Atheists, what is your view on field effect of consciousness?

Question

Here is a web page presenting evidence for a field effect of consciousness. http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/dc_md.html . It is one of many papers providing strong evidence for this effect.

I am expecting answers such as "This is fictional" (but yet it is published in peer reviewed journals), "There is no control for confounding variables" (which is false), "There is no control groups" (which makes no sense in the case of effects on an entire population.) For details see http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/methodology.html.

This has no direct link with God. So why do I ask atheists? First, we can be curious about what atheists think about other issues. Second, the Vedic tradition of knowledge that proposed this phenomena also teaches the existence of God. This may influence the position of atheists and have them explain away the phenomena as a delusion of some believers.

Pisces: The reviewers were biased because they didn't believe it. So, the authors have to do a very good job and use the best statistical methods. The results were published because it was interesting and convincing (but the reviewers would still remain skeptical -- it's normal.)

The second link has an extra dot at the end. Just remove it, and it will work fine. Anyway, here it is http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/methodology.html

prE4chEr: I know how you feel, but these are published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Besides, it is not so weird. We have plenty of examples of field effects in physics: radio wave, etc. This just means that some of the known fields or some other fields not yet known can be influenced through meditation. It is not weird at all. It just seems like that at first.

skepsis: I know you say that to make it look ridiculous, but it isn't. What you recall from the TV news reportage was superficial. Usually, they also mention the positive effects on the physiology. There is also something happening at a deeper level.

Also, it just shows how transparent is the organization. There is nothing hidden. You have seen it yourself on TV. It is not like an organization where you are told one story at the beginning and a completely different one as you advance.

THE SECOND LINK WORKS IF YOU REMOVE THE EXTRA DOT AT THE END. Sorry for the emphasis, but I mentioned that before in the extra details and some did not notice it.

novangelis: I believe the organization don't care that much if it is a field effect or what. They just care about the effect. However, I know about the intervention, and I cannot see other way for this to work. These people in these experiments are just visitors, they don't interact much with the people. Perhaps the specific paper that I cited only pointed out the effects, not the mechanism. I would have to look at it again, but anyway I read many other papers that mention the field effects as the mechanism. Of course, what we measure is the effect. The mechanism is just the proposed explanation, but in this case a field effect is the only reasonable one. Perhaps, the term "consciousness" was the problem -- it makes it look mystical, etc.. Of course, if it is a field effect, it is a physical field, like the others.

injanier: I provided a link to a single paper describing a single experiments. I picked that one because it was a big group in Washington D.C. and they had the participation of the local police, etc. However, I think, similar experiments were done many times. There is certainly no problem if someone wants to do even more. There is always a cost. I think the research was done with government subvention. Most of the research on meditation is government funded.

Pedestal42: You say "it is not impressive" because there is no data, etc. This isn't fair If you want the details, you have to read the paper itself. The reference for the paper is in the first link. These web pages aren't the paper. They just discuss it. It's normal. The paper might be available on line, just do a search with the title. It may be free, or if not, your institution might already have an online subscription.

Obviously, you are biased when you say that the journal is of low standards. Can you provide any data to justify it? Here is the web site for the journal: http://www.springer.com/west/home/social+sciences/sociology?SGWID=4-40440-70-35672185-detailsPage=journal|description
This journal exists since 1974! That means a lot. It has an excellent international editorial board. Just see for yourself:
http://www.springer.com/west/home/social+sciences/sociology?SGWID=4-40440-70-35672185-detailsPage=journal|editorialBoard Here is one member from the US : http://www.cas.sc.edu/psyc/facdocs/huebner.html
The members all have similar excellent position in the field. I can hardly imagine a better journal to publish such result. You are biased.

This last comment was addressed to holyspurt, who wrote that the journal had low standards.. He wrote that because he wanted to believe that.

Holyspurt (continuing) You wrote "Social indicators research is not a scientific journal". You helped me by making such blatant exaggeration. Any reasonable person should be able to see that this kind of critics is irrational.

It's not an exaggeration. It's plainly wrong!

Answer 1

I sometimes think that consciousness is deeper and more connected than we currently see. This study is an interesting datum in that direction. However, it is less conclusive than its authors would like you to believe. For all their talk about controlling for assorted variations and perturbations, a single brief study is always suspect as a possible anomaly. The fact that it managed to confirm the beliefs of its sponsors is further reason for skepticism. They mention the projected effect of a long-term program, but don't commit to undertaking one. It would be interesting to see this attempted. Like all science, this study needs to be replicated to give it validity.

I have no problem believing in the reality of subjective religious experience. The people I think are delusional are those who believe that some particular text, and *only* that text, provides the proper explanation of the experience.

Answer 2

1. The papers show that an intervention works, but not that the field effect works.

2. Despite your assertion, no alternate interventions were included. You can devise strategies for time-controlled interventions (non-synchronously) and determine if the second intervention (e.g. introduce the same population, not meditating) has a comparable effect compared to the intervention. This is how you control time-series whole population interventions.

3. Numerous interventions have metaphysical explanations, but simple mechanisms. Bioactive compounds have been isolated from medicinal herbs. The synthetic equivalents disprove the mystic nature. Acupuncture works based on measurable nerve and circulatory stimulation, not mystical energy fields which do not describe the effects as well as neuroanatomic diagrams. The mystical explanations are not delusions, but an attempt to systematize real effects.

4. "Field effect" could simply be the introduction of calm individuals into the environment.

5. The term controlled is used in place of the term corrected on the website.

6. The website makes assertions about causality not found in the papers.

Answer 3

Could you fix your second link? It isn't working.

As an atheist I do believe meditation could reduce crime. The Vedic tradition does teach the existance of God, but that belief is irrelevant if it didn't take part in the experiment-which I don't know, as your second link is broken. Therefore, the experiment does not show that belief in God has any effect, but that meditation does. introspection is a trait any humanist can get behind.

added: I'm not sure that they're positing a field effect of consciousness. That would require a hypothesis of how such a thing could happen. They are simply noting a correlation and inferring (logically-that isn't a slam) a causitive effect. I do believe more study would be useful from these preliminary results.

Answer 4

the page i read was about a large group of people meditating to lower the crime rate in DC. That's just weird. That school is a crackpot. I am sure there are other reasons for the decrease in rape and violent crimes other than a heightened police presence or bad weather. Prayer doesn't help anyone but the person praying. Same with meditation. It gives peace to the person participating in it, and then maybe the people who interact with said participant get some peace from that person. But a whole city benefiting from people praying is nuts. Just think about New Orleans or the Holocaust. I am sure there were millions of people praying or meditating for them. I guess you could say that it worked for them too. Cause it always could have been worse.

Answer 5

social indicators research is not a scientific journal. if you know anything about publishing, you'll know that there are 'lower standard' journals that people can publish anything in.

in science, when we see a paper published in a poor scientific journal, we are very cautious about it. why, because they have lower standards.




EDIT: the age of the journal has nothing to do with the quality and the quality of the editorial board does not necessarily mean every paper it good. as asked a few colleagues about it and they gave a poor recommendation. it's funny that you say i'm biased, but you seem to be staunchly defending it??? you are the one that 'wants' to believe in something which is far more dangerous than people like me who are skeptical. yes, I'm very skeptical of science too, but major discoveries in science are corroborated independently by different groups over and over again. besides, they still haven't shown cause/effect, only correlation

Answer 6

I need that second link working to make any sense of the paper at all...
I could see several potential "artefacts", and I'm not a trained statistician.
(I'd lke to see the graphs for other years, for example, and how variable, "bouncy", the crime graphs are without "interference")

Action at a distance is not to be ruled out in principle.
(The oddness of gravity is now barely taught or noticed.)
But it's going to need solid evidence to support it.
I haven't seen that yet.

I think there is at least as good evidence for religious experiences being down to varying electromagnetic fields:
See the work of Dr Michael Persinger and others.

I'm an atheist with Fortean leanings:
"That which is, is."
But equally there's no limit to what people will believe, or convince themselves they believe.
Phlogiston, the canals of Mars, and N-rays, all came and went... We have to test, and see.

Edit: I got to the "methodology" page as you suggested by culling that last "."
It wasn't that impressive. Assertions of accounting for other factors, but no data, for example.

Answer 7

The second link you posted doesn't work, at least not for me, so I can't comment on its contents.

So what are you saying, that because Christians believe in something that doesn't exist, they are using Transcendental meditation? I can't answer this question properly as I cannot read the second link, as I have said.

Answer 8

As was pointed out in the earlier question, atheists are more likely to accept electrical and magnetic fields based on the evidence.

Answer 9

This is almost as entertaining as that demonstration of "levitation" a few years back, with TM students in the lotus position hopping around the stage.

Answer 10

i hope the "peer reviewers" arent biased.