Pigasus Awards & Sheldrake

[EHocking]

The Lobach and Bierman study looks to be tighter than the Sheldrake study.

http://www.sheldrake.org/articlesnew/pdf/Lobach.pdf

Ersby's already mentioned this one. Its interesting that the hit rate is much lower than the Sheldrake study, although still significant. So the Sheldrake study may have an inflated hit rate due to methodological problems. Perhaps not surprising. Lets hope the Chris French collaboration comes to fruition.

It seems that the JREF MDC has higher standards than these researchers though. This result would not get anywhere near passing even the Preliminary phase.

Using these tables, the total results, 51 correct from 156 attempts, is not at all more significant than expected result merely by random chance when guessing odds of 1 in 4.

Probability due to random chance at 1:100 - 24 to 52 correct guesses.

Probability due to random chance at 1:10,000 (prelim MDC) - 17 to 59 correct guesses.

Probability due to random chance at 1:1,000,000 (final MDC) - 13 to 64 correct guesses.

I fully admit that discussions on the relevance of p start to go over my head - that's why I tend to refer back to these simple tables as a reality check.

In context - they did no better than trying to guess the suit of a card from a 52 card deck.

 

[CFLarsen]

I guess that the hypothesis predicts that changing the conditions of the observation will modulate the PK effect. If observation is not important then this won't happen. Thats just my initial thoughts. I certainly don't have a fleshed out theory for you!

No, I can tell.

But why should the conditions of the observation change the effect? Either the data is observed or it isn't.

(You can call it "modulate", but let's call a spade a spade, instead of these weasel words psi-proponents so often use. OK?)

Systematically increase the number of observers of the data and look for changes in the effect or something along those lines.

Why do you think the number of people observing will increase the change in data? Isn't that the same as arguing in favor of a global consciousness?

I don't think the experimental effect is robust enough for this yet.

....come again?

"Robust"?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In this particular instance, I don't see why not. If the presentiment results can be accounted for by one of either PK, clairvoyance or precognition then its unnecessary to suppose its a combination.

Why propose a combination of three things for which we have no theory, when it might just be one of those things for which we have no theory? I'd really leave Occam out of it until there are at least some competing theories whose complexity we can compare.

I find it odd that the paper mentions nothing about how they controlled for caller ID and ring patterns. Also, where's the raw data?

My mistake, the paper does state that they used landline phones without number displays. The statement wasn't in the "Materials" or "Procedure" sections.

I'm going to ask the authors for the raw data.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I just want to note that the Lobach and Bierman study is evidence for "the ability to view/recognise another person at a distance without using normal means"* only when calls are placed at peak sidereal time. Just another little bit of bizarre complexity to spice up our lives.

~~ Paul

* I'd say "the ability to view/recognise another person at a distance without using means we can think of."

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, if the idea is that the person will think about someone, then shortly after that get a call fromt hat person, how about the following for a test protocol:

I could stay with the four people, I don't see that as an issue for this. IN fact, I'd suggest using four people the person "knows" they can do this with. The four people are randomly chosen to call at random times. They are notified of their time to call, say, 30 minutes prior to the call (the time here should depend on the exact claim of the expecting person). The person recieiving the calls scores a hit for identifying the time they will be called (within 30 minutes, or whatever the time limit is) and the person who will be calling, before the phone even rings.

This would seem to be a better test. Controls would have to be in place to prevent any collusion in the time period between the notification of calling and the actual call, though, to prevent collusion. It seems this type of setup, though, would actually test the claims being made.

ETA: actually, this would be more of a test of telepathy or precognition on the callee's part, of of telepathy on the caller's part. This would show results if the calelr is broadcasting some sort of signal of intent, or if the callee is reading that intent or seeing the future. To test if the callee actually transmits the desire to call would be even easier: have them sit and think about a person (randomly chosen from a limited list) for a set time (an hour, or whatever matches the claim) at a random time during the test period. The callers would be seperated, with no knowledge of the exact time of the call...just told to call the callee when they "feel the desire to call." You'd need to limit it, perhaps by giving each caller only one time to call. Even better, have the callers write down the times they felt the desire to call, and see if it matches up significantly with the callee's thinking. This could get to be a pain to try and sort out the results, though.

 

[davidsmith73]

But why should the conditions of the observation change the effect?

I don't know. I was suggesting, in answer to your previous question, that changing the observation conditions (for example, emotional vs calm pictures) might provide a way to falsify the hypothesis that observation is part of the PK process. If varying the observation conditions does not modulate the PK effect, then observation would seem not to be important.

Why do you think the number of people observing will increase the change in data?

I don't know. But its a possible way to find out the role of subsequent observers.

Isn't that the same as arguing in favor of a global consciousness?

