is this magic? No.

This has to do with Random Event Generators and quantum tunneling. It's simply saying human intention can cause a random system to behave in a non random way. Every researcher in this area is simply saying, we need to look into what's occurring here without pseudoskeptics yelling pseudoscience and woo.

It's sad that you can't have an intelligent discussion about these things. Skeptics don't want to say, let's look at the science and the technology and come up and test other explanations. They want to talk about magic water and say it must be a scam because people are charging money for it. Can skeptics at least try to debate the actual research in an intelligent way without resorting to misdirection to try to debate everything but the science behind it?
edit on 23-10-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Skeptics don't want to say, let's look at the science and the technology and come up and test other explanations.

That is exactly what I am saying.

What you are reporting is exactly what the Mind Lamp web site is reporting -- anecdotal information that is evidence of nothing. Seriously. Science doesn't work by someone sitting in a room, thinking happy thoughts and noticing that their lamp turns a certain colour after a while. That isn't a controlled experiment, it isn't "looking at the science and technology", and it isn't proof of anything. You're tossing around terms like quantum tunneling and string theory without any rational basis for including them, apart from maybe they could be one explanation, of many, for your personal observations. But, because you aren't a physicist, you lack the ability to explain why they might be the most plausible explanation and to present a scientific or statistical proof that they are.

That's what's wrong with the Mind Lamp site -- as a consumer who does understand science, there is nothing on their site that compels me to think that there is anything interesting going on there, and that's from someone who honestly believes that there could be.

Sorry, but I've been burned too many times in the past -- Emoto's water, free energy machines, Chinese "Chi" miracles, "Spirit Science", etc -- to not take the default position that an extraordinary claim that lacks extraordinary evidence (never mind those that lack any evidence,) is just simply not true. (And to clarify, I mean that I wasted my time investigating them, I never plunked down any cash.)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Again, you're not giving me any specifics just generalizations of what you already believe.

You said:

What you are reporting is exactly what the Mind Lamp web site is reporting -- anecdotal information that is evidence of nothing.

EVIDENCE OF NOTHING??

This is exactly what Radin was talking about. There's years and years of research that shows human intention can cause a random system to behave in a non random way.

It's very telling that you haven't been specific about anything. You say it's evidence of nothing but you provide NOTHING to rebut the actual evidence and research that has occurred throughout the years. Simply saying this means NOTHING.

Yes, there has been many controlled experiments looking at the science and research behind this. If you would spend more than 5 minutes looking at the evidence, you wouldn't have to resort to such vacuous responses where you don't provide any specific rebuttals just blind proclamations. It's like Radin said:

Commonly repeated critiques about psi, such as “these phenomena are impossible,” or “there’s no valid scientific evidence,” or “the results are all due to fraud,” have been soundly rejected for many decades. Such critiques persist due to ignorance of the relevant literature and to entrenched, incorrect beliefs. Legitimate debates today no longer focus on existential questions but on development of adequate theoretical explanations, advancements in methodology, the “source” of psi, and issues about effect size heterogeneity and robustness of replication.

You say it's evidence of nothing, when I have presented you tons of evidence. Like I said, it's no surprise that your responses lack any substance. If you would take time to objectively look into the research, maybe you would come up with some real objections instead of vacuous proclamations that there's evidence of nothing.

You then trot out the old skeptic line about extraordinary evidence. The 100 Scientist who are looking into these areas addressed this beautifully.

With respect to the proposal that “exceptional claims require exceptional evidence,” the original intention of the phrase is typically misunderstood (Truzzi, 1978). Even in its inaccurate interpretation what counts as an “exceptional claim” is far from clear. For instance, many phenomena now accepted in science such as the existence of meteorites, the germ theory of disease, or, more recently, adult neurogenesis, were originally considered so exceptional that evidence for their existence was ignored or dismissed by contemporaneous scientists. It is also far from clear what would count as “exceptional evidence” or who would set that threshold. Dismissing empirical observations a priori, based solely on biases or theoretical assumptions, underlies a distrust of the ability of the scientific process to discuss and evaluate evidence on its own merits. The undersigned differ in the extent to which we are convinced that the case for psi phenomena has already been made, but not in our view of science as a non-dogmatic, open, critical but respectful process that requires thorough consideration of all evidence as well as skepticism toward both the assumptions we already hold and those that challenge them.

journal.frontiersin.org...

EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT POINTS!!!

I'm so tired of pseudoskeptics using this tired line when they can't debate the issues.

You then resort to more misdirection. You talk about magic water and chi miracles. Again, this is an old, useless debate tactic. You have yet to offer any specific objections so you bring up things that have nothing to do with the debate. The most you have offered is blind hyperbole and indignation about magic water and no specifics or debate about the actual science and research.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


You say it's evidence of nothing but you provide NOTHING to rebut the actual evidence and research that has occurred throughout the years.

Again, I am rejecting the claims because I have seen no evidence, apart from anecdotal remarks, which are irrelevant. I am not debuting the "actual evidence" because I haven't seen any.

If you wish to provide evidence, you need to present an empirical study, published in a peer-reviewed reputable scientific journal, preferably with similar studies that reproduce the results by scientists who are not associated with the company selling the Mind Lamp. I asked you earlier to cite one from the PEAR stuff and you didn't. Simply saying that the claims are true because you think they are, and because the guy selling this gizmo complains about skeptics debunking it doesn't accomplish anything.

Where is the evidence?



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Ill revisit this later and see if I can't chime in on the full article and some of the comments - but having personally experienced INCREDIBLY deep telepathic connections that were recognized by myself and another individual in the moment without any prior verbal insinuation toward such; I feel that this is entirely feasible and I aim to explore it in my personal life in great depth.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

I've listed the evidence and research over and over again. There's more evidence for Psi research than there is for things like String Theory, Inflation or Hawking Radiation.

It's just not enough for skeptics to keep asking where's the evidence, when they're showed the evidence over and over again. This thread is over 100 posts filled with evidence.

You even acknowledged the evidence but you only gave it a quick perusal which shows you're not really interested in really looking at the evidence.

You keep saying I see no evidence and skeptic Ray Hyman disagrees with you. He was paid to objectively look at these things.

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

This is from Professor Jessica Utts who worked on the study with Hyman.

Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology lacking repeatability, I have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come close to insuring success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take on this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as described in my original report.

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well-established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance...there is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.


Like I said, I have showed you the evidence and you only chose to give a quick perusal instead of actually researching the subject.

You can't just click your heels 3 times and say there's no evidence and wish the evidence away.


Healing at a Distance

Astin et al (2000). The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

Leibovici (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial

Krucoff et al (2001).Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot

Radin et al (2004). Possible effects of healing intention on cell cultures and truly random events.

Krucoff et al (2005). Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study

Benson et al (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients

Masters & Spielmans (2007). Prayer and Health: Review, Meta-Analysis, and Research Agenda

Radin et al (2008). Compassionate intention as a therapeutic intervention by partners of cancer patients: Effects of distant intention on the patients’ autonomic nervous system.

Schlitz et al (2012). Distant healing of surgical wounds: An exploratory study.
Physiological correlations at a distance

Duane & Behrendt (1965). Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins.

Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al (1994). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The transferred potential

Wiseman & Schlitz (1997). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring.

Standish et al (2003). Evidence of correlated functional magnetic resonance imaging signals between distant human brains.

Wackermann et al (2003). Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects

Schmidt et al (2004). Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses

Radin (2004). Event related EEG correlations between isolated human subjects.

Standish et al (2004). Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects

Richards et al (2005). Replicable functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence of correlated brain signals between physically and sensory isolated subjects.

Achterberg et al (2005). Evidence for correlations between distant intentionality and brain function in recipients: A functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis

Radin (2005). The sense of being stared at: A preliminary meta-analysis.

Radin & Schlitz (2005). Gut feelings, intuition, and emotions: An exploratory study.

Schlitz et al (2006). Of two minds: Skeptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology.

Moulton & Kosslyn (2008). Using neuroimaging to resolve the psi debate.

Ambach (2008). Correlations between the EEGs of two spatially separated subjects − a replication study.

Hinterberger (2010). Searching for neuronal markers of psi: A summary of three studies measuring electrophysiology in distant participants.

