Paranoia or not, an experiement like the one described sounds good. I would recommend as many attempts as possible to avoid coincidence, and to make sure that the meditator cannot hear anything at all when the wifi operated flicks the switch.

I would also expect the slight concern caused by the very knowledge of the possibility of having wifi somewhere plus the concern that it might be harmful would also upset concentration.

That said, who knows, the effect might be extremely subtle, or maybe our brains will all be fried in the wifi pan by the next decade.

Wrote a reply to this then it got wiped, round 2!

It has become a situation where 2+2= , it doesn't matter whether the answer is 5 or 4, this isn't an arithmetic class. Ok so that was a poor analogy, but perhaps there are more skillful ways than to use culturally charged words in lieu of a carefully considered paragraph wrote for the purpose of liberation. Indeed, telling a psychotic person he's psychotic isn't going to work, so in that argument, there's no point in bringing it up without being particularly careful about it anyway.

The truth is (And even this isn't an absolute truth in itself), that science, as well as being a noble pursuit in the exploration of the universe, is also a way for companies to tell everyone how their product works, is totally safe etc. So while there may be mounting 'evidence' to show radio waves are safe, there will be more 'evidence' to say that they aren't. In cases like the MMR/Autism link they can cause issues for a long time, only for them to be discredited much later down the line. http://www.autism.org.uk/get-involved/media-centre/position-statements/mmr-vaccine.aspx

Cholestorol was long believed to be a cause of heart disease and strokes, but was decided as safe later on. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cholesterol-u-turn-as-research-shows-fatty-foods-might-not-be-bad-for-us-after-all-10277837.html
If I had suggested that big pharma propogated this myth with research studies 10 years ago, I would have been declared paranoid, but now I would just sound a bit untrusting.

One may be able to see a bias in another persons belief systems, but to consider a cause from the messages from Dustin so far sounds a bit arrogant to me, but perhaps I'm not getting the whole picture? Regardess, I'm going to assume that Dustin is new to meditation, and even words such as delusion should be used carefully at this time as it could even deter him from practice full stop, not just from this site.

It is best to take the views of others on here with a pinch of salt and come to your own conclusions. The words of a few are not the leading views of this forum, and you will find that we all have very different ways of dealing with things!

I would definitely recommend Pauls advice on doing an experiment if this is of a concern to you, with as powerful a signal as you can manage as this raises the signal to noise ratio. Also, bearing in mind different parts of the brain perform different functions, ensure that there is total coverage. You want to be sure of results such that anything that isn't a significant bias can be overlooked.

I can understand the logic in terms of changing your brain to block out radiation, however I also believe such logic is based upon improper science. Just because it's invisible, doesn't mean it's any less profound than the effects of a stab wound. However as you progress along the path of meditation, you will increasingly see that these things do not matter the way they once did.

I think the main issue we have is that your posts are very conceptual and the purpose of Insight Meditation is to see that all these concepts don't have any existance outside of the products that make them, are based on transient mindstuff, and as such are not satisfying to hold onto. Your other post on the collective consciousness for instance, I agree with you, but it gets a bit more complicated. There is clear evidence that there is some sort of collective (Lack of empirical knowledge would mean it's unwise to consider the collective itself is conscious, but it it as least based upon many sub minds that ARE conscious. However we can only ASSUME that other people are conscious due to the fact we know we are, and that life is a common factor between us all). This evidence shows that we all effect each other, and the fact that such insanity such as the current media and music industry are as successful as they are mean that the collective human psyche is changing.

HOWEVER, it is important to remember that there is no entity or object called a collective consciousness that exists outside of a thought that presumes that it exists, and this is where the whole delusion thing starts. Is the internet actually a thing, or a collective term used to  describe the interface between things? The purpose of Vipassana is to realise that these are all concepts, that when clung to, let us exist in a state of becoming that relies on certain factors being a certain way for happiness be present. We need to see the 3 Characteristics of all of this so that these are seen as they are, random mindstuffs that appears then disappears... If you were to take a car, and take it apart, bit by bit, starting with the mirrors, the steering wheel, the wheels, etc. at which point does it cease to be a car?

This is the sort of enquiry that is encouraged on this forum above all else, and while it is perfectly acceptable to post items on a more conceptual level, in doing so, it must be recognised that there are people who are very different holding very different points of view. Some of us are diplomatic about things, others of us not so much, and if you find that this contact has upset you in some way, perhaps this itself can be used as a form of enquiry. Who is it that is upset about such an opinion. Does it hurt? Where? Etc.

