What came before the Big Bang?

[`mud]

GNG,
There is no "now".
So "I" can't exist in it.
But in the next micron of time, although it be nonexistent, "I" will, but for a brief instant.
And then, as is the next occurrance of a following fraction of motion in spacetime, "I" will be,
and eventually, I will return to the "dust" from which "I" came, plus some released gases and such.
The flame will know best what will follow then, hopefully "I" wish, but for that flame to be nonexistent,
"I" will slowly return to the endless decay in eternity's wish for my remains, "I" wish for the flame to come.
No flips or snaps needed there, and no return.
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

GNG,
There is no "now".
So "I" can't exist in it.
But in the next micron of time, although it be nonexistent, "I" will, but for a brief instant.
And then, as is the next occurrance of a following fraction of motion in spacetime, "I" will be,
and eventually, I will return to the "dust" from which "I" came, plus some released gases and such.
The flame will know best what will follow then, hopefully "I" wish, but for that flame to be nonexistent,
"I" will slowly return to the endless decay in eternity's wish for my remains, "I" wish for the flame to come.
No flips or snaps needed there, and no return.
~
'mud

Nice.

 

[`mud]

hey Thief,
Thanks
~
'mud

 

[viole]

So then how do you explain the control groups, who did not condition themselves via meditation, and which did not have the same results?

How does that prove non locality of your interactions, if any? I can condition (tune) a receiver and transmitter via bluetooth so that they can start communicating, locally.

Locally means that the interaction takes a finite time to reach destination, not that they can communicate far apart.

I think you are equivocationg about the concept of non locality.

Hey! I know! It vas der Invisible Pink Unicorninos, ya? She shows up clearly in the EEG readings. Duh!

You are losing your cool.

Viole, there could be an experiment set up with atomic clocks and you will still call it crap.

There could be, but there isn't any. And that tells me a lot, especially considering how easy you can prove non local interactions by putting the subjects sufficiently far apart. You do not even need atomic clocks. A normal consumer real time clock for computers is plenty.

I am surprised that that does not activate all your skeptical alarm bells, if any.

Your suggestion that something could have escaped the Faraday cages still tells us that there is some form of telepathy. Are you then allowing brain to brain communication? That's not very 'scientific', is it?

It would be scientific if there were any repeatable evidence with real skeptics on board and not only people who want to believe. But I am not addressing that, yet.

I am undermining your assumption (because it is only an assumption until now) that there is non locality. I am attacking the justification that QM can allow these instantaneous things when these things, if true, would defeat QM and, with it, their initial justification.

I think this fact alone is enough evidence that the guy in the video (flagging QM as a scientific explanation of his non scientific nonsense) is a charlatan surrounded by gullible people without a clue about QM and what it really entails.

So what about my question re: your brain synapses and "I"?

What about it? I told you we don't know how cosciousness arises from functioning brains, yet.

Ciao

- viole

 

[atanu]

GNG,
There is no "now".
So "I" can't exist in it.
But in the next micron of time, although it be nonexistent, "I" will, but for a brief instant.
And then, as is the next occurrance of a following fraction of motion in spacetime, "I" will be,
and eventually, I will return to the "dust" from which "I" came, plus some released gases and such.
The flame will know best what will follow then, hopefully "I" wish, but for that flame to be nonexistent,
"I" will slowly return to the endless decay in eternity's wish for my remains, "I" wish for the flame to come.
No flips or snaps needed there, and no return.
~
'mud

Does 'I' have origin in dust?

 

[`mud]

hey Atanu,
Everything comes from the Cosmos dust.
Everything escapes the "now" that we know as reality.
Everything we know as "I" and those that are the "others" are also "I"s.
~
That's not my stick, ask GNG, or Viole
Some don't know it yet.
But they'll learn someday, I hope it's not too late.
~
Maybe that's what God is all about, but "I" still don't believe.
That's why "I" only leave memories to all the others.
~
'mud

 

[godnotgod]

How does that prove non locality of your interactions, if any?

Locally means that the interaction takes a finite time to reach destination, not that they can communicate far apart.

I think you are equivocationg about the concept of non locality.

