Dr. Dean Radin Brings Real Magic to the Psi Lab |377|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Apr 3, 2018.

  1. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,564
    Dr. Dean Radin Brings Real Magic to the Psi Lab |377|
    Share
    Tweet
    SHARES0
    [​IMG]

    Dr. Dean Radin’s interest in psi phenomena is leading him to scientifically investigate magical practices.
    [​IMG]

    photo by: Skeptiko
    Alex Tsakiris:


    Today we welcome Dr. Dean Radin back to Skeptiko. Dean is, of course, Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, as well as a bestselling, award-winning author.

    Dean is truly a scientist, as most of you know, because most of you are familiar with his work, and I have a little photo here of the video of him actually in a lab, with a very, very interesting experiment that I think is just fundamental to how we understand consciousness and science, but it’s not even an experiment we’re going to talk about today, because today we’re going to talk about Dean’s new book, Real Magic: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science and a Guide to the Secret Power of the Universe.
     
    Mishelle, Laird, dpdownsouth and 2 others like this.
  2. It is gratifying to see the author of Entangled Minds on the right side of this issue.

    The way I read this is that Radin, who wrote Entangled Minds, has a new book where he says essentially: we now know that mystical traditions were right all along. Not exactly "I thought of it first", but close enough.


    Speaking as a spiritualist and a Buddhist, I have to say, I agree:
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html
    You might have heard it said that "we are all one". What does that mean? The quotes below explain it. These quotes from: an ancient text, an advanced meditator, a near-death experiencer, a spirit communicating through an evidential mediums, a materialist atheist , Christian scripture, Christian theologians, a Native American medicine man, a Jewish Scholar of the Kabbalah, and a Sufi philosopher, all describe something very similar:...​

    Tyson is conscious. That ought to be sufficient qualification for anyone who has thought about Chalmers' hard problem, for more than a few seconds. Unfortunately, many people are willfully blind to the truth that is right in front of their nose:

    Who could ask for a better example of this:


     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2018
    Number 22 likes this.
  3. Raimo

    Raimo New

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    165

    I prefer this quote by Michael Prescott:
    http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/...he-bad-and-the-ugly/comments/page/2/#comments
     
  4. Oneness is not a logical proposition, it is a feeling. It is not true or false. Just as love is not true or false. If you feel it, you understand it.

    The non-physical realm is not something you understand with the logical / rational mind. Logic is a branch of mathematics. It pertains to the physical world which was created with mathematics.

    For example, "cause and effect" has no meaning in a realm outside of time.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2018
  5. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    121
    Home Page:
    I do not understand why pan-psychism and idealism can't both be true at the same time. Bernardo! Equally I have zero problems with "all is one" and "the all divided itself to the many" as being not just philosophical truisms, but also a practical behavioral and mental guideline. If I accept that ultimately we are both the same then in a situation where one tends to make apologies for one's own behavior, "I was late to the meeting because I had to get my kid to school and that bus was broken down right in front of me and the mailman stopped to talk to me...", but one tends to demonize someone else's behavior, "that Josie is always late to the meeting, she doesn't take this seriously and she's lazy. She's bringing us all down," you might actually stop and realize that your consciousness plucked from your own collection of cells and placed into hers would do the EXACT same things she does, would react the same way, and would make the same decisions. And when we act in harmony we reach a higher-order of intelligence and evolution.

    I am a consciousness. I am made up of smaller consciousnesses, namely bacteria and cells and they all have their own motivations and goals and conflicts. Is the aggregate of them me? Or am I a top-down manager and they are all working for me even though they have their own individual lives not necessarily representative of mine? Or is it both: we are the entity of me together. We are already bound in the realm of thoughts and ideas, I influence them and they influence me and we are in an agreed congress together because it is beneficial for both of us. A nation is a collection of consciousnesses and that nation has a personality that is a combination of it's own heritage, behavior, and ideals, and the actual contents of its people. It isn't separable and there's no higher order that is not also the lower order.

