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.

 

Scientists Have an Experiment to See If the Human Mind Is Bound to the Physical World

page: 2
87
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: CreationBro
a reply to: neoholographic

Yes. S and F.

I think that the more you become aware of this, imho, the greater the responsibility you may have in directing your mind in a beneficial way.

Ive seen far too many times, strange "coincidences" wherein nothing but concsious thought and feeling seem to be the cause, or at least, correlated in some way.


Exactly!

There's a lot of things that we call "coincidence" that I think is evidence of the quantum nature of reality and the quantum mind. For instance:

I remember watching TV one day then an experience from High School with a friend I haven't seen since High School popped into my head.

I then bumped into that same friend when I went to the store.

If we have a quantum mind, then there will be times we experience the future before it even happens because a quantum mind wouldn't be bound by time as we experience it. So in this case, I saw my friend and thought about the experience in High School but that thought just happened before I actually saw my friend and we just chalk it up as a coincidence.

There's a lot of things like this and different experiences that we just chalk up to coincidence.


Coincidences, and synchronicity, is the story of my life. When it moves from paranormal into normal science
for the understanding of it.
Great thread!




posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

Radin carried out an experiment that was published in Physics Essays What he showed was the consciousness can collapse the wave function. Again, this wasn't published in some fluke Journal.



Can you please post a link to the paper (abstract) about the carried out experiment.

So far all I have been able to find is a proposal for an experiment.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Great post

Even Einstein understood that there is more to knowledge than the usual route taken by classical mechanics....

www.gurteen.com...


No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.




The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is good as dead.


Quantuum entaglement - is our consciousness part of the greater Overmind as many suggest
edit on 10-6-2017 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: quotes linky



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




I remember watching TV one day then an experience from High School with a friend I haven't seen since High School popped into my head. I then bumped into that same friend when I went to the store. If we have a quantum mind, then there will be times we experience the future before it even happens because a quantum mind wouldn't be bound by time as we experience it


How is this any different than bending a spoon - to quote the Matrix movie - there is no spoon.

What are miracles other than the power of belief. I guess if there is "no time" as you adhere to above;

it could likewise be said that there is "no matter" and all actions like bending spoons or turning water into wine is possible
edit on 10-6-2017 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I see a problem with the online experiment. They put the interferometer on a rack with servers. The more people that access the server the more the hard drives would operate. Thus is going to cause vibration and hest. This could easily skew their result . I also suspect they kept skewing the data in an attempt to make it more friendly as they put it. This whole experiment seems off they admit during the video several times that most were at chance. But supposedly the people they deemed as medatators did better. Couple of questions there how did they pick this special geoup.

How did they know and the other thing it appears they cherry picked the data. They decided how long a delay before they started counting. When you do things like that it tends not to give you random results.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
the real experiment will be to see how the most talented minds monitoring this experiment apply the results of such tests. it has never been a matter of what the answers are, but how we use them. it has always been interesting to observe what mankind is willing to sacrifice given the right reward.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: neoholographic

I see a problem with the online experiment. They put the interferometer on a rack with servers. The more people that access the server the more the hard drives would operate. Thus is going to cause vibration and hest. This could easily skew their result . I also suspect they kept skewing the data in an attempt to make it more friendly as they put it. This whole experiment seems off they admit during the video several times that most were at chance. But supposedly the people they deemed as medatators did better. Couple of questions there how did they pick this special geoup.

How did they know and the other thing it appears they cherry picked the data. They decided how long a delay before they started counting. When you do things like that it tends not to give you random results.


personally, i would have devised the test so that they attempt to influence these random generators at another point in place AND time. to more effectively isolate those affecting the tests from the tests themselves. the attempts would be made in one place at one time, and the actual results would occur in the absence of those attempting to influence the generators. of course, this would require that additional devices be present for recording the results in order to avoid the engineers tainting the data. send a blind group back a few days later to retrieve the data and have the engineers compare. compartmentalization at its finest.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Excellent thread. Very interesting this dovetails nicely with some potential military applications im researching.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
They could have just interviewed a couple of people at the nut house...



