What you will see there is a simple, EASILY replicable experiment WHICH CANNOT BE EXPLAINED WITHIN A MATERIALISTIC PARADIGM.
What so-called skeptics do with data like this is not refute it–they can’t, as there is no conceivable explanation for this within traditional paradigms–but ignore it. They have successfully ignored this work for 40 years or more.
Why? What is the benefit to thinking of man as machine? What advantage accrues to anyone in defending an idea that is not just empirically wrong, but pernicious morally?
Myth Busters apparently replicated his research. So too can any contemporary researcher with simple courage and curiosity.
I want to be clear: most large paradigmatic shifts have come from very small outliers, things which could not be worked into existing theories, which could not be explained by existing theories. In almost all cases, existing theories were modified with radically new CONTEXTS. One could almost say they were supplemented.
Newton did not become wrong when Einstein proposed General Relativity, nor did General Relativity lose its usefulness when it was falsified as a final explanation by Bell’s Theorem.
I remember Carl Sagan talking about the significance of how Mars moved within Ptolemaic astronomical models. They could make everything but Mars work. But in the end, a heliocentric view of the solar system had to be adopted to explain, what? The DATA. The stuff which REAL scientists rely on, rather than fashionable prejudice.
Einstein predicted light would bend around the sun. It did, and we adopted his theory. He predicted that quantum theory would imply information transfer at faster than light speeds, which within his model were impossible. He was wrong. Such transfers have been measured.
Science is in theory always advancing, always willing to kill its intellectual children–to which concrete human beings are in psychologically comprehensible ways quite attached–in search of a better idea.
Who out there has the courage to pursue this avenue of investigation?