Schmidt (2012). Can we help just by good intentions? A meta-analysis of experiments on distant intention effects

Jensen & Parker (2012). Entangled in the womb? A pilot study on the possible physiological connectedness between identical twins with different embryonic backgrounds.

Parker & Jensen (2013). Further possible physiological connectedness between identical twins: The London study.


Telepathy & ESP

Targ & Puthoff (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding.

Puthoff & Targ (1976). A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distance: Historical perspective and recent research

Eisenberg & Donderi (1979). Telepathic transfer of emotional information in humans.

Bem & Honorton (1994). Does psi exist?

Hyman (1994). Anomaly or artifact? Comments on Bem and Honorton

Bem (1994). Response to Hyman

Milton & Wiseman (1999). Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer

Sheldrake & Smart (2000). Testing a return-anticipating dog, Kane.

Sheldrake & Smart (2000). A dog that seems to know when his owner to coming home: Videotaped experiments and observations.

Storm & Ertel (2001). Does Psi Exist? Comments on Milton and Wiseman's (1999) Meta-Analysis of Ganzfeld Research

Milton & Wiseman (2001). Does Psi Exist? Reply to Storm and Ertel (2001)

Sheldrake & Morgana (2003). Testing a language-using parrot for telepathy.

Sheldrake & Smart (2003). Videotaped experiments on telephone telepathy.

Sherwood & Roe (2003). A Review of Dream ESP Studies Conducted Since the Maimonides Dream ESP Programme

Delgado-Romero & Howard (2005). Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures

Hastings (2007). Comment on Delgado-Romero and Howard

Radin (2007). Finding Or Imagining Flawed Research?

Storm et al (2010). Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology

There's much more and I have went over some of the evidence in this thread. All of the research has links and this is just some of it.


www.deanradin.com...

You can't just blindly say there's no evidence.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DigitalJedi805
a reply to: neoholographic

Ill revisit this later and see if I can't chime in on the full article and some of the comments - but having personally experienced INCREDIBLY deep telepathic connections that were recognized by myself and another individual in the moment without any prior verbal insinuation toward such; I feel that this is entirely feasible and I aim to explore it in my personal life in great depth.


Great, I will like to hear what you have to say.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

First study in list:


The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


A meta-analysis of several studies related to distant intercessory healing was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2000.[32] The authors analyzed 23 trials of 2,774 patients. Five of the trials were for prayer as the distant healing method, 11 were with noncontact touch, and 7 were other forms. Of these trials, 13 showed statistically significant beneficial treatment results, 9 showed no effect, and 1 showed a negative result. The authors concluded that it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding distant healing and suggested further studies.[32]


Inconclusive.

Second study in list:


After many scientists and scholars criticized this retroactive study,[24] Leibovici later stated that it was "intended lightheartedly to illustrate the importance of asking research questions that fit with scientific models."[25]


en.wikipedia.org...

Questionable science.

Third study in list:


Olshansky and Dossey cite an earlier study by this same group as supporting their thesis. However, this also found no significant differences between the two groups on any of the 18 outcomes.5 These results seem to conflict with the hypothesis, not support it.


www.bmj.com...

Evidence against the hypothesis.

Fourth study:

One of Radin's own studies in the deeply questionable Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.


Quackwatch includes the journal among its list of "nonrecommended periodicals", characterizing it as "fundamentally flawed".[1]

In 2005 the BBC used a report published by the journal as the basis of a story claiming that the pseudoscientific practice of homeopathy was effective for some patients.[2] The article contradicted the findings of a study that had recently appeared in The Lancet, reporting that homeopathy was ineffective.[2] Pharmacologist David Colquhoun has criticized the methodology of the article in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, saying its questionnaire-based approach was "not really research at all" and that the published conclusion drawn from it was "quite ludicrous". In his view, "papers like this do not add to human knowledge, they detract from it".[3]


en.wikipedia.org...

Questionable science.

Fifth study in list:


In MANTRA II, we studied two noetic strategies in
patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: an
unmasked bedside combination of music, imagery, and
touch, and a double-masked, off-site array of combined
congregational prayers. Neither therapy alone or
combined showed any measurable treatment effect on
the primary composite endpoint of major adverse
cardiovascular events at the index hospital, readmission,
and 6-month death or readmission


www.deanradin.com...