Briefly:


In physics, nonlocality or action at a distance is the direct interaction of two objects that are separated in space with no perceivable intermediate agency or mechanism.

Nonlocality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This says nothing about finite time. However, there is synchronicity. As you may recall, the lecture mentioned that the two EEG results were synched. They matched.

What you are referring to is communication via signal, (ie; blutetooth, etc.). The experiment in question is signal-less.

More on the rest of your post later.

 

[godnotgod]

GNG,
There is no "now".
So "I" can't exist in it.
But in the next micron of time, although it be nonexistent, "I" will, but for a brief instant.
And then, as is the next occurrance of a following fraction of motion in spacetime, "I" will be,
and eventually, I will return to the "dust" from which "I" came, plus some released gases and such.
The flame will know best what will follow then, hopefully "I" wish, but for that flame to be nonexistent,
"I" will slowly return to the endless decay in eternity's wish for my remains, "I" wish for the flame to come.
No flips or snaps needed there, and no return.
~
'mud

Who is it that is making the observation about "I"?

 

[`mud]

hey GNG,
Obviously, the "I" that is refered to, doesn't ever exist.
So, I, without quotes, is a personification of the meaning of a possessive action of having never been in the situation of reacting to the influence of "now", or the proposed situation of being "I".
Beyond that pretext, how can I explain the true meaning of the value of "I" ?
Except for the situation of being outside of myself peering upon the reality of the rationality of life itself.
Deviding the act of inward inspection to isolate the experience would not define the possession any more clearly, would it ?
~
If you understand this......................explain it to me!
~
'mud

 

[godnotgod]

hey GNG,
Obviously, the "I" that is refered to, doesn't ever exist.
So, I, without quotes, is a personification of the meaning of a possessive action of having never been in the situation of reacting to the influence of "now", or the proposed situation of being "I".
Beyond that pretext, how can I explain the true meaning of the value of "I" ?
Except for the situation of being outside of myself peering upon the reality of the rationality of life itself.
Deviding the act of inward inspection to isolate the experience would not define the possession any more clearly, would it ?
~
If you understand this......................explain it to me!
~
'mud

Partly it is how we see ourselves because of our social indoctrination as an individual identity, and partly as an accumulation of life experiences that we associate with our person as "I", but it is all an error. It is to think, via of the discriminating mind, that there is an agent of action, a thinker of thoughts, a doer of doing, a controller of the controlled. It is like thinking that there exists a thing called a river that flows, when, in reality, there is no such thing; there is only flowing water.

Here is Eckhart Tolle on the matter:

The Illusory Self | news

It is difficult to detect the false "I" due to its lifetime entrenchment, so this requires a lot of internal work and attention. But once discovered, it is unmistakable.

Here is a more humorous side of the question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAVM_Xk_o9E

 

[godnotgod]

hey Atanu,
Everything comes from the Cosmos dust.
Everything escapes the "now" that we know as reality.
Everything we know as "I" and those that are the "others" are also "I"s.
~
That's not my stick, ask GNG, or Viole
Some don't know it yet.
But they'll learn someday, I hope it's not too late.
~
Maybe that's what God is all about, but "I" still don't believe.
That's why "I" only leave memories to all the others.
~
'mud

If and when you can focus on the present moment, and by this I do not mean the moment as defined by the clock, but by just what is, here, now, without movement forward in 'time'; just this stillness you are immersed in: I wonder if you have ever experienced a presence, both within you and around you, a sense of something greater than you, and conscious, but which does not interfere with you; something definitely alive that cannot be defined as who you think you are, and not calling it 'God' or labeling it in any way. This is why I asked the question: 'Who is it that is observing the "I"'?

Zennists call this presence 'Big Mind'.

Taoists call it 'Tao'.

Hindus call it 'Brahman'.

Buddhists call it 'Original Mind', or 'Buddha nature'.

It is to focus, not on the small self we call "I", which we think of as the foreground in life, an ego that acts upon the world, but upon the background in life. IOW, what is the field against which the "I" operates; against and within which all things are?

A metaphor is the fish born into the sea. He does not know he is in the sea, nor that the sea is inside him. His attention is focused instead on food and predators.

It is not a question of belief, but one of direct experience.

