Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
and then

Noetic Sciences

10 posts in this topic

Recently read a Dan Brown book called the lost Symbol. One character was a Noetic scientist and it was the first time I was aware of this field - fascinating as a work of fiction....do you believe it could be real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, mind over matter is not a reality. Its usually a complete misreading of things like quantum physics.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Several years ago I was in contact with Dean Radin who had shown that random number generators could be influenced by human subjects. My first thought was casino slot machines! But, these are not true RNG's, they are seeded and changed on a regular basis, so concentrating on 777 is not going to get you far, sadly. However the lab results Dean gathered has shown anomalous probability stats.

You can search for Youtube videos on Dean Radin, or check out his recent work with theGlobal Consciousness Project there's some very interesting work being done there, with surprising results.

I also asked him about the James Randi challenge;

Dean replied; "Such prizes are designed for individuals who make strong claims that are most unlikely to be true, so the prizes are safe as long as that they are aimed at such claims. By contrast, the scientific evidence is quite real, and independently repeatable, but the effects are still probabilistic and their magnitude generally so small that the effort required to demonstrate them would cost more than the prizes. I do expect that some day more robust effects will be discovered that can win the prizes. See, for example, what arch-skeptic Richard Dawkins is saying about these prizes: "

What he's referencing is this dialogue between James Randi and Richard Dawkins.

Edited by redhen
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, mind over matter is not a reality. Its usually a complete misreading of things like quantum physics.

exactly my words.

people seem to think that because quantum mechanics (according to some models) say that all possible outcomes of a potential future can be achieved, that that in terms means that you're able to influence that process. just like you can't reverse time (look up "arrow of time") you can't influence the collapse of the wave function in the way you think you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Redhen, where I will find Dean Radin's stuff being properly peer-reviewed? That would be the sort of REAL peer-review that looks at things like how the experiment/s were undertaken, whether double blind testing was done, what controls were in place, how significant any statistical result was, you know the sort of thing...

And before you answer, I don't often ask questions to which I don't already know the answers... B) Just sayin'...

To interested lurkers, I'll just mention the name 'Emoto' and the 'research' (term used extremely loosely!) into water being affected by emotions. No, I'm not kidding - please do not upset your Evian by speaking unkindly while it is in earshot....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IONS is (I think) the International Organization of Noetic Science, based somewhere in California. I support the group and read their newsletter. One of the founding members is Edgar Mitchell.

Yes, it's real. Humans know far less than they think they do. We have only begun to scratch the surface of the spiritual world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Redhen, where I will find Dean Radin's stuff being properly peer-reviewed? That would be the sort of REAL peer-review that looks at things like how the experiment/s were undertaken, whether double blind testing was done, what controls were in place, how significant any statistical result was, you know the sort of thing...

And before you answer, I don't often ask questions to which I don't already know the answers... B) Just sayin'...

I am not a paranormal advocate; I usually don't even read these sections of the forums. My interest in talking with Dean was specifically out of professional curiosity because at the time I was working at a casino and I had a background in electronic engineering.

Anyways, I just did a cursory search and found this meta-analysis on the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine website.

"To assess quality, we calculated a combined quality score for each study based on level of peer review, type of random number generator (RNG), and whether the study reported results of an analysis of expectation bias. The combined quality scores ranged from 2.25 to 6.75. Studies with the highest quality scores were those that were published in peer reviewed journals, used hardware RNGs, and reported analyses of expectation bias (and found that expectation bias could not explain the effects). More details of the coding procedures can be found below"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humans know far less than they think they do.

I have no idea what to do with this statement. If its directed at scientists, its a straw man. You will be hard pressed to find one who thinks we know all there is to know. If you mean the lay public... well since when were they a good poll of knowledge?

We have only begun to scratch the surface of the spiritual world.

Then instead of pages and pages of gobbledegook "quantum this and that" nonsense, show us some evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a paranormal advocate; I usually don't even read these sections of the forums. My interest in talking with Dean was specifically out of professional curiosity because at the time I was working at a casino and I had a background in electronic engineering.