By this point I got bored. Why is it that the so-called "evidence" always has such a strong odour of bad science?

OP, you really do love your junk science, don't you.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


I've listed the evidence and research over and over again. There's more evidence for Psi research than there is for things like String Theory, Inflation or Hawking Radiation.

No, you haven't. Here, let me be clear:

I am not interested in meta-studies or studies of general psi phenomenon, I want to see an empirical study, published in a peer reviewed journal, that demonstrates the effectiveness of the device you posted in the OP, the "Mind Lamp."



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

What you quoted was Scientist doing research into these studies. This happens in every scientific field where Scientist carry out studies and ask questions about the results.

The first one you quoted.


A meta-analysis of several studies related to distant intercessory healing was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2000.[32] The authors analyzed 23 trials of 2,774 patients. Five of the trials were for prayer as the distant healing method, 11 were with noncontact touch, and 7 were other forms. Of these trials, 13 showed statistically significant beneficial treatment results, 9 showed no effect, and 1 showed a negative result. The authors concluded that it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding distant healing and suggested further studies.[32]


It then said:

CONCLUSIONS:

The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.


DOES THIS MEAN THERE'S NO EVIDENCE????

This just means there needs to be more research.

If you notice, there's a pattern here. Every Journal that looks at anything blind materialist don't agree with is a Quack journal. Any Scientist who study these things have no evidence even when evidence was presented. Just look at the first article quoted.

It didn't say there wasn't any evidence. It says more research was needed.

That happens in Science all the time. To blind skeptics it must mean no evidence.

It's obvious why you're going back and forth between Wikipedia. For instance you quote:


Quackwatch includes the journal among its list of "nonrecommended periodicals", characterizing it as "fundamentally flawed".[1]


This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STUDY IN QUESTION. it has everything to do with Homeopathy. It's just a misdirection tactic. It has nothing to do with the actual study being discussed.

THIS IS JUST DISHONEST!!!

The fact that you have to resort to such dishonesty is telling.

Here's more you left out. You must be a Wikipedia warrior who copy's and paste things will leaving things out. Again, DISHONEST.


Various, broader meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect.. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that "There is no scientifically discernable effect for intercessory prayer as assessed in controlled studies".[1] However, a 2007 systemic review of 17 intercessory prayer studies found "small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer" in 7 studies, but "prayer was unassociated with positive improvement in the condition of client" in the other 10, concluding that based upon the American Psychology Association's Division 12 (clinical psychology) criteria for evidence-based practice, intercessory prayer "must be classified as an experimental intervention." The review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies had failed to produce significant findings.[2]


This is just more evidence of Psi!!

Psi isn't intercessory prayer. Psi shows there's an effect caused by human intention. What did they say:

However, a 2007 systemic review of 17 intercessory prayer studies found "small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer" in 7 studies, but "prayer was unassociated with positive improvement in the condition of client" in the other 10, concluding that based upon the American Psychology Association's Division 12 (clinical psychology) criteria for evidence-based practice, intercessory prayer "must be classified as an experimental intervention."

SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT EFFECT SIZES.

Where did we hear this???

The measured effect, though faint and fickle, is statistically significant to an extremely high degree, according to the researchers. It shows up during times of crisis or celebration, such as an earthquake or New Year's Eve, when millions of people focus on the same thing at the same time.

This is from the article in the original posts.

What did the skeptic Hyman say??

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

Your links are proving my point. Of course, you will leave these things out but sadly for you I actually read links people post.


At the end of the day, you have Scientist doing exactly what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to ask questions and examine data even when it disagrees with them.
edit on 23-10-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Asked and answered. I've showed you the information and it's not my fault that you want to do a quick perusal instead of actually studying the evidence.

This is the usual skeptical line.

You said:

I'm not interested in meta -studies???????????????

This means you're not interested in Science!!!!

Science uses meta-analysis when determining things like effect size and p-value.