Do you feel it?

 

[Bunyip]

You're saying that the researchers did not know that Subject B could hear the loud music, see the flashing lights, and feel the electric shocks to Subject A's fingers, right? If they did not know (ie; sloppy setup) that seems to contradict what you are saying about they're being frauds. As frauds, they would have known the setup was bogus.

Yes. Yes absolutely, I am saying that it was a sham experiment. Not only are you misrepresenting it to leverage claims it does not test - but the experiment itself is very badly set up.

See above

Nope, view 1. is perfectly plausible, is supported by the evidence and is almost guaranteed to be the case. There is nothing extreme about assuming your youtube pseudo scientists failed to isolate subject B properly. Especially given the gross dishonesty of many of their claims and inferences, the likelyhood that their methodology is as bankrupt as their honesty is very high.

So the researchers knowingly set up a fraudulent experiment in the name of science and published fake results in peer reviewed journals, correct? And that the several follow up experiments executed to verify the first were also fraudulent, correct? What's going on here? Are the hallowed halls of science being infiltrated by a secret woo woo revolutionary group? To what end?[/quote]

If the results were published in a peer reviewed journal, please identify it. You have cited a youtube video, not a peer reviewed scientific article.

I think your 'logic' is beginning to show signs of crumbling, don'cha think?

Well no, my logic is fine - yours I sincerely doubt.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. Yes absolutely, I am saying that it was a sham experiment. Not only are you misrepresenting it to leverage claims it does not test - but the experiment itself is very badly set up.

It's not enough just to make that statement. You know nothing as to how it was set up. Where's your evidence?

Dean Radin comments on how this and other similar experiments were set up:

The existence of telepathy has been proven in many scientific experiments. The experiments took place under strictly controlled laboratory conditions and show repeatable and significant results (Dean Radin 1997, 2006).

http://www.freiheitdenken.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=74&lang=en#Radin

So the researchers knowingly set up a fraudulent experiment in the name of science and published fake results in peer reviewed journals, correct? And that the several follow up experiments executed to verify the first were also fraudulent, correct? What's going on here? Are the hallowed halls of science being infiltrated by a secret woo woo revolutionary group? To what end?

If the results were published in a peer reviewed journal, please identify it. You have cited a youtube video, not a peer reviewed scientific article.

The source of the experiment (once again, as you are not listening!) is NOT the YouTube video! Don't you listen or read? The YT video is simply re-iterating the details of the original experiment. Having said that, I DID cite the actual experiment previously, but you ignored it and the other references to other experiments set up to verify the first one. So here, once again, is the citation, as close as I can get to it, along with a brief abstract by the original researchers:

A. Experiment by neurophysiologist Prof. Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum
(Prof. Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum et. al., University of Mexico, published in 1994 in Physics Essays 7, S. 422-428.)

Abstract:
After meditating together for twenty minutes the two test persons were taken to two semi-silent and electromagnetically shielded rooms, situated at a distance of 45 feet. Each person was connected to a EEG to measure their electrical brain activity. Both persons were resting in a relaxed position with semi-closed eyes and should try to remain in direct mental contact. Person A then was exposed to one hundred flashes of light in randomly chosen intervals. Person B in the other distant room didn‘t know when those flashes were lighting up. For the purpose of control there were also randomly chosen EEG recordings without flashes of light.

Thereafter the two persons‘ recordings were compared. The experiment was done with a total of seven pairs of probands. It showed that in about 25% of cases the electrical activity in the brain of person B, who had not seen a flash of light himself, reacted simultaneously very similar to person A‘s brain activity, who really had seen a flash of light. The striking similarity of the directly evoked potential of person A to the transferred potential of person B was clearly visible in the EEG patterns. The measurements at times when no flashes occurred showed no transferred potentials in person B.
The results show that a purely mental transfer of information between the two persons must have happened, not using ordinary senses.

Now this particular experiment uses only light flashes, so Subject B, who was isolated in another room 45 feet away,had no access to any stimuli which Subject A was exposed to.

Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed journal, according to Wikipedia, at least:


Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering theoretical and experimental physics. It was established in 1988 and the editor-in-chief is E. Panarella.

