(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Not corroborated within an order of magnitude, after 9 years? Though some related :

2016 : Psychophysical modulation of fringe visibility in a distant double-slit optical system:
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pe/pe/2016/00000029/00000001/art00004
https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-29.1.014

2013: Psychophysical interactions with a double-slit interference pattern
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pe/pe/2013/00000026/00000004/art00010
https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-26.4.553

2019: Independent re-analysis of alleged mind-matter interaction in double-slit experimental data:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211511&fbclid=IwAR2pZmNtdNiXv6etKU_GfmkYHE2P6EtLQFVcf28mPh2WNxeHEScSGvKoRJs

does not provide strong evidence of mind-matter interaction, yet certainly contains inexplicable anomalies that should motivate replication attempts

That 2019 paper says its VERY SLIGHT effect, but possibly there.

2019: 10,000 trial massive test! 10,000 events!:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01891/full False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol :

The false-positive detection rate reached 50%, whereby the false-positive effect, which would be indistinguishable from the predicted true-positive effect, was significant at p = 0.021 (σ = −2.02; N = 1,250 test trials). The false-positive effect size was about 0.01%, which is within an-order-of-magnitude of the claimed consciousness effect (0.001%; Radin et al., 2016).

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01891

So basically..... extremely astoundingly weak effect, but possibly some effect when measured 10,000 times.

I am not claiming it did not happen that time with those sample people... but... seems a little silly to not be written in a science paper if the observations are repeatable. At least some people looked into it. All subsequent papers FAILED to be within a order of magnitude of initial discoveries claim, but they did not use monks brains.

The best leads in the last 9 years are these searches :

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13669243530414992910&as_sdt=80000005&sciodt=0,23&hl=en
and

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15263783265583747580&as_sdt=80000005&sciodt=0,23&hl=en

TL/DR: If you measure it 10,000 times using non-zen monks, you still measure a tiny tiny tiny anomaly. No one bothered to use zen monks to repeat.

Not corroborated within an order of magnitude, after 9 years? Though some related : 2016 : Psychophysical modulation of fringe visibility in a distant double-slit optical system: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pe/pe/2016/00000029/00000001/art00004 https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-29.1.014 2013: Psychophysical interactions with a double-slit interference pattern https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pe/pe/2013/00000026/00000004/art00010 https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-26.4.553 2019: **Independent re-analysis of alleged mind-matter interaction in double-slit experimental data:** https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211511&fbclid=IwAR2pZmNtdNiXv6etKU_GfmkYHE2P6EtLQFVcf28mPh2WNxeHEScSGvKoRJs > does not provide strong evidence of mind-matter interaction, yet certainly contains inexplicable anomalies that should motivate replication attempts That 2019 paper says its VERY SLIGHT effect, but possibly there. **2019: 10,000 trial massive test! 10,000 events!:** ======= https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01891/full *False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol* : > The false-positive detection rate reached 50%, whereby the false-positive effect, which would be indistinguishable from the predicted true-positive effect, was significant at p = 0.021 (σ = −2.02; N = 1,250 test trials). The false-positive effect size was about 0.01%, which is within an-order-of-magnitude of the claimed consciousness effect (0.001%; Radin et al., 2016). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01891 So basically..... extremely astoundingly weak effect, but possibly some effect when measured 10,000 times. I am not claiming it did not happen that time with those sample people... but... seems a little silly to not be written in a science paper if the observations are repeatable. At least some people looked into it. All subsequent papers FAILED to be within a order of magnitude of initial discoveries claim, but they did not use monks brains. The best leads in the last 9 years are these searches : https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13669243530414992910&as_sdt=80000005&sciodt=0,23&hl=en and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15263783265583747580&as_sdt=80000005&sciodt=0,23&hl=en TL/DR: If you measure it 10,000 times using non-zen monks, you still measure a tiny tiny tiny anomaly. No one bothered to use zen monks to repeat.

link

[–] • 0 pt

That is interesting, thank you for sharing. Unfortunately I think repeating with zen monks is necessary because the effect is dependent upon the amount of focus given to the task. A person who is not a zen monk is not only "untrained", but also has their mind assailed by Tiktok, video games, phone apps, TV...each of these things retards the focus by training the brain to expect high reward with low effort. Therefore, I am not surprised at the large difference between said person and someone who spends their life meditating.

parent
link