Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon
Double-slit interference pattern

Consciousness and the Double-Slit Experiment

By Gregon

A quick heads-up on a new experiment performed by parapsychology researcher Dr Dean Radin (with others) which could provoke debate with its publication in Physics Essays: “Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern“. Basically, the results may just put the consciousness aspect back into the quantum world. Here’s the abstract (full PDF downloadable at the link above):

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.

Dean also notes in his blog posting that his team has also “completed data collection for two replications of the experiments reported in this publication. Both were statistically significant and in the predicted direction.”

Hope to cover this in a bit more detail to this in an upcoming post once I have the time to dig into it properly.

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

20 Comments

  3. Correlation is not explanation
    That quantum collapse can appear to be influenced by PK was demonstrated by Schmidt decades ago — remember that collapse (the existence of which as a fundamental process is part of the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) but not all other interpretations) is part of radioactive decay: each click of a Geiger counter represents a collapse of the wave function (at least according to the CI). This shows another circumstance where this established fact has been demonstrated, but doesn’t really add fundamentally to the issue.

    That it appears to influence collapse, however, doesn’t mean that it actually does. One alternative is ESP directed data selection: the apparent affects could be due to choices being made about timing and protocol that were precognitively (and non-consciously) “known” to produce the intended effect. Another is that the apparatus and environment were what was influenced to produce the apparent results.

    Even if we set that aside, this establishes an effect on quantum processes, but that neither makes consciousness a quantum process nor quantum processes a product of consciousness. After all, it was shown by Rhine that PK influences dice but that doesn’t mean that cubes of wood are intimately connected somehow with the nature of consciousness.

    It has been thoroughly demonstrated that collapse takes place (whether “collapse” is a fundamental process or a happenstance of observational frame) in the absence of anything that can be said to be conscious in a concrete sense. In fact, its very, very difficult to prevent it from happening — that is the primary barrier to having “quantum computers”.

    This experiment is consistent with a “consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem”. Other experiments are not. It is also consistent with a number of different relationships between quantum processes and PK that have not already been disproven. If we assume without evidence (though without strong evidence to the contrary as well) that PK is fundamentally connected to consciousness (as Dean does) then this implies consistency of the experiment with those same relationships between quantum processes and consciousness. However, they are also consistent with there being no such special relationships, and failure of the experiment would have still been consistent with all of these alternatives.

    1. “Something” is relational
      “Something” is relational here. Saying this doesn’t prove that PK and quantum events are related is just pointing out that we do not yet know “how” they are related. Making a big deal out of that to the dereliction of the correlation itself looks a bit disingenous. It’s sort of like observing that we saw someone point a gun at somebody, shoot the gun, and then we saw the targeted victim drop. While it may be true that we have no direct evidence that the gun killed the poor fellow “yet” we certainly have enough evidence that we can proceed to investigate it “as if” there was a correlation. There would be a high but not absolute probability that the two events would be linked, although it could have been a stray bullet that happened to find the target at the same time accidentally. If the guy kept shooting and his targeted victims kept falling dead one could still argue that there was no direct link, but what would you argue? That guns don’t kill people – -only people kill people?

      1. Saying this doesn’t prove
        Saying this doesn’t prove that PK and quantum events are related is just pointing out that we do not yet know “how” they are related.

        I don’t believe that I said that it doesn’t prove that they are related. I did say that it does not show any particular relation between them. More specifically, it does not show that the relationship is fundamental: neither that “quantum collapse” is caused by conscious intentions nor that PK is fundamentally a quantum phenomena (current thought is that quantum phenomena underlie all physical phenomena — but the issue is whether we need to deal with phenomena at that level of detail to account for it, or if we can use something at a higher level of abstraction like a modified classical physics). Or, as my title asserted, it does not show that either one is “explained” by the other.

        First off, the appearance of influence on collapse may be spurious. Well respected parapsychologists, such as Ed May, feel that all “micro-PK” (virtually all PK observed in the laboratory) could be explained by precognitively guided conventional choices in timing, PRNG seeds, details of protocols, etc. This is called DAT (Decision Augmentation Theory). So this possibility is not just a wild, bizarre argument pulled out of the air, like, say, claiming that the results could be due to aliens from Deneb modifying the records.

        Neither is the possibility that the measurements were influenced by PK rather than the thing being measured. If there is one thing that has been shown in the last century of parapsychological research is that psi phenomena are “outcome oriented”. They don’t, like conventional interactions between the mind and environment, on the basis of a “plan” that one anticipates will have a desired result. Instead they act specifically to accomplish the outcome regardless of intermediary reactions. If Madame X seeks to learn something by “reading person Y’s mind”, and that thing is not actually known to Y, Madame X will feel like she successfully got the information from Y, even though the information only existed elsewhere.

        So, if PK actually cannot influence quantum collapse, then any parapsychologist would expect that the environment will be influenced instead to produce the intended outcome.

        Personally, I would bet that PK does influence quantum processes, but that is mostly prior philosophical bias, not the results of this experiment.

        But again, even if there is an influence, this does mean that any theory of QM and any theory of PK will have to be able to account for that influence, but it doesn’t indicate that either is a fundamental part of the theory of the other.

        My pet theory, that I first delivered at a parapsychology conference about 30 years ago, is that PK actually is a quantum phenomena specifically tied to the process that is perceived as “collapse of the wave function” as is ESP. But that does not mean that this experiment demonstrates this particularly. And tying QM processes to “consciousness” requires the additional, completely unproven, step of assuming that PK is an epiphenomena of a more fundamental thing called consciousness.

        This experiment certainly is an interesting extension of past research that relates PK to quantum collapse, such as Dean’s own work with influencing Geiger counter clicks from background radiation via PK. It specifically demonstrates this using an experimental protocol that is used in many experiments designed to explore the nature of quantum collapse. It’s good work, and getting it published in a physics journal is wonderful. But it is part of a continuous advance, not a “quantum leap” in understanding PK.

        Topher

      1. “My pet theory, that I first
        “My pet theory, that I first delivered at a parapsychology conference about 30 years ago, is that PK actually is a quantum phenomena specifically tied to the process that is perceived as “collapse of the wave function” as is ESP.”

        I see – PK is not related to quantum collapse, it is collapse. Pardon me if I am wrong but if something “is” then it is sure as hell related. This is starting to sound like Bill Clinton’s legal evasiveness about the word “is” as it related to the Lewinski blue dress scandal.

        1. Details
          [quote=emlong]”My pet theory, that I first delivered at a parapsychology conference about 30 years ago, is that PK actually is a quantum phenomena specifically tied to the process that is perceived as “collapse of the wave function” as is ESP.”

          I see – PK is not related to quantum collapse, it is collapse. Pardon me if I am wrong but if something “is” then it is sure as hell related. This is starting to sound like Bill Clinton’s legal evasiveness about the word “is” as it related to the Lewinski blue dress scandal.[/quote]

          I believe what Topher is saying, is that while the PK-collapse link is something that he feels is correct, **this particular experiment** does not offer that particular conclusion authoritatively.

          1. Particular experiments
            As an intelligent person who seems to have given a great deal of thought to the PK-quantum conundrum, I would very much like to know if Topher has any ideas about the kind of experiments that should be made to make the case in favor of this alleged link.

          2. Definitive Experiments
            [quote=red pill junkie]As an intelligent person who seems to have given a great deal of thought to the PK-quantum conundrum, I would very much like to know if Topher has any ideas about the kind of experiments that should be made to make the case in favor of this alleged link.[/quote]
            I’ve tried to come up with some, but I haven’t succeeded. There are two ways to proceed:

            1) Try to better understand the specific characteristics of psi phenomena. The problems in interpreting this experiment — in identifying what is being acted on, and the confusion raised by psi-mediated experimenter effects among other problems make it hard to conclude anything from psi experiments except that something is going on (in fact, that psi implies that all scientific experiments suffer from these problems, is probably one of the things that cause some people who want science to be certain about scientific results go be so emotionally opposed to the clear scientific certainty of uncertainty that parapsychology provides). If we can set some limits on psi, at least well justified probabilistic limits, and especially physical limits, then we will know how to design more conclusive experiments.

            2) Test specific theories. Even if we cannot directly show that psi is a consequence of quantum phenomena, if a theory firmly rooted in quantum phenomena makes reliable predictions then the relationship could be accepted as true to the extent that any scientific theory is considered true. On the other hand, if a theory is established that does not require quantum effects, then the relationship would be tentatively abandoned.

          3. He believes what I feel
            [quote=Greg]
            I believe what Topher is saying, is that while the PK-collapse link is something that he feels is correct, **this particular experiment** does not offer that particular conclusion authoritatively.[/quote]

            Thanks Greg, that is precisely what I feel — and “feel” is a pretty good word for it: I wish I could at least “believe” or say that it is “likely”. I just feel that it is more likely than anything else.

        2. Identity vs Epiphenomena
          [quote=emlong]I see – PK is not related to quantum collapse, it is collapse.[/quote]

          Not quite, I suspect that PK is a phenomena that results from the underlying phenomena that is interpreted in the Copenhagen Interpretation as collapse. When I push a glass across the table this is a result of the electromagnetic force, but that doesn’t mean that muscular action is the electromagnetic force.

          1. In that instance muscular
            In that instance muscular force “initiated” the electromotive force which in my book means that within the bounds of the experiment there is a relationship. If your theory is that PK mediates every experiment and every phenomena then PK is “related” to everything. It is just that some experiments such as the double slit are far more likely to demonstrate evenescent relationships, and the deviation is far easier to measure in that experiment. That is what is so nifty about it. There is nothing very original about the idea that everything is related to everything else in some fashion, but resorting to that argument in general just means you think it is all too complex to figure out what is doing what to what. I am afraid that is not a very helpful approach to figuring out what is happening. Something may be somehow mediating PK and the photon scatter in a domino fashion, and it is very helpful then to at least acknowledge the value of all the dominoes and their relationship one to the other. PK may not be “causing” the deviation directly but it is very likely causing something that is causing the phenomenon. That is actually saying that it is causing the phenomenon only indirectly perhaps but the causitive chain is still apparent. What this experiment would seem to prove if the controls were as good as alleged is that PK at the very least initiates a chain of actions that finally result in the statistical deviation. That is very, very interesting.

          2. Are you challenging or supporting my statements
            [quote=emlong]In that instance muscular force “initiated” the electromotive force which in my book means that within the bounds of the experiment there is a relationship.[/quote]

            Yes, but that is not the relationship. Muscular action is a result/consequence/manifestation (your choice of terminology) of the electromagnetic force.

            That there is a relation is pretty much what I was saying — you appear to think that I disagree with that.

            [quote]If your theory is that PK mediates every experiment and every phenomena then PK is “related” to everything.[/quote]

            The second part is one of the assumptions of the form of physicalist monism which is the basis of the mainstream philosophy of science — all physical phenomena are manifestations of a single set of physical laws, elucidating whose nature is the purpose of science.

            The first part is an experimental observation — a thoroughly demonstrated fact that scientific theory needs to account for. This experiment is an example. When experiments, of virtually any form, are performed there is a, generally small, bias in the results, correlated with the intentions/desires/beliefs of the participants despite any precautions taken. That is a fair summary of the last 130+ years of parapsychological experiments.

            That the effect size is generally small means that generally it can be expected to be a source of unaccounted for error in experimental science that lowers but does not eliminate our ability to interpret results. By definition, however, the “bias” is equal to the size of the “effect” in parapsychology (since the bias is the effect) and so the interpretation problem is acute.

            [quote]It is just that some experiments such as the double slit are far more likely to demonstrate evenescent relationships, and the deviation is far easier to measure in that experiment. That is what is so nifty about it.[/quote]

            And yet, as has been found in virtually all other experiments, the effect size is pretty much the same as in other experiments — one of the oddities of psi.

            [quote]There is nothing very original about the idea that everything is related to everything else in some fashion, but resorting to that argument in general just means you think it is all too complex to figure out what is doing what to what. I am afraid that is not a very helpful approach to figuring out what is happening.[/quote]

            So the sensible approach is to ignore the demonstrated characteristics of the phenomenon in question because it introduces inconvenient complexity? That it is preferable to pretend that it is something other than what we know it to be because that would make our life easier?