Physics Essays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, I don't have access to Physics Essays, as I believe it requires paid membership, but you can research it from here, if you are so inclined.

Well no, my logic is fine - yours I sincerely doubt.

Of course you do. Your logic is controlled by the mainline paradigm: science. Anything outside of science is bunk. Take note that mystics can accept science, but science cannot accept anything other than, as dictated by its own rigid dogma and authoritarianism. Go ahead. Deny it. Denial is also part of the control over your logic.

 

[`mud]

hey GNG,
I think some people confuse the "gnosis" within oneself with the person observing the "I" that is transported around that represents the true and somewhat misunderstood person as the inner being that is somewhat known as the "me".
"i" don't get that interpretation of the "I" inside "ME" at all.
My true gnosis tells me that, everyday of "MY" life.
If you don't mind, I think I'm going to retreat back to the entity known as "me", the reality of myself, and wash the car. :drool:
~
`mud

 

[godnotgod]

hey GNG,
I think some people confuse the "gnosis" within oneself with the person observing the "I" that is transported around that represents the true and somewhat misunderstood person as the inner being that is somewhat known as the "me".
"i" don't get that interpretation of the "I" inside "ME" at all.
My true gnosis tells me that, everyday of "MY" life.
If you don't mind, I think I'm going to retreat back to the entity known as "me", the reality of myself, and wash the car. :drool:
~
`mud

Spoken like a true man of the washcloth, LOL

 

[viole]

Briefly:


In physics, nonlocality or action at a distance is the direct interaction of two objects that are separated in space with no perceivable intermediate agency or mechanism.

Nonlocality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mark as non-local all interactions that are instantaneous. The so-called spooky actions at a distance of Einstein. If an interaction runs at light speed is local, because it start influencing its neighborood, and this goes along the next neighborhood, etc.

This says nothing about finite time. However, there is synchronicity. As you may recall, the lecture mentioned that the two EEG results were synched. They matched.

I don't think they are synchronous. How can you tell? The speed of light is pretty huge and can give you the illusion of synchrony. You need special tools to prove synchrony, I do not see any in the experiments you showed.

What you are referring to is communication via signal, (ie; blutetooth, etc.). The experiment in question is signal-less.

More on the rest of your post later.

Yes, but you have a signal too here, I am afraid. Without evidence (very distant observers, atomic clocks, interferometers) you cannot show that there is a global effect without signal transmission.

What evidence do you have? The Faraday cage? Faraday cages block only electromagnetic radiation whose wavelength is bigger than its meshes.

It does not block:

- mechanical waves (noise)
- neutrinos
- neutrons
- alpha particles
- beta particles
- magnetic fields (your compass still works inside)
- gravitational fields
- ultraviolet laser/light
- microwaves, if the meshes are not too small

All very local things.

I am not sure what your idea of insulation is, but it seems to be pretty tolerant.

I can imagine easy ways to cheat. For instance I would try to issue a very powerful noise at a frequency that humans cannot hear.

Next time, try the experiment with a dog in the team, and check that it does no get deaf nor blind, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

I mark as non-local all interactions that are instantaneous. The so-called spooky actions at a distance of Einstein. If an interaction runs at light speed is local, because it start influencing its neighborood, and this goes along the next neighborhood, etc.



I don't think they are synchronous. How can you tell? The speed of light is pretty huge and can give you the illusion of synchrony. You need special tools to prove synchrony, I do not see any in the experiments you showed.



Yes, but you have a signal too here, I am afraid. Without evidence (very distant observers, atomic clocks, interferometers) you cannot show that there is a global effect without signal transmission.

What evidence do you have? The Faraday cage? Faraday cages block only electromagnetic radiation whose wavelength is bigger than its meshes.

It does not block:

- mechanical waves (noise)
- neutrinos
- neutrons
- alpha particles
- beta particles
- magnetic fields (your compass still works inside)
- gravitational fields
- ultraviolet laser/light
- microwaves, if the meshes are not too small

All very local things.

I am not sure what your idea of insulation is, but it seems to be pretty tolerant.

I can imagine easy ways to cheat. For instance I would try to issue a very powerful noise at a frequency that humans cannot hear.