I don't see how. Each subsequent person's consciousness may be acting as an indepedent entity. Or perhaps each person's consciousness is really part of the same entity. Testing the relationship between additional observers and PK outcome does not necessarily force us down one or other of these routes as far as I can see.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We always assume that the fundamental psi operations are:

• read another person's mind at the current time
• view a remote location at the current time
• affect a (small) physical event at the current time
• foresee a future event
• talk to a dead person
• plead with god to intercede

But what evidence do we have that these are actually the fundamental operations? Perhaps they are actually something like:

• view a remote location by talking to a dead person who is floating nearby it

A perfect example of this sort of "compound operation" is retropsychokinesis.

~~ Paul
[/LIST]

 

[Invidious]

We always assume that the fundamental psi operations are:

• read another person's mind at the current time
• view a remote location at the current time
• affect a (small) physical event at the current time
• foresee a future event
• talk to a dead person
• plead with god to intercede

But what evidence do we have that these are actually the fundamental operations? Perhaps they are actually something like:

• view a remote location by talking to a dead person who is floating nearby it

A perfect example of this sort of "compound operation" is retropsychokinesis.

~~ Paul
[/list]

Exactly (you read my mind)!

David, it seems like you're not only presupposing an ability here (Psi, PK, TK, etc), you're presupposing the mechanism for that ability. Like Paul says, it could be Spirit Guide Richard Nixon remote viewing for you, moving things around or whatever. Once you open the door for one supposed mechanism (ie I remote view by using my brain to peer between dimensions) you open the door to all (I remote view by feeling the object's vibrations through the earth, etc). Invoking Occam's Razor to select between "I open the door with my mind" and "My djinn Ruppy the Puppy opened the door for me" is useless; both are weighted about equally as far as I can see.

 

[juryjone]

Invoking Occam's Razor to select between "I open the door with my mind" and "My djinn Ruppy the Puppy opened the door for me" is useless; both are weighted about equally as far as I can see.

Is Ruppy working for you now? I'm not getting a whole lot done without Ruppy.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't know. I was suggesting, in answer to your previous question, that changing the observation conditions (for example, emotional vs calm pictures) might provide a way to falsify the hypothesis that observation is part of the PK process. If varying the observation conditions does not modulate the PK effect, then observation would seem not to be important.

Wait a second! Now, you are saying that it is person with the powers who are influencing the result.

Stick with your original claim: That it is the ones observing the output of the RNG. Why should the conditions of the observation change the effect? Either the data is observed or it isn't.

I don't know. But its a possible way to find out the role of subsequent observers.

Wait a second! What "subsequent" observers? How many levels of observation are you talking about?

I don't see how. Each subsequent person's consciousness may be acting as an indepedent entity. Or perhaps each person's consciousness is really part of the same entity. Testing the relationship between additional observers and PK outcome does not necessarily force us down one or other of these routes as far as I can see.

You bet it is arguing in favor of a global consciousness: The more people observing something, the bigger the effect.

What do you mean by the data not being "robust enough"?

 

[davidsmith73]

David, it seems like you're not only presupposing an ability here (Psi, PK, TK, etc), you're presupposing the mechanism for that ability.

I believe that the results of presentiment experiments show an anomaly that warrants a novel scientific explanation. What Paul and I are describing are several different interpretations for the results of these experiments. My view is that there are really only two types of psi interpretation here - ESP or PK. I would say precognition, clairvoyance (or remote viewing) and telepathy are impossible to completely separate in a conceptual sense and therefore reflect a unitary underlying mechanism, which is why they were grouped under ESP. The conceptual difference between ESP and PK is the hypothesised direction of influence between consciousness and its environment.

Like Paul says, it could be Spirit Guide Richard Nixon remote viewing for you, moving things around or whatever.

The simplest explanations are usually right aren't they? We may not know what mechanism underlies something like remote viewing, but if you are going to hypothesise a "Spirit Guide Richard Nixon remote viewing for you" then you are introducing more entities than a hypothesis involving the same remote viewing mechanism alone. So if the experimental results can be explained just by remote viewing then you don't need to introduce Spirit Guide Richard Nixon. Perhaps it will turn out that we do need Spirit Guide Richard Nixon, but it makes sense to start with the least number of "entities" doesn't it?

 

[davidsmith73]

Wait a second! Now, you are saying that it is person with the powers who are influencing the result.

You are not reading what I have said. Go back and read properly.

Wait a second! What "subsequent" observers? How many levels of observation are you talking about?

ditto

The more people observing something, the bigger the effect.

How is that "a global consciousness"?

What do you mean by the data not being "robust enough"?

not replicable and strong enough

 

[CFLarsen]

You are not reading what I have said. Go back and read properly.

ditto

It is the person with the powers who watches the emotional vs calm pictures, right?

How is that "a global consciousness"?

Because that's how the idea goes: The more people tuned in to - or, "observing", if you like - an event, the bigger the effect.

not replicable and strong enough

You mean that the replication and strength of the effect relies on the observers?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The simplest explanations are usually right aren't they?

No. Witness quantum mechanics.

We may not know what mechanism underlies something like remote viewing, but if you are going to hypothesise a "Spirit Guide Richard Nixon remote viewing for you" then you are introducing more entities than a hypothesis involving the same remote viewing mechanism alone. So if the experimental results can be explained just by remote viewing then you don't need to introduce Spirit Guide Richard Nixon. Perhaps it will turn out that we do need Spirit Guide Richard Nixon, but it makes sense to start with the least number of "entities" doesn't it?