            [quote]Something may be somehow mediating PK and the photon scatter in a domino fashion, and it is very helpful then to at least acknowledge the value of all the dominoes and their relationship one to the other. PK may not be “causing” the deviation directly but it is very likely causing something that is causing the phenomenon. That is actually saying that it is causing the phenomenon only indirectly perhaps but the causitive chain is still apparent. What this experiment would seem to prove if the controls were as good as alleged is that PK at the very least initiates a chain of actions that finally result in the statistical deviation. That is very, very interesting.[/quote]

            Again, you are arguing my side for me — except that you feel that since we are used to a form of causality in which there is always an intermediate step between every cause and every effect, that we are justified in assuming that those intermediate steps (your dominoes) are obvious and act through the thing being measured rather than through either those who are doing the measurement or through the apparatus being used to make the measurement. I say that we cannot exclude these possibilities, and further that even if we do, we cannot exclude the alternative that the effect acts through some mechanism that can influence “collapse” but is not a fundamental part of it (as the glass in my previous example is not a fundamental part of muscular action, though it can be affected by it).

            Psi has demonstrated characteristics quite unlike our familiar physical processes. We cannot therefore interpret psi experiments as if that were not the case.

          3. I am having a hard time
            Perhaps we could discuss this from a slightly different angle:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3rT_UbG2ug&feature=youtu.be

            In this instance the relationships cannot be so specifically correlated. One could call this a PK event or not. If that is the point you are trying to make then I would more generally agree with that in experiments with REG’s.

            And then we have instances of large statistical deviations apparently being achieved retroactively.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB6-OY-c9rk

            If reality is this malleable then we may indeed have great difficulty sorting out what is happening when and how. It may ultimately be unanswerable, and sometimes I think that part of our maturity as humans may come from admitting that there may be things happening we will never be able to figure out.

          4. The Dawn Starts to Appear
            [quote=emlong]
            In this instance the relationships cannot be so specifically correlated. One could call this a PK event or not. If that is the point you are trying to make then I would more generally agree with that in experiments with REG’s.[/quote]

            Well, technically, this is a PK event. We don’t know whether we are dealing with a single phenomena, two (ESP & PK) or many, so we can’t really say that “this is PK” and that “this is clairvoyance” and that “this other event is PK also” in the sense of saying that different things are happening in the first two circumstances, nor that the same thing is happening in the first and third. Our terms are descriptions of the kind of experiments in which an anomalous transfer of information occurred. In the case of Roger Nelson’s and his collaborators’ Global Consciousness Project, an evident conventionally caused change in human consciousness was correlated to a change in a physical system that cannot be explained by any conventional causal mechanism. That is PK — by definition.

            But yes, this is an example where thinking of PK as a matter of someone willing something results in what can be thought of as a force pushing something around. (Unless, of course, the GCP results are due to experimenter/participant effects — which to me seems highly likely to be part of what is going on here, since the effect is notable only because it is what the experimenters chose to look at rather than millions of other possible choices of what to consider meaningful).

            The point is, one cannot simply assume that a psi event has a particular “source” nor a particular “point of action” as if it were a conventional source. Something that is demonstrably unaffected by physical limitations like time, distance and intervening barriers cannot be assumed to be operating within any particular “box” we try to restrict it to.

            [quote]
            And then we have instances of large statistical deviations apparently being achieved retroactively.[/quote]

            Yup. The “random bits” that Dean refers to as being generated in the 60s are the experiments by Schmidt that I previously referred to, and the retrocausation experiment mentioned a bit later were first performed by him as well — the Princeton experiments were a much later replication. (However, there are other ways of looking at what is going on in these experiments than the bit generation being influenced from the future; DAT is one possibility, another is precognitively guided present time PK).

            [quote]If reality is this malleable then we may indeed have great difficulty sorting out what is happening when and how. It may ultimately be unanswerable, and sometimes I think that part of our maturity as humans may come from admitting that there may be things happening we will never be able to figure out.[/quote]

            Now you’re getting the point. If that is “human maturity” though I will remain firmly on the side of philosophical neoteny (look it up). While I will gladly admit that “there may be things happening that we will never be able to figure out” and even go further and say that that is almost certainly the case, I think that it is a mistake to ever seriously consider the possibility that any particular issue is an instance of this unless I have a firm proof that this is true (e.g., Gauss’ incompleteness theorem, the Turing Halting Problem, exponential divergence of chaos, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal) — I consider *knowing* that something is unknowable is a valid solution for some scientific problem. But simply shrugging one’s shoulders and assuming that some question is unanswerable is scientific senescence, not maturity.

            But prematurely stringing up a “Mission Accomplished” banner is no better, and that is what I’ve been opposing here.