Next time, try the experiment with a dog in the team, and check that it does no get deaf nor blind, lol.

Ciao

- viole

In the original experiment, only TV images were flashed to Subject A. For now, we can eliminate alpha and beta particles, and neutrons because:


Alpha Radiation: Alpha particles consist of two protons and two neutrons, and carry a positive charge. Alpha particles are barely able to penetrate skin and can be stopped completely by a sheet of paper.

Beta Radiation: Beta radiation consists of fast moving electrons ejected from the nucleus of an atom. More penetrating than alpha radiation, beta radiation is stopped by a book or human tissue.

Neutrons: Less common, neutron radiation occurs when neutrons are ejected from the nucleus by nuclear fission and other processes.


Neutrinos: created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay, or nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the Sun, in nuclear reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms.

None of the above would apply.

This particular form of the experiment would also exclude mechanical noise, magnetic fields, gravitational fields, ultraviolet laser/light, and microwaves.

UV light is emitted by tv screens, but would not be part of the signal itself. I don't see that a purely magnetic field would carry signal either.

TV signals are electromagnetic signals, so these would have been contained by the Faraday cages.

 

[factseeker88]

In the original experiment, only TV images were flashed to Subject A. For now, we can eliminate alpha and beta particles, and neutrons because:


Alpha Radiation: Alpha particles consist of two protons and two neutrons, and carry a positive charge. Alpha particles are barely able to penetrate skin and can be stopped completely by a sheet of paper.

Beta Radiation: Beta radiation consists of fast moving electrons ejected from the nucleus of an atom. More penetrating than alpha radiation, beta radiation is stopped by a book or human tissue.

Neutrons: Less common, neutron radiation occurs when neutrons are ejected from the nucleus by nuclear fission and other processes.


Neutrinos: created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay, or nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the Sun, in nuclear reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms.

None of the above would apply.

This particular form of the experiment would also exclude mechanical noise, magnetic fields, gravitational fields, ultraviolet laser/light, and microwaves.

UV light is emitted by tv screens, but would not be part of the signal itself. I don't see that a purely magnetic field would carry signal either.

TV signals are electromagnetic signals, so these would have been contained by the Faraday cages.

All of that is the result of lab tests and telescopes, nothing to do with what is really out there.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]factseeker88[/FONT]


“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life. [/FONT]Omar Khayyam

 

[Bunyip]

It's not enough just to make that statement. You know nothing as to how it was set up. Where's your evidence?

Dean Radin comments on how this and other similar experiments were set up:

The existence of telepathy has been proven in many scientific experiments. The experiments took place under strictly controlled laboratory conditions and show repeatable and significant results (Dean Radin 1997, 2006).

Scientific evidence for telepathy

Which proves my point that you are using a sham experiment. No, telepathy has never once been experimentally proven - Dean Radin is a fraud. A million dollar prize for proving the existence of telepathy has existed for decades and nobody (Dean Radin included) has ever claimed it.

The source of the experiment (once again, as you are not listening!) is NOT the YouTube video! Don't you listen or read? The YT video is simply re-iterating the details of the original experiment. Having said that, I DID cite the actual experiment previously, but you ignored it and the other references to other experiments set up to verify the first one. So here, once again, is the citation, as close as I can get to it, along with a brief abstract by the original researchers:

A. Experiment by neurophysiologist Prof. Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum
(Prof. Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum et. al., University of Mexico, published in 1994 in Physics Essays 7, S. 422-428.)

Abstract:
After meditating together for twenty minutes the two test persons were taken to two semi-silent and electromagnetically shielded rooms, situated at a distance of 45 feet. Each person was connected to a EEG to measure their electrical brain activity. Both persons were resting in a relaxed position with semi-closed eyes and should try to remain in direct mental contact. Person A then was exposed to one hundred flashes of light in randomly chosen intervals. Person B in the other distant room didn‘t know when those flashes were lighting up. For the purpose of control there were also randomly chosen EEG recordings without flashes of light.