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

This is just nonsense.

The online experiment was done and it matched the in person results. It was accepted in the Journal Physic Essays and was a very solid study.

Full time skeptics act like everyone is stupid but them and this isn't the case. This is from the Journal.

Articles submitted for publication will be reviewed by scientific peers. Realizing the interchangeable roles of authors and reviewers, the positive aspect of the reviewing process will be retained by providing the authors with the reviewers’ comments. Each author should judge which parts of the reviewers’ suggestions are appropriate to improve the quality of his or her paper. The editor, who is responsible for the Journal, will allow a large degree of freedom to the authors in this process.

physicsessays.org...

This was reviewed by his scientific peers and had to make it through these peers in order to get published so your asinine comment about vibrations on the server makes no sense. All of these things were considered by the peers that looked at the submitted paper and again the online experiment mirrored the results of the in person experiment.

Isn't it funny how full time skeptics always find problems that are just nonsense with any paper they don't agree with?

If they can't refute the results of the study then it must be something wrong with the way the study was carried out even though these papers have to go through a review process where other Sientist have to review the work before it's published and they go through every objection before the article is published.

It's obvious this is nonsense when the professional skeptic tries to find something wrong with every paper that challenges their personal beliefs. The paper is sound and I'm glad Scientist are continuing to design more experiments to look into these areas.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Excellent thread. Very interesting this dovetails nicely with some potential military applications im researching.


Thanks and there will be a lot of different applications in this area.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

professional skeptics tend to keep scientific inquiry honest. annoying, but ultimately helpful. especially in the age of fake news.


What it could mean is this: that the human mind (consciousness) isn’t made up of the same matter governed by physics. Furthermore, it could suggest that the mind is capable of overcoming physics with free will. This could potentially be the first time scientists gain a firm grasp on the problem of consciousness. “It wouldn’t settle the question, but it would certainly have a strong bearing on the issue of free will,” said Hardy.


so there is no conclusive answer as to what the data signifies. otherwise known as "interesting, but so what?" maybe they should devise an experiment for that next.
edit on 10-6-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

You said:

professional skeptics tend to keep scientific inquiry honest. annoying, but ultimately helpful. especially in the age of fake news.

No they don't. Many professional skeptics are paid to be skeptics. They make a living being skeptics. So they help nothing because they're skeptical just for the sake of being a skeptic so they can write a book and sell it to people like you.

There's nothing wrong with skepticism and it's needed but professional skeptics make good money being skeptical about any and everything and you can't take that seriously.

When Scientist are reviewing a paper to be published in a Journal and they're skeptical that's a good thing. A pseudoskeptic on a message board that's skeptical about everything they don't agree can't be taken seriously.

Did you even bother to read the first line in my post?

Scientist have to start asking these questions because of recent experiments.

Where did I say:

so there is no conclusive answer as to what the data signifies.

Where did I say this was conclusive? This is what you and your other full time skeptics do on every thread without fail. You make these asinine comments that are not in dispute because you can't refute the substance of what's being said.

It's very important that Scientist are exploring areas that Psi has been talking about and testing for years. I know you're a blind skeptic but you have to start debating against things that were actually said and not things you just make up.

edit on 10-6-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Skeptics are necessary to keep people like you in check. Your enthusiasm to believe something to further your agenda. As for peer reviewed that's a joke this isn't a scientific journal. In fact it looks like the author tried to avoid those. And an scientist that thought using an antiforameter in a room full of servers is a fool.

And there statistics are laughable since they are forced to admit mist people scored within chance. Since that occurred than you have to ask yourself why there special group did better. It shows that some how they managed to bias the group. Especially when they were getting scored of 8 come on.

There was an experiment all ready done using the double slit testing the observation. It was found that the act if observation changed the results. But amazingly changed the results in the past per experiments by Truscott and Aspect. If they are right just the act of checking the data will skew the results.