You're not making any sense. You're basically saying I don't want to hear any science. NEWSFLASH: A meta-analysis is needed when they're looking over many trials. For instance. When they were looking to see if Aspirin helped with heart attacks, they did so over many trials. When the effects size reached a level above chance, they could then say Aspirin can help some people with heart attacks. On a side note, THE EFFECT SIZE FOR PSI IS BIGGER THAN THE EFFECT SIZE FOR ASPIRIN.

Again, I've showed you the evidence and you know I did because you admitted that you just did a quick perusal instead of actually reading about the subject you're debating.

Now you don't want meta-analysis LOL! Are you serious??



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen



I don't dismiss paranormal or supernatural phenomenon -- I am, in fact, a real believer in it, as a theist

So, you believe in the invisible sky god for which there is only anecdotal evidence. But you won't even accept the possibility that there is any validity to the "Mind Lamp," much less the Global Consciousness Project.

I don't know whether the "Mind Lamp" works or not, I don't have $250.00 to find out. However, according to the website, the device is based on the Mindsong MicroREG, or an REG similar to it. This patent provides some detailed information about the hardware device. So the internals would appear to be a bit more sophisticated that your run-of-the-mill pseudo random number generator based embedded system.


what I dismiss is the attempt to explain it through science. Science, by definition, cannot describe or prove the supernatural, so pseudo-scientists should stop trying to do so.

I don't think you could call Dr. Robert G. Jahn a pseudo-scientist. This paper On the Quantum Mechanics of Consciousness, With Application to Anomalous Phenomena details his views of the application of Quantum Mechanics to the concept of consciousness. In addition to founding the PEAR project at Princeton, Dr. Jahn did some of the earliest work on electrically powered spacecraft propulsion.

As far as whether science should address the supernatural, can you imagine how the typical 19th century person viewed the germ theory of disease. How inconceivable it must have been for them to believe that an invisible bug could make them sick. Yet, science persevered, and we now accept the theory without reservation.

You've indicated that you have given quick perusals to this and that, but you present little more than just vacuous platitudes that indicate that you didn't even do that.



Dex



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I know that Collective Consciousness is real because too many times in the past I have had inventive ideas or just little personal sayings, only to soon after find them on TV, in a movie or in a song... I'm still partially convinced that Hollywood is stealing my thoughts



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Looks like it would make a great kickstarter campaign. I have read about the RNG experiments in the past. From what I recall, the uptick in the 1's and 0's wasn't statistically relevant. It was the equivalent of flipping a coin for heads vs tails. You will get streaks, both long and short, of each side.

I'm somewhat familiar with this as I've used the Martingale strategy in blackjack. It always worked great, until it didn't....



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Just thought I would clarify for myself:

Am I reading the following?:

There are theories about known phenomena (also known as hypothesis) that are circulating. They use quantum physics as a means to explain the hypothesis.

Not a lot is known or understood about quantum physics - yet, the arrival at the notion of quantum physics is also a history of hypothesis put forward for various phenomena.

The biggest problem with a lot of these hypothesis is the lack of sufficient knowledge of quantum physics that is being used to prove these hypothesis - in other words some very outlandish proof can be postulated, prior to the essentials of quantum physics being grounded enough to prove such theories.

Interesting debate. "How far is too far ahead?"

I am a witness - not necessarily to global consciousness as much as I am a witness to radio waves/microwaves being deliberately used to abuse people from a distance and even steal valuable information from such people - something that supports global consciousness, in that there is a financial motive to "network" people or to lock them in to a network - which is essentially the premise of the existence of global consciousness. Otherwise the network could be argued to be a random occurrence - as opposed to a global network (or conscience).

Nevertheless, existence of human interest in the phenomenon prior to the arrival of quantitative/qualitative proof of the reasons "why these phenomena occur" are surfacing that cause us potentially untold suffering, abuse and good outcomes. We haven't known absolutely everything about the atom prior to using it in an atomic reaction to unleash energy - does it mean that our use of the atom in an atomic bomb is totally unfounded? Yet, we must admit that the theories, though they were never complete, begged investment for study - but certainly not a complete rejection of hypothesis put forward in the realm in question.

Nevertheless, it still begs the question - how far is too far?
edit on 29-10-2014 by sensibleSenseless because: extra stuff




top topics



 
65
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join