Yes, it does make sense to start that way, but, so far, starting that way ain't getting us anywhere. We still have no idea what the hell is happening. Since irreproducibility is clearly part of psi, any theory is going to have to explain that characteristic, which may require Richard Nixon, or, more likely, Spiro Anagnostopoulos. If there is any psi, that is.

I'm just giving you trouble. Of course it makes sense to start simple. But the entire psi thing is stunningly complex to begin with, which makes it rather problematical to label one purported mechanism "simple" and another "more complex." Simple or complex relative to what?

~~ Paul

 

[Invidious]

The simplest explanations are usually right aren't they? We may not know what mechanism underlies something like remote viewing, but if you are going to hypothesise a "Spirit Guide Richard Nixon remote viewing for you" then you are introducing more entities than a hypothesis involving the same remote viewing mechanism alone. So if the experimental results can be explained just by remote viewing then you don't need to introduce Spirit Guide Richard Nixon. Perhaps it will turn out that we do need Spirit Guide Richard Nixon, but it makes sense to start with the least number of "entities" doesn't it?

That's just it, though. There is no known remote viewing mechanism. All mechanisms presented have been pure speculation; can you honestly say spiritual Nixon has any less anecdotal evidence than mental remote viewing? Also, to conjecture even a basic remote viewing mechanism, you would be radically changing the way we look at the world. This is not a simple mechanism; spirit Nixon seems hardly more complicated than a brain that can somehow "see" an object that is otherwise undetectable through any other known senses. At least spirit Nixon has eyes, after all.

ETA:And of course Paul has written what I was trying to write, faster and more eloquently than I. Dang it.

 

[CFLarsen]

We still have no idea what the hell is happening.

Wait....

"What" is happening? I haven't seen anything happening. Anything out of the ordinary, that is.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wait....

"What" is happening? I haven't seen anything happening. Anything out of the ordinary, that is.

We still have no idea what, if anything, the hell is happening.

I stand corrected.

~~ Paul

 

[davidsmith73]

It is the person with the powers who watches the emotional vs calm pictures, right?

According to the PK hypothesis we're discussing, it is any person who makes an observation of the output of the RNG that "has the powers", potentially. In the presentiment experiments, that would be the one watching the pictures, the experimenter who might also view a few pictures and the data, and anyone who looks at the data in the future! This creates as obvious problem, that parapsychologists have termed the "divergence problem", ie the number of potential observers could continue indefinately. To get round this, there might be factors that limit or nullify the influence of subsequent observers of the RNG output. A loose analogy might be made to quantum decoherence.

Because that's how the idea goes: The more people tuned in to - or, "observing", if you like - an event, the bigger the effect.

Well, the GCP hypothesis seems to be that observation of the RNG output is not necessary to effect it. All those people who were watching 9/11 unfold have not observed the output of the GCP RNG's. That's the idea I don't like - that there is this "global consciousness entity" that is affecting the RNG's. The hypothesis I'm talking about doesn't predict that the more people observing the RNG output, the bigger the effect. Its predictions are minimal at best.

You mean that the replication and strength of the effect relies on the observers?

It may be. You can't tell from the data so far whether this is true or not. I would definately say the lack of replication is down to a lack of understanding of the conditions that can generate the effect.

 

[davidsmith73]

No. Witness quantum mechanics.

Point made.

Yes, it does make sense to start that way, but, so far, starting that way ain't getting us anywhere. We still have no idea what the hell is happening. Since irreproducibility is clearly part of psi, any theory is going to have to explain that characteristic, which may require Richard Nixon, or, more likely, Spiro Anagnostopoulos. If there is any psi, that is.

I don't think the irreproducibility of the data is necessarily to do with the properties of the underlying phenomenon. It may be that we don't understand the observing conditions well enough.

I'm just giving you trouble. Of course it makes sense to start simple. But the entire psi thing is stunningly complex to begin with, which makes it rather problematical to label one purported mechanism "simple" and another "more complex." Simple or complex relative to what?

I think the problem is that the terms precognition, clairvoyance or telepathy (grouped under ESP) can betray an assumed mechanism when it need not be the case. In their purest sense they should just be describing the phenomenon, ie a certain correlation under certain circumstances. "PK" and "ESP" are usually said to be differrent only in the sense that information is hypothsised to flow in opposite directions between consciousness and its environment. But even then, its difficult to tell the difference between the two, for example we have May and Spottisewood interpreting the PEAR PK data as a form of ESP ("decision augmentation theory" as they term it). Problems indeed.

 

[davidsmith73]

We still have no idea what, if anything, the hell is happening.

I stand corrected.

~~ Paul

Paul, I'm interested in your opinion of psi results to date. Do you think there are any psi experiments (for example, presentiment) that show there is an anomaly that can't be explained yet? If so, do you think that a normal explanation will eventually come out?