    Bernardo would ask, "is there an experience of being a chair?" He says there isn't. If I am a discarnate entity who spies on the tiny lives of a collection of wood particles that make up the chair, could I not experience that? I think I could. Would that aggregate of wood particles not be the essence of the chair? Or is what he objecting to that there might be a "chair being" who is yanking the puppet strings of all those wood particles? There is certainly the archetype of what a chair is in our minds, we all share it. Is that not the "morphic resonance" of a chair to steal a phrase? Is it not the blueprint we consult when we form a chair? Can artists push our concepts of what a chair is (we used to have a hanging basket chair in the 80s, I had a knee-chair in the 90's)? It evolves. It's alive.

    "Is there an experience of what it is like to be my hand?" I would say yes, of course there is. There is an experience of being that collection of consciousnesses working in tandem. Is that different from being ME? I would say it is a subset of me. Is that different than being GOD? I would say I am a subset of being god.

    Where is the disconnect? You want your great top-down being, you got it. You want your lower order consciousnesses interacting and making a richer whole by dividing from the whole and acting independently of omniscience? Done. If all of this stems from a mental/archetypal world then it makes total sense why it is as it is when it bubbles to the surface in the form of a "material reality".

    I'm at the part of the interview where Alex is talking spirits and Dean is dismissing them as they weren't implicitly stated in the laboratory conditions. Is will/intention itself not ultimately a spirit? Are all of these conscious and physical entities some manifestation of will and intent? Again, I don't see the disconnect.

    We're battling a word salad, it's a pig's breakfast.

    Imagine the whole universe is only ONE conscious particle who runs around and gets into position to play his part for every point in space and time. I could make a simulation where you, the consciousness, have control over the rules that define the actions of that particle, you make every decision (cellular automata: if you are incarnated and there are over 3 neighbors, you are overcrowded and die, if there are 2 or less neighbors you die from loneliness, if there are exactly 3 neighbors and you do not exist, you may incarnate), but each particle is reacting to its environment/surroundings when it gets there. You are not lost as a whole/decider and neither is the individuality and circumstance of each individual experience.
     
  6. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    Dean Radin is doing excellent work and I'm a fan of his. However his stance does have its limitations. By his own admission he is a post-materialist, meaning he uses a materialist approach to non-material evidence. He's clearly garnered enough evidence that he's satisfied of the existence of a mind-based reality, but falls for conservative scientific beliefs like the myth of progress, and the viability of artificial intelligence to solve the problems of mind.

    If "primitive" society settled on the primacy of mind a few thousand years ago, and their practice yielded tangible results bridging matter and consciousness and a way of being that reflected that truth authentically, then the distractions materialism offered in the interim are questionable at best. I'm not sure what the scientific method offers other than material comforts if one is fully committed to the reality of Idealism and its spiritual counterparts. I'm not anti-science, how could I be as a 20th/21st century sensibility steeped in its products, but if the gurus and sages were correct we've wasted a lot of time on a philosophical model that brings the mixed blessings of anaesthetic and the atomic bomb.

    The proof of a conscious reality is not a problem for ordinary people. They either already accept it instinctively or through their metaphysical beliefs, or they followed the standard model without much conviction because "better" minds said materialism was more sophisticated and modern. Scientists are barely affected by mind because other than cosmologists and polemical materialist who enjoy tenure, reputation and book deals by denying its existence, everyday science does not require an ontology to work. Dean Radin is doing valuable work highlighting evidence for entrenched types who are prepared to leave the bunker long enough to appraise it, but I fail to see any practical difference between a non-localised reservoir of consciousness and a "spirit".
     
  7. People have done their best to explain it in words, you do not lose your individuality, you don't lose anything, you "remember" or "discover" what you are. ...

    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html

    Lester Levenson ... He saw this Beingness as something like a comb. He was at the spine of the comb and all the teeth fanned out from it, each one thinking it was separate and different from all the other teeth. And that was true, but only if you looked at it from the tooth end of the comb. Once you got back to the spine or source, you could see that it wasn't true. It was all one comb. There was no real separation, except when you sat at the tooth end. It was all in one's point of view.
    ...
    Bernadette Roberts ... So here begins our journey to the true center, the bottom-most, innermost "point" in ourselves where our life and being runs into divine life and being - the point at which all existence comes together. This center can be compared to a coin: on the near side is our self, on the far side is the divine. One side is not the other side, yet we cannot separate the two sides. If we tried to do so, we would either end up with another side, or the whole coin would collapse, leaving no center at all - no self and no divine. We call this a state of oneness or union because the single center has two sides, without which there would be nothing to be one, united, or non-dual. Such, at least, is the experiential reality of the state of transforming union, the state of oneness.
    ...
    The spirit of Charles Marshall communicating through direct voice medium Leslie Flint said:
    It is the development and it is the tremendous realisation that one must have eventually of how we are all linked and bound together and how actually the very fundamental thing that flows through us all, is the very essence which is of God. And so we gradually evolve more and more to God or become like him.