          5. I would never “shrug my
            I would never “shrug my shoulders” that something seemed to be unknowable, but neither would I bite my nails over a problem that is taking an inordinate amount of time to solve, ie I would return to it periodically perhaps but not obsess about it to the extent that it threatened my mental state which is what I have seen happen with a few scientist friends. They literally went nuts over their inability to solve a problem. Philosophical neoteny can do that to a fellow sometimes, and there is a certain worldview that regards just about everything to be a problem needing to be solved. Jiddhu Krishnamurti blamed that neurosis on the manner of our schooling which tends to dwell endlesslessly on problems that need to be solved, plots understood, and symbols decoded. I was an English major and was struck by how often some teachers would endlessly prattle on about symbols in stories that were actually not intended to be so overt by the authors themselves. Flannery O’Connor was once visiting a high school English class in which the teacher was all puffed up about her keenness for extracting symbols every whichaway, and when she asked Flannery what was the symbolism of a black hat in one of her stories Flannery chagrined the teacher with her response to the effect that it was just a black hat – end of story.
            Since you cannot come up with an experiment that would prove say PK one way or another I assume you have hit a dead end in general. You presume to know what does not prove any of these ideas fundamentally, but you can’t come up with a positive proof which would seem to indicate you have reached a quandary of sorts yourself and that you may never ever be satisfied with an explanation. I hope that is sitting well with you.

          6. Questions not Answers; Facts not Theory.
            [quote=emlong]I would never “shrug my shoulders” that something seemed to be unknowable, but neither would I bite my nails over a problem that is taking an inordinate amount of time to solve, ie I would return to it periodically perhaps but not obsess about it to the extent that it threatened my mental state which is what I have seen happen with a few scientist friends. They literally went nuts over their inability to solve a problem.[/quote]

            That is a very rare situation. I’ve known a few scientists who have had noticeable mental health issues, and one with OCD whose pathology included fixation on solving problems (note, the obsession was a symptom of the disorder, not the cause). You can find lots of stories, of course, about such disorders but none that turn out to be true — they are urban legends whose “moral” is that studying science is dangerous.

            In any case, we agree that banging ones head against a problem is a poor way to proceed. That is precisely what I described in detail in a previous post. There is an alternative to just giving up and saying to oneself that “its too hard, but maybe someday I’ll take another look at it”. That is to approach the problem from a different direction, learn as much as one can about the issue — you know, do science. Its all a matter of how important you think the problem is.

            I think that I could be excused from misunderstanding your point. I guess it was foolish of me to interpret “admitting that there may be things happening we will never be able to figure out” as meaning “admitting that there may be things happening we will never be able to figure out” instead of “some things are difficult to figure out, and the healthy thing is to put them aside and come back to them later.”

            [quote]there is a certain worldview that regards just about everything to be a problem needing to be solved[/quote]

            Which is irrelevant to the issue about whether there are some things that are worth trying to understand. (PK is a “problem” in the sense that textbooks include problems at the end of chapters, not in the sense of poverty being a problem).

            [quote]I was an English major and was struck by how often some teachers would endlessly prattle on about symbols in stories that were actually not intended to be so overt by the authors themselves. Flannery O’Connor was once visiting a high school English class in which the teacher was all puffed up about her keenness for extracting symbols every whichaway, and when she asked Flannery what was the symbolism of a black hat in one of her stories Flannery chagrined the teacher with her response to the effect that it was just a black hat – end of story.[/quote]

            Interesting anecdote. Reminds me of an old SF short-short (I think by Asimov) where a physics professor uses a time machine to pick up Shakespeare from the past. He enrolls him in a colleague’s course on Shakespeare (unbeknownst to the professor teaching it). Unfortunately, he flunks him.

            Of course as an English major you know that authors choose their words based on a mixture of conscious choices and and unconscious intuition. Literary criticism is only about the author’s intention to a small amount, and about why they “just felt” that some choice was apt only a bit more — its mostly about why the work resonates with the readers. So the real moral of the story is not that the teacher was wrong, but that teachers can discover strengths in a work that its author may be entirely unaware of.

            In any case, this seems to be completely unrelated to the sin of obsession that you feel scientists are prone to (the standard “mad scientist” stereotype) — unless your point is that it is foolish to try to understand things, whether literary of physical.