Oh and in quantum physics the new approach to the results says For an electron to become detectable, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will inevitably change the path of that electron.
edit on 6/10/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Here's an easier experiment:

Bob dies.

"Bob, you kay, bro?"

silence forever.

Yup. He's gone.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Where did I say this was conclusive? This is what you and your other full time skeptics do on every thread without fail. You make these asinine comments that are not in dispute because you can't refute the substance of what's being said.


never said you did. it was just a caution sign for people who like to jump to conclusions. its too easy to get excited and speculate on these things. more data is needed, because there is very little substance to work with right now. theres no reason for you to get defensive with me. nothing i said was inaccurate or disparaging.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You sound ridiculous. You said:

Skeptics are necessary to keep people like you in check.

People like me who quote from actual studies and experiments about to be carried out vs. pseudoskeptics like you that try to infest threads with nothing but gibberish.

Like I said, it's a pattern. Every time there's an experiment where you and other full time skeptics can't refute the results you make the same silly claims. It's just nonsense. It was published in Physics Essays and had to go through peer review from other Scientist before it was published.

You have no credibility.

You make the same silly arguments for every article, experiment or published paper that goes against your beliefs. Skepticism isn't a religion but you and others treat it like it's one.

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical but there's those like you who use skepticism like it's a religion. Again, WHEN YOU MAKE THE SAME SILLY ARGUMENTS ABOUT EVERY EXPERIMENT YOU CAN'T REFUTE YOU LOSE ALL CREDIBILITY.

Here's the published paper.

Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments


Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s. Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=-4:36, p=6·10-6 ). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0:43, p=0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. 2012 Physics Essays Publication. [DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.2.157]


deanradin.com...

This is why people like you make skepticism look bad. Skepticism doesn't mean blind disagreements.

As you can see this was published in Physics Essays 25.

Your silly nonsense about vibrations in servers was adressed and was looked at by Scientist who did the review. You're asinine comments make no sense. It says:

Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0:43, p=0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified.

OVER 250 CONTROL SESSIONS TESTING FOR POTENTIAL ARTIFACTS AND NONE WERE IDENTIFIED!

You just have no credibility. You can't refute the substance of the paper so you make comments that have been asked and answered by the Scientist who peer reviewed the paper before it was published.

I doubt you even read the actual study and you're just making these comments in a blind vacuum of ignorance.
edit on 10-6-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


You sound ridiculous. You said:

Skeptics are necessary to keep people like you in check.


interesting. im looking over my posts in this thread and failed to find that line you just "quoted" as coming from me. call me skeptical, but....


People like me who quote from actual studies and experiments about to be carried out vs. pseudoskeptics like you that try to infest threads with nothing but gibberish.


just like you quote from actual posts huh?

the rest of your post is just ranting. i must have struck a nerve, and i never even addressed your character specifically. i will say this though...you are way too defensive. and i stand by what i said before, nothing i have posted in this thread was inaccurate or disparaging. unlike what you are posting.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

What are you talking about?

I responded to you one time and you haven't said anything relevant to the thread.

Strike a nerve about what? You haven't refuted or attempted to refute anything that has been posted. All I said was don't muck up the thread with nonsense that has nothing to do with what was actually said as you and others usually do.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

What are you talking about?

I responded to you one time and you haven't said anything relevant to the thread.

Strike a nerve about what? You haven't refuted or attempted to refute anything that has been posted. All I said was don't muck up the thread with nonsense that has nothing to do with what was actually said as you and others usually do.


my first post was relevant, even quoted the article. and i commented on something you said, though i didnt quote that part. the last couple of posts were regarding your continual whining about skepticism and how i apparently am attacking you personally...? so yeah, quit derailing your own thread. have some respect would ya?


my point stands that nothing conclusive has been derived from these experiments...yet. so lets have a little patience and see where it goes before you pop open the champagne and tweak the noses of your friendly rivals.




top topics



 
87
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join