4 ms·

I'd love to hear your thoughts on some of Dean Radin's work. For example, these studies on the sense of being stared at. Here's one of the conclusions: >We con

by zarmin 7y ago

I'd love to hear your thoughts on some of Dean Radin's work. For example, these studies on the sense of being stared at. Here's one of the conclusions: >We conclude that for both data sets that there is a small, but significant effect. This result corresponds to the recent findings of studies on distant healing and the ‘feeling of being stared at’. Therefore, the existence of some anomaly related to distant intentions cannot be ruled out. The lack of methodological rigour in the existing database prohibits final conclusions and calls for further research, especially for independent replications on larger data sets. There is no specific theoretical conception we know of that can incorporate this phenomenon into the current body of scientific knowledge. Thus, theoretical research allowing for and describing plausible mechanisms for such effects is necessary. http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Schmidt_DMILS_BJP.pdf http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Schmidt_DMILS_BJP.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228455060_The_feeling_of_being_stared_at_An_analysis_and_replication https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228455060_The_feeli... Radin has many similarly compelling studies with "small, but significant effects" that suggest the conventional understanding of reality needs to be expanded. In a material reductionist paradigm, this makes zero sense; people simply cannot "feel" other people watching them, especially from different locations, and if they think they do then there must be some trick at play. This paradigm's emergence hierarchy looks like this: (from) Physics (emerges) -> Chemistry -> Biology -> Psychology -> Consciousness Radin suggests that the true order of emergence is: Consciousness -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology -> Psychology -> Mind Consciousness is fundamental and pervasive, like a quantum field. This offers, in my opinion, a satisfactory explanation for all nonmaterial/nonlocal phenomena, including intuition, reiki, transcendence, remote viewing, psychedelics, etc. That some people incorrectly think they are channeling God's will is not evidence against these ideas. edit: oops, just saw your reply to my other comment. sorry to split the threads apart.

wpietri 7y ago
Thanks for saying so. My response there stands. Neurotypical humans anthropomorphize things excessively. So much so that whole societies get built around perception of pervasive mind, from the Greek gods and the Hindu pantheon to Christian and Muslim single pervasive intelligences to Mesmer's magnetism and the Jedi force. A lot of minds just like the idea that minds are fundamental The obvious explanation for Radin's work is what's behind a lot of other fringe science: people looking for the thing they want until they find it. Over time any particular fad fades away due to lack of corroborating evidence and results. And then we get a new one, and another new one. So personally, having spent a bunch of time digging into previous waves, I'm not going to invest a lot of time in this one. That a lot of minds like to think that mind is fundamental isn't surprising. But at this point neither do I think it's very interesting.
- zarmin 7y ago
  I disagree that these "fads" fade away due to lack of corroborating evidence and results. Has anything in the nonmaterial realm been conclusively disproved that you connect to the decline in popular interest? Academia has a built-in "knowledge filter" (confirmation bias, if you will), and ideas that run contrary to existing mainstream beliefs don't get funding, and indeed get labeled as pseudoscience or explained away (as you have done here, respectfully), until there is a smoking gun. Which, of course, is difficult to find without funding. For example, the Chicxulub hypothesis was ridiculed until they found the crater. A more modern example is the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, which is even starting to sway previously-outspoken "skeptics" like Michael Shermer. These are geology examples, but the principle applies to all fields. I don't think we have found the nonmaterial crater yet. But I do think that Radin and those before him have found something that warrants taking a serious look at. Not to mention that in the past, we didn't have access to the technology that powers the potential and scale of these studies. Scientific progress is nonlinear, and I think it's worth shaking the snowglobe even if (especially if?) positive results would constitute a paradigm shift. It's clear you've thought about this a lot too. If you feel so inclined, I'd urge you to check out a Dean Radin talk. Here are a couple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sc0vlDmris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sc0vlDmris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-9BxI0zk-M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-9BxI0zk-M
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Fringe theories generally can't be conclusively disproven, so if that's your bar, it's an unachievable one. E.g., are infectious diseases really all caused by evil spirits? Maybe! Might it also be miasmas? [1] Could be! But now that we have ideas like "bacterium" and "virus", we we don't need those models to explain and treat diseases. So the "evil spirits" has mostly (but not entirely!) faded, and I think miasma theory is wholly dead. Another thing that has faded away is the 1970s notion of ESP. E.g,, consider the history of Zener cards, which had at least two waves of popularity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zener_cards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zener_cards In the 1970s ESP got a lot of attention. As did things like remote viewing. There was a definite fad for those concepts, and there was significant academic interest and funding. But nobody had any replicable results, so it all faded away, just like the UFO craze did. And sorry, but as I said, I have no interest in Radin's work. As I said, you haven't grappled at all with the long history of fringe-science failure and the many commonalities between the failures. If you can't do that, you can't say why Radin might be different from all the similar guys I wasted time on in the past. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory

by zarmin 7y ago

wpietri 7y ago

Thanks for saying so. My response there stands. Neurotypical humans anthropomorphize things excessively. So much so that whole societies get built around perception of pervasive mind, from the Greek gods and the Hindu pantheon to Christian and Muslim single pervasive intelligences to Mesmer's magnetism and the Jedi force. A lot of minds just like the idea that minds are fundamental The obvious explanation for Radin's work is what's behind a lot of other fringe science: people looking for the thing they want until they find it. Over time any particular fad fades away due to lack of corroborating evidence and results. And then we get a new one, and another new one. So personally, having spent a bunch of time digging into previous waves, I'm not going to invest a lot of time in this one. That a lot of minds like to think that mind is fundamental isn't surprising. But at this point neither do I think it's very interesting.

zarmin 7y ago
I disagree that these "fads" fade away due to lack of corroborating evidence and results. Has anything in the nonmaterial realm been conclusively disproved that you connect to the decline in popular interest? Academia has a built-in "knowledge filter" (confirmation bias, if you will), and ideas that run contrary to existing mainstream beliefs don't get funding, and indeed get labeled as pseudoscience or explained away (as you have done here, respectfully), until there is a smoking gun. Which, of course, is difficult to find without funding. For example, the Chicxulub hypothesis was ridiculed until they found the crater. A more modern example is the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, which is even starting to sway previously-outspoken "skeptics" like Michael Shermer. These are geology examples, but the principle applies to all fields. I don't think we have found the nonmaterial crater yet. But I do think that Radin and those before him have found something that warrants taking a serious look at. Not to mention that in the past, we didn't have access to the technology that powers the potential and scale of these studies. Scientific progress is nonlinear, and I think it's worth shaking the snowglobe even if (especially if?) positive results would constitute a paradigm shift. It's clear you've thought about this a lot too. If you feel so inclined, I'd urge you to check out a Dean Radin talk. Here are a couple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sc0vlDmris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sc0vlDmris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-9BxI0zk-M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-9BxI0zk-M
- wpietri 7y ago
  Fringe theories generally can't be conclusively disproven, so if that's your bar, it's an unachievable one. E.g., are infectious diseases really all caused by evil spirits? Maybe! Might it also be miasmas? [1] Could be! But now that we have ideas like "bacterium" and "virus", we we don't need those models to explain and treat diseases. So the "evil spirits" has mostly (but not entirely!) faded, and I think miasma theory is wholly dead. Another thing that has faded away is the 1970s notion of ESP. E.g,, consider the history of Zener cards, which had at least two waves of popularity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zener_cards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zener_cards In the 1970s ESP got a lot of attention. As did things like remote viewing. There was a definite fad for those concepts, and there was significant academic interest and funding. But nobody had any replicable results, so it all faded away, just like the UFO craze did. And sorry, but as I said, I have no interest in Radin's work. As I said, you haven't grappled at all with the long history of fringe-science failure and the many commonalities between the failures. If you can't do that, you can't say why Radin might be different from all the similar guys I wasted time on in the past. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory