Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Anti-Materialist · 06-27-2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Jahn's own theory, such as it is, is that what these experiments show is not psychokinesis as such but an ability to manipulate the laws of chance

Wounded King - this explanation of Jahn's sounds like a gobbledy-gook concept to me.

If one can manipulate the laws of chance, then that would mean the laws of chance are somehow programmed into reality. If we lived in a virtual reality environment, and random number generators were used to affect certain events within the VR-world, then manipulating the laws of chance would make sense. It would be like altering the process of the random number generator, such that it no longer produced an even distribution of numbers.

Affecting a ball cascade in this way would require that the ball cascade's path be determined by some sort of random number generator.

Are there random number generators built into the foundations of reality? I confess I do not understand the concept of quantum probability. I always thought it was just that we did not really understand the mechanisms of action involved - and so certain events look random, but are not really random. I mean, I understand the bit about how the act of measuring alters what you measure - but this still seems like pseudorandomness, not true randomness.

Can you explain this concept?

Baloo · 06-27-2003, 02:18 PM

From the article, emphasis added...

Quote:

These anomalies can be demonstrated with the operators located up to thousands of miles from the laboratory, exerting their efforts hours before or after the actual operation of the devices.

At this point, I'd read enough. Of course, I guess this just makes me a close-minded cynic.

Anyone mind linking to any double blind experiments they did? You know, like one where they decided to put up or shut up, and differentiate between "pyschic" experiment results and non-psychic-influenced controls (without any clue as to which was which).

What? They didn't do one? I wonder why.

echidna · 06-27-2003, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418
No. But, if you get a billion people and a billion remotes and lose them a billion times . . . maybe you can come up with an anamoly?

Sheesh Patrick, that's happening every day and the spooky connection between them all, is that the remote is always found in the last place the person searches. [cue Twilight Zone music]

Bugs · 06-27-2003, 07:32 PM

Oh yes, the famous PEAR research again.

First of all, you could take a look at this paper � an analysis of the GCP Sept 11 results:

Quote:

Abstract

We have conducted an independent analysis of the worldwide network of random number generators called EGG's by the Global Conscious Project (GCP) personnel. At the time we found direct contradictory statements with regard to the proper protocol between a published account and an account posted on the GCP web site http://noosphere.princeton.edu. (Subsequently, this inadvertent ambiguity has been corrected.) We provide, nonetheless, our analyses of both proposed methods.

The formal test hypothesis according to the published protocol, namely that there would be at least a significant deviation (i.e., p = 0.05) of the accumulation of 2 , which was derived from squaring the Stouffer's Z across valid EGG's at each second, was satisfied.

However, we show that the choice was fortuitous in that had the analysis window been a few minutes shorter or 30 minutes longer, the formal test would not have achieved significance. We discuss the implications of this finding.

The alternative analysis based upon the instructions posted on the GCP website, however, showed chance deviations throughout.

We also provide verification of a separate analysis posted by Dr. Dean Radin, but we differ markedly with regard to the posted conclusions. Using Radin's analysis, we do not find significant evidence that the GCP network's EGG's responded to the New York City attacks in real time. Radin's computation of 6000:1 odds against chance during the events are accounted for by a not-unexpected local deviation that occurred approximately 3 hours beforethe attacks.

We conclude that the network random number generators produced data consistent with mean chance expectation during the worst single day tragedy in American history.

(My emphasis.)

Translation � they fired a machine gun at a wall and drew a target where most of the bullets hit.

Then there�s this analysis they did to try to explain their own lack of success in finding anything:

Quote:

The 653-trial formal database had a composite z-score of 5.418 (p = 3x10�8), but over the course of the program there was a striking diminution of the effect that appeared to be associated with participants� growing dependence on the descriptor questions and correspondingly abbreviated verbal transcripts. The possibility that this increased emphasis on objective quantification of the phenomenon somehow may have inhibited its inherently subjective expression is explored in the contexts of contemporary signal processing technologies and ancient divination traditions. An intrinsic complementarity is proposed between the analytical and intuitive aspects of the remote perception phenomenon that, like its more familiar counterpart in quantum science, brings with it an inescapable uncertainty that limits the extent to which such anomalous effects can be simultaneously produced and evaluated.

(My emphasis)

Translation: We can�t explain why improving the controls reduced the anomaly, and we�re going to ignore the obvious explanation (which is that we didn�t detect psi). However, we�re going to say "quantum" to make it sound impressive.

Summary � we have excuses as to why their testing has produced insignificant results. Many excuses, but not the obvious explanation that maybe psi does not exist.

Wounded King · 06-28-2003, 03:05 AM

To be honest AM it sounds like gobbledigook to me too, but that was what he said. Lots of people have pointed out that the 'laws' he believed his subjects to be manipulating are related to post facto analysis of statistics rather than having any role as a causative factor.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2003, 03:05 AM	#15
Wounded King Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,211	To be honest AM it sounds like gobbledigook to me too, but that was what he said. Lots of people have pointed out that the 'laws' he believed his subjects to be manipulating are related to post facto analysis of statistics rather than having any role as a causative factor.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.