    I do not refer to shape or form, I refer now to the infinite spirit which is the very life blood you might say of all humanity; where we lose in each other ourselves and discover that we are all in a oneness and in accord. And when we have this oneness and accord we reach a stage of spiritual development where we can be considered to be living in a form if you like of paradise because we are conscious of everything around and about us as being not only "us" but "all".
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2018
  8. "As for "all is One," I just don't see how it gets us anywhere"

    Prescott is right. Thinking "all is one doesn't get you anywhere". That is backwards. You have to "get there" first (develop spiritually / emotionally), then you understand all is one.

    This is something that permeates spirituality.

    People hear about "truths" and think they understand them. But you have to have an emotional experience, a feeling, then when you try to explain it in words, it sounds just like those "truths" everyone is trying to understand.

    And, when I first started reading about Buddhism I never understood the sutras. But when I started making progress in meditation and had experiences meditating, then I could understand the sturas. They are not there to "get you somewhere". They are there to help you make sense of things when you arrive.
     
  9. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    121
    Home Page:
    One thing I do agree with: anything is possible by directly honing intent, imagination, and emotion. Anything at all. I think that's the danger/power of intent and why it's so heavily suppressed. I don't think limitation exists except where we've allowed and encouraged it. That's why this material realism is akin to a kind of imagination fascism that is limiting our potential futures -- it's dangerous and self-defeating.
     
    TheRaven likes this.
  10. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,066
    Alex's question at the end of the interview:

    What happens when you bring magic into the lab -- if you can? Or is that all folly once you accept that there's this other realm of extended consciousness that is in play all the time in ways that we don't understand?
     
    Mishelle likes this.
  11. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,066
    I may answer your question in due course when I've had a chance to think about it, Alex...

    ...but let me say for now that I don't think you shouldn't ask tough questions. It's rather that I think you should give your guests the chance to answer your questions, however tough or soft they might be. I don't feel you did that with Rupert Sheldrake: you cut him off a couple of times, just when he was getting interesting. This interview with Dean Radin was a little better, in that you at least gave him time to answer.
     
  12. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,066
    I think Radin is right that panpsychism is a useful half-way house to Idealism. Maybe a face-saving way for scientists to shift the paradigm a bit? My only worry is that a whole generation of them will settle on it for too long, extending the time we'll have to put up with more of their nonsense.

    I think he's right, too, to be somewhat guarded about the source of information in NDEs. It could be down to some kind psi phenomenon rather than being the result of an (at least partial) state of existence in another realm; from which, NDEers can directly perceive in realtime what is happening to them -- in the operating theatre, for instance.

    As to magic, well, I'll have to read his book to see whether he convinces me that it exists...
     
  13. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    I'm never sure where panpsychism ends and Idealism begins. It isn't difficult to imagine a dog or a horse are conscious, even the movement of a hydrozoan in a bucket of stagnant water suggests motive and agency. A 3 billion year old lump of Lewisian gneiss on the other hand, stretches my definition of conscious to the limit. It's simpler to imagine that all of those are ingredients of a wider consciousness of which my consciousness is part, than a independent chunk of the Hebrides doing its thing.
    I agree. Once consciousness is outside space time any inference about duration and source of data is guesswork. From the perspective of the living survival is strongly suggested by NDE accounts, with a sequence of events involved in that separation. However some NDEs bear no resemblance to earthly time, with a few believing they were away for months, even years experiencing new places and people in the minutes they were out. Whether any of that information is localised to the deceased or vented from Radin's bladder of remote consciousness is impossible to say.
     
