Is the consciousness of the experimenter capable of influencing the results of experiments?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

It must be said that theoretical physicists studying quantum mechanics have already answered this question in the affirmative, having introduced the appropriate term "observer effect". For a long time this was considered a confirmation that our consciousness is capable of influencing the microcosm, the world of elementary particles and nothing more. However, what is the real situation? Is the consciousness of the experimenter, his attitude, convictions capable of influencing the results of experiments in the macrocosm?

Psychics, for example, have long noticed that if among the examiners present, the majority are pseudoskeptics, indiscriminately considering all psychics to be scammers and charlatans, then the results of demonstrating extrasensory capabilities are significantly reduced, or even completely disappear. Of course, in our country, where the dictates of the pseudoscientific commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which is absolutely unsubstantiatedly engaged in hanging labels and lobbying the interests of transnational corporations, no one has conducted such research. But, outside the "zone of responsibility" of the Russian Academy of Sciences - in the United States and Britain, a whole series of similar experiments was carried out and, precisely, devoted to the influence of experimenters on the indicators of extrasensory perception.

What did these experiments show? But their results turned out to be very interesting. For example, as Jean van Bronckhorst describes them in his book "Premonitions in Everyday Life": "… two researchers with opposite views decided to simultaneously conduct the same experiment. Marilyn Schlitz, a leading researcher at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, a supporter of the theory of extrasensory perception, conducted several successful experiments Richard Wiseman, a professor at the University of Hertfordshire in the UK, failed to replicate the success of Marilyn Schlitz.

These researchers conducted their experiment at the University of Hertfordshire using the same recording and data processing techniques. These scientists checked the results of each other's experiments for errors in methodology or calculations, taking into account cases of deception on the part of the participants in the experiment or substitution of concepts by the researchers themselves. In the end, Schlitz received almost one hundred percent proof of the existence of extrasensory perception, but Wiseman was unable to achieve positive results.

The researchers wondered how their own beliefs influenced the participants in the experiment about the possibility of the existence of extrasensory perception … the result was repeated; within the framework of the experiment conducted by Schlitz, small but significant evidence of the existence of extrasensory perception was obtained, but the Weizman experiment did not give positive results …

A few years later, two more researchers, Kevin Walsh and Garrett Model, before testing the presence of telepathic abilities in two groups of volunteers (one supporters, the other opponents of the theory of extrasensory perception), introduced them to selected evaluations of extrasensory perception. Half of the participants from each group received a positive assessment of extrasensory perception, the other half, respectively, a negative one.

Those proponents of this theory who have read positive reviews of psychic perception have achieved significant positive results. Their second group also showed a positive result, but their scores were less significant. A group of skeptics scored the least points, having previously got acquainted with a negative opinion about extrasensory perception. At the end of the experiments, the researchers concluded that faith and motivation are important conditions for the success of experiments in the study of extrasensory perception.

Later, Wiseman also conducted a similar experiment, but with the participation of college students. They had to complete the same tasks as the volunteers from previous experiments. However, Wiseman first questioned the students about their views on the likelihood of extrasensory perception. Then he selected the brightest proponents of this theory and the most adamant skeptics. The results showed that people who believed in the existence of extrasensory perception had a positive effect on the outcome of the experiment. The skeptics did not have such an effect."

Thus, the beliefs and personal attitudes of researchers can influence the performance of experiments. This means that for the purity of experiments to identify extrasensory abilities or to test them in psychics, it is necessary that among the experimenters there should be an equal number of skeptics pre-configured for a negative result, and those who admit the likelihood of the existence of extrasensory perception, without being blindly convinced of the dogmatist, in that science ends where the boundary of one's own horizons ends.

Also, the results of these experiments show how information propaganda in the media, on TV and on Internet resources affects our consciousness. Well, as regards the psychic capabilities themselves, a lot depends on the person himself and if he is convinced in advance of their absence, then the probability of their manifestation in him will tend to zero. This is how people for themselves, as well as under the influence of external propaganda, close access to expanding the abilities of their consciousness. This is exactly what the entire clique of lured servants of the parasitic system needs in order to, following the orders of their masters, keep humanity at the semi-animal level of individuals with a half-sleeping consciousness.