Thereafter the two persons‘ recordings were compared. The experiment was done with a total of seven pairs of probands. It showed that in about 25% of cases the electrical activity in the brain of person B, who had not seen a flash of light himself, reacted simultaneously very similar to person A‘s brain activity, who really had seen a flash of light. The striking similarity of the directly evoked potential of person A to the transferred potential of person B was clearly visible in the EEG patterns. The measurements at times when no flashes occurred showed no transferred potentials in person B.
The results show that a purely mental transfer of information between the two persons must have happened, not using ordinary senses.

Now this particular experiment uses only light flashes, so Subject B, who was isolated in another room 45 feet away,had no access to any stimuli which Subject A was exposed to.

Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed journal, according to Wikipedia, at least:


Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering theoretical and experimental physics. It was established in 1988 and the editor-in-chief is E. Panarella.

Physics Essays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, I don't have access to Physics Essays, as I believe it requires paid membership, but you can research it from here, if you are so inclined.

So according to what you just wrote, 75% of the time there was no reaction from subject B. And worse, the results of the experiment and the parameters are completely diffrrent to what you have been claiming. How any of this even connects to your original claim thatit proves thought to be external to the brain, I can only imagine,

Of course you do. Your logic is controlled by the mainline paradigm: science. Anything outside of science is bunk. Take note that mystics can accept science, but science cannot accept anything other than, as dictated by its own rigid dogma and authoritarianism. Go ahead. Deny it. Denial is also part of the control over your logic.

Yeah, you keep complaining about denial and yet have totally misrepresented the experiment you are using as evidence, in fact it is not even evidence for what you were claiming. Forget telling me that I am biased, you are dishonest. I would not wish to deny telepathy if it existed.

Look at your citation - Dean Radin, the man who is claiming telepathy to have been proven is not even a physicist, he is a PARAPSYCHOLOGIST. He is a specialist in woo woo, not a published physicist.

 

[godnotgod]

Dean Radin is a fraud.

Look at your citation - Dean Radin, the man who is claiming telepathy to have been proven is not even a physicist, he is a PARAPSYCHOLOGIST. He is a specialist in woo woo, not a published physicist.

A psychologist with a Phd is not a scientist? *
What has he done or not done that he is a fraud?
What requirement says that he must be a physicist to conduct the experiments in telepathy?
Is a physicist qualified to conduct such experiements? I don't think so.


Dean Radin, PhD, is Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) and Volunteer Faculty in the Department of Psychology at Sonoma State University. His original career track as a concert violinist shifted into science after earning a BSEE degree in electrical engineering, magna cum laude with honors in physics, from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and then an MS in electrical engineering and a PhD in psychology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. For a decade he worked on advanced telecommunications R&D at AT&T Bell Laboratories and GTE Laboratories. For over two decades he has been engaged in frontiers research on the nature of consciousness. Before joining the research staff at IONS in 2001, he held appointments at Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, University of Nevada, Interval Research Corporation, and SRI International. He is author or coauthor of over 200 technical and popular articles, a dozen book chapters, and several books including the award-winning and bestselling The Conscious Universe (HarperOne, 1997), Entangled Minds (Simon & Schuster, 2006), and a 2014 Silver Nautilus Book Award, Supernormal (Random House, 2013). These books have been translated into a dozen foreign languages. His technical articles have appeared in journals ranging from Foundations of Physics and Physics Essays to Psychological Bulletin and Journal of Consciousness Studies; he was featured in a New York Times Magazine article; and he has appeared on dozens of television shows ranging from the BBC’s Horizon and PBS's Closer to Truth to Oprah and Larry King Live. He has given over 275 interviews and talks, including invited presentations at Harvard, Stanford, Cambridge, Princeton, and the Sorbonne, for industries including [youtube]qw_O9Qiwqew[/youtube]
Google and Johnson & Johnson, and for US government organizations including the US Navy and DARPA. In 2010, he spent a month lecturing in India as the National Visiting Professor of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, a program within the Indian government's Ministry of Human Resource Development. In 2013, he gave an invited lecture in Kuala Lumpur at the International Center for Leadership and Governance, a program run under the auspices of the Central Bank of Malaysia (the equivalent of the Federal Reserve in the United States).

Dean Radin - Bio

* http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201308/the-psychology-the-psychology-isnt-science-argument