Fair enough. What follows is directed not at you, Redhen..

Anyways, I just did a cursory search and found this meta-analysis on the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine website.

Hmmm.. A meta-analysis.. published by a journal set up in 2010. I'm afraid my experience with meta-analyses is not at all good, and I have a sneaking suspicion that this one hasn't met with any decent peer-review... And then I saw one of the authors was Jessica Utts - oh dear - I've run into that name before too - she just happens to be an Executive Director of the "International Remote Viewing Association" (IRVA)... Right. Yes, she's also employed at a University, but that doesn't give any guarantees - happy to give examples..

First, I'll supply you with a counter quote from your site:

For the 26 studies that fit our inclusion criteria (see Table in Appendix), the estimated overall ES {Effect Size} is small (most conservative estimate: 95% CI = 0.15–0.27), and is statistically significant.

Wait, what was that - it's small, AND significant? Say what? But read on.. after that, they spend a huge amount of time debating and discussing a myriad of reasons why such effects might be explained by problems in the experiments and data collection. And they are right - experimental bias is very difficult to remove in such tests (and will almost certainly be in the positive direction, naturally), which is why they originally refused to use many, many sets of data in their chosen meta-analysis. And they now simply want the reader to believe that the rest are just fine and can be used for this statistically small result.. Yet at the same time, they point out all the potential flaws in these studies as well...

Just to emphasis why I believe this is a horrible misuse of 'research' and faux 'analysis', may I next refer the readers to the IRVA website - now remember that Jessica Utts is an executive director of this.. It has a page called "How to do a Simple Remote Viewing Session":, and it states:

it takes training, time, and practice to become a highly-skilled operational-level remote viewer

First, I'd like that website to name some of those highly skilled operational-level remote viewers...

it is fairly easy for even a beginner to do a simple remote viewing experiment successfully

WHAAAT!!!??? This is the same Jessica Utts who was just a moment ago telling us all about the dangers of experimental/confirmation bias and all the myriad pitfalls in doing genuine studies, and yet here she is encouraging people to first of all *expect success*, and then to use a 'simple' technique. OK.. so let's look at the very first suggested technique:

Have a friend select several clear, interesting photos with strong shapes, lines, and colors, paste each on a plain white piece of paper

I'm afraid I was choking when I read that - not sure if it was laughter or sheer horror at this being promoted by a supposedly scientific website...

A FRIEND??? Gee, someone whose likes and loves you will know? Someone who will just possibly make these images nice and easy? Not deliberately of course, oh no..

INTERESTING? The 'friend' bit was bad enough, but this is a very clear message to ensure the images will be of a particular type, and probably of interest to both the friend and you..

STRONG SHAPES, LINES AND COLORS? More instructions on what sort of images? Are these people smoking something illegal? How could they possible make it worse, other than telling you that one should be a building, another a beach scene, etc..

And of course all the suggestion of how easy it is will mean that if you don't succeed at first, you just keep trying again and again until you get a few 'hits' (as judged by you and your friend..) and then report that back to the website to egg them on.. And for those with a knowledge of *proper* scientific methodology, I invite you to look at the very next thing they suggest - read and weep:

It is also helpful if the photos are as different as possible from each other, so it is easier to tell from the often partial results produced by a beginner's RV process which photo the viewer has described when the session is over.

So not only do they have to cover lots of different topics, the judging process allows both people to decide which descriptions might apply to which photo.. Gee, it would be so hard to be successful at this, which such onerous rules.. {/sarcasm}

This stuff would be laughable at a tinfoil website. At a site professing to be run by genuine scientists, encouraging such dreadful 'research' is absolutely shameful.

To Jessica Utts, you and your compatriots should know better.

Yes, this sort of stuff truly makes me very angry... (again, not aimed at you, Redhen)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And then I saw one of the authors was Jessica Utts - oh dear - I've run into that name before too - she just happens to be an Executive Director of the "International Remote Viewing Association" (IRVA)..

Good catch. That's all I need to know, thanks. Jeesh, how does this stuff end up on the NIH website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.