  14. Raimo

    Raimo New

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    165

    I find that idea repulsive. It would mean that we are slaves of some evil being, and after death we will be annihilated.​
     
    hypermagda likes this.
  15. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,276
    I think you have to accept that scientists will stick a bit closer to conventional ideas - making the smallest extra hypothesis they can, because that is the way science works. However, there ar others that try to create the bigger synthesis.
    The problem as I see it, is that once you admit ψ into your world view, you can never pin anything down to a particular type of conscious phenomenon. Whatever mediums report could be super-psi, NDE's could be created by precognition or maybe by some form of remote viewing of an earlier time (after resuscitation), etc etc. It is rather as though you take some data and rotate the coordinates - the data looks different, but really nothing has changed!

    For example, if you look at the physics of a pendulum in lab coordinates, this is relatively simple. However you could use a coordinate system fixed with respect to the galaxy, so that every part of the pendulum would be rotating with the Earth and orbiting the sun! The problem could be solved that way, bu tit would be really, really counter-intuitive.

    David
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2018
  16. Scientists should study what interests them. I think there is a place for studying psi in a lab. The remote viewing research was very successful and productive. It had practical applications. I think the success was due to the participation of psychics like Ingo Swann and Joe McMoneagle.

    Just using logic and reason to study psi will not give you the whole picture. Reading a book about research results will not give you the whole picture.

    I wrote these posts (below) in response to one of Raimo's posts (above) but they also pertain to Alex's question...
    Lester Levinson and Bernadette Robertts (below) did not come to their realizations through a logical analysis. They had an experience. A feeling. The feeling had implications. When they try to explain it in words it sounds like a logical thing but it is not. People try to understand it with logic, by understanding the meanings of the words, but it is not the same understanding you get from experiencing it.

    If you wanted to study love scientifically, wouldn't your own experiences of love be important to you in designing experiments? Wouldn't it be a huge handicap if a scientist studying love had never felt it? He would be like a blind man groping in the dark. And how would 100 research papers on love help anyone understand love if they could never feel it? The same is true for psi and the non-physical realm.

     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
  17. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    693
    Alex has detected that materialism is invalid, but is terrified that this implies there is a judicious God somewhere.

    He is desperate to find a Scientific way to explain Psi & NDE which will allow him to escape this conundrum.

    Dr. Radin irritates Alex when he says "All my decades of research indicate Idealism bro", which is basically saying "We can't know".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

    "In philosophy, Idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing."

    For seven thousand years men just like you and me have been dicking around with spirits and rituals, testing what works, and what doesn't.

    What did they come up with? Religions. Dr. Radin ignores this thousands of years worth of research and calls religion "regression". Something is not square here.
     
  18. Deaglan MacCanna

    Deaglan MacCanna Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Thought on Alex' question: THERE IS NO CONTROL FOR DIVINATION.
    As a Tarot reader, scryer, and generally as a mystic, I have to point out that the Scientific Method is incapable of entertaining Divination and the general magical nature of reality because it relies on control groups/specimens. This is impossible. Example: you can't get a Tarot reader to do a Tarot spread, then get another Tarot reader to do a Tarot spread with playing cards. They're ALL oracles.They all reflect accurately. The only prerequisite is consciousness and intention.
     
    Michael Patterson likes this.
  19. Deaglan MacCanna

    Deaglan MacCanna Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Can I hazard a guess that your spidey sense is piquing because, one after another, Alex has had on two great names back-to-back, whom we've known for a long time to be "fighting in our corner", and they're both promoting ecumenism/world religion? I don't think Alex has clocked that or is "in on it". It's an insidious and long drawn out agenda that appears to be coming to a head now that the subject of consciousness is actually breaking into the mainstream.
     
    Mishelle and Michael Patterson like this.
  20. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    Agreed. Dean Radin's aim is to offer psi respectability by number crunching. It's useful as far as it goes, but it means adopting some dumb ideas that are common currency within science, like everyone from the past was ignorant and everyone in future will reach more useful conclusions based on their knowledge. If mind based reality is all there is, everyone has access to all they need at any point in time. Existence may be progressing in some abstract way we can't begin to guess at, but not in a linear way of accumulated data. There's no enlightenment awaiting at the end of the paper trail, and Radin's deferral to intelligent supercomputers to crunch the maths is a promise note.

    I like Radin, he's a smart, funny guy who speaks to reductionists in a language they understand, even if they ignore him 95% of the time. However his new work on magic (a misnomer for the evidence he's gathering) is one of his less satisfactory works. You can't run with the dogs and the fox.
     

Share This Page