This way, even if you don't get the answer you hoped for, you may not need it at all

EDIT::

Just read posts created after I started this, I apologise if I made any suggestions of arrogance. As stated before it was how it "Sounded". On retrospect, I wrongly assumed that people were specifically suggesting Dustin was paranoid! Oh the woes of Samsaric existance! 

I would like for you to do the recommended experiment and tell us the results. If it turns out you are right, that's important info for those of us who have a smart meter and/or wifi router. I can't do the test myself, because I don't have your sensitivity.

OK I admit this wasn't right from my part to diagnose someone with delusions at distance. It's perhaps because I have many friends with mental disease and I tend to see them even there where they are not present. All the evidence we have so far indicates that this common radiation has no effect on human health. On the other hand we have multitudes of charlatans who claim otherwise. Of course it is wise to be cautious and some such effect can in the future be proved. Just imagine the tremendous decline of trust of the general public in the state regulatory institutions if it really turned out that e.g. cell phones cause brain cancer. Imagine bilions of dollars the companies would have to pay as compensations.

If Dustin built his clay house in wilderness because of his fears of "invisible radiation" it really might be something more dangerous than mere autosuggestion. If this is the case then only proper medical care is appropriate. 

Please post the results.Good luck.

Might I just add that if there is indeed an effect on your concentration from EMFs, I would also postulate that it is extremely likely that other environmental factors would upset concentration more noticeably than EMFs, such as the knowledge that there is a device present, the situation of being part of an experiment, a desire to prove/disprove/be impartial to something, noise, etc. Which means you would have to conduct the experiment over a good many sits - I don't know enough statistics to say how many to get a statistically valid result though.

The effect might also be subtle such that it doesn't have an instantly noticeable effect, it might be delayed, and so your results might look different to what you expect. You might get better results by doing whole sits with the wifi just on or just off, double blind of course. 

You might also find (or not) that the effect is so subtle that it is negligible and nothing to worry about. I do hope it's nothing to worry about.

It would also be worthwhile on a forum like this for you to post the studies that demonstrate the evidence, I think a lot of people here appreciate that sort of thing.

[quote=I understand what you're saying but the problem remains "What is the reality of the situation". If we have a technology that has great benefits for communication but some claim what appear to be health problems that cannot be traced to a direct cause, or what appear to be causes fail under examination, should we just ditch that technology anyway? It is already embedded in the culture and is very functional. Might it be better to see what is really happening rather than make an assumption that a very low powered transmitter a fairly long distance away might possibly be affecting your sense of well being instead of diet or even an emotional problem?

The color brown makes me feel deperessed. Whenever I or a small portion of people see brown we feel an effect that makes us not feel right. Therefore we should ban the color brown?

Now I think that the use of cell phones would be a much greater problem as the actual radiator is so much closer to the body.
Oh well, I don't mean to be dismissive and I'm sorry if I sound that way, it's just that I have run across many people that would have us turn off most modern communications because it makes them uneasy instead of finding a fix.

_____________________________________________________________________


Dm Mat]Daniel
You are fortunate to have a strong immune system and constitution to not be affected at a conscious level by wireless radiation such as wifi. 

However, not everyone is the same. Just as I need to provide proof that it is not just an emotional response, those who argue it has no effect because it doesn't affect themselves personally are also lacking in the strength of argument. 

Let's say that the physical symptoms some people feel when in the presence of too much wifi and 4G are at their core emotional. Is there no link between physical phenomena and emotional pain or pleasure? Is wireless radiation a material force? We can't see it with our eyes, but it manifests in the physical world. It transmits huge amounts of information! And what about the ways it is transmitted, the frequencies. Are we using the optimal frequencies which both support physical health and enable rapid communication? 

For example, you can make wifi routers which maintain their power while reducing their radiation levels by 10 times! See JRS wifi routers https://www.jrselectrohealth.com/pcat/low-radiation-wifi-routers-jrs-eco-wifi/?c=cf13ce20305c

Do these individuals have rights to say they don't want to be subjected to these frequencies 24 hours a day? Shouldn't humans have freedom of privacy, freedom to keep this data from being transmitted through their personal living and working spaces? 

What if it became accepted as the norm that rock music should be played around the world non-stop because we needed it for our economic survival. Maybe most of the people like the music and really believe it is necessary for life in the modern world. But not everyone likes it. Some will react negatively to it. Regardless of why they are reacting, shouldn't we respect their views and rights to have freedom from it if they choose? Just because we can't see radiation doesn't mean it doesn't have effects on living beings, no matter how subtle or insignificant some people believe them to be. The fact is the level of radiation and the intensity of the frequencies is growing exponentially. 

Dustin