            [quote]Since you cannot come up with an experiment that would prove say PK one way or another I assume you have hit a dead end in general. You presume to know what does not prove any of these ideas fundamentally, but you can’t come up with a positive proof which would seem to indicate you have reached a quandary of sorts yourself and that you may never ever be satisfied with an explanation. I hope that is sitting well with you.[/quote]

            First off, PK was proven by Rhine something like 60 years ago. The issue is its nature. Physicists have been trying to understand the natures of the much more experimentally approachable gravitational and electromagnetic forces for much longer than that.

            Keep in mind that way more resources have been expended on elucidating scientifically the nature of dark matter over the past year, then has been spent on understanding PK in all of modern history, so that we are not well advanced on the characteristics of PK is hardly surprising.

            I have by no means hit a dead end — I only council against imagining definitiveness in experiments that do not provide them. What I “presume to know” is the actual outcome actual experiments — observations not theories — that either falsify or at least calls into question, assumptions that definitive interpretation requires.

            It is the nature of science that final answers are never found. Science is about questions and trying to answer them rather than the answers — every answer produces more questions. I’ll be quite content if by the time I die we’ve collected some more good questions. I suggested previously how we might do that.

          7. My interest in this subject
            My interest in this subject is not really that of a scientist, but rather of someone who is just looking for guidance in my everyday life. If there is evidence that our thoughts can have such an impact on the material world then I must assume that I need to be more considerate with my thoughts and that thought is in itself a potentially misused or carelessly used instrument – that my thoughts may be capable of harming or helping other sentient beings simply by their emotional impact or their degree of focus and will independent of their content. I have already seen this action in my life before in the form of concentrated prayer and other things, so it was not surprising to me that thought could deviate quantum behavior. Quibbling over whether the phenomenon is PK or whatever looks trivial to me as a practical matter especially when the problem gets so relativistic that no answer is forthcoming anyway. The mechanism in its simplest manifestation or interpretation is more important to me at the moment. It would appear that mind is not localized, therefore one cannot assume that one’s thoughts are always “to one’s self” but are in reality always interacting with the wider world in some fashion.
            When “problems” like this get so stuck for understanding I am always wondering if we have hit a wall in terms of human intelligence’s ability to perceive the thing in its totality. There are plenty of scientists starting to wonder the same thing about many other areas of scientific endeavor. The seeming illogic of quantum behavior has hung us up for decades now, and a not a few physicists are wondering out loud if we may be reaching the limits of human thought. Of course, that is no reason to stop trying for the answers, but in cases like that delineated by the double slit experiment the real problem is not whether the experiment does or does not evidence PK or whatever but whether we understand in the slightest what is happening in the double slit experiment period. If we can’t even grok the double slit experiment in the first place then trying to determine if the deviation is a result of PK may forever elude us until we figure out the most fundamental physics involved.
            Anyway, I got from the experiment sufficient evidence that thought is non local, and that to me is a big, big realization. As a practical matter I don’t need to know the mechanism of action. I may be driving that car without knowing much about the engine, but I am still driving that car nicely and with finesse. If I am too dumb to understand how the engine works then so be it. I don’t really care in the final analysis. It is good enough for me that the car is getting me somewhere and that I am not running people over.

            I make and sell and give away orgonite which is to me the most amazing and still mysterious substance I have ever encountered. There are all sorts of theories about how it works, but if I had sat around and fretted over the theory then I would never have taken the action to make some and then discover the lovely energy it puts out. In fact, I did put that off for many years because the theory of orgonite looked so improbable and flaky, but then one day I had nothing better to do and decided what the hell to make some and was astounded by the energy field around it. It was one of the highlights of my life. I still don’t really know how it works, but I do know it works. My knowingness along with the knowingness of my fellow orgonite enthusiasts persists in spite of the void in our scientific understanding, but there are plenty of people who beat their heads against the wall trying to figure out what is happening with the stuff. Those people also tend to be people who don’t really feel the stuff though, and they make the mistake of thinking that if they understand its mechanism then they will feel it, but it does not work that way unfortunately. Perhaps this explains my skepticism about “solving” some things that look more and more like fundamentally intractable riddles, and really there isn’t any “problem” for me anyway. I have fun with orgonite and the non local mind without necessarily understanding the mechanism. I guess I am what might be called a “joy rider.”

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal