Proposed protocol for PEAR

[Flange Desire]

This is just a discussion item - not a real claim!

I have been taking a good long look around at the PEAR website at Princeton, and reading their publications.
The details of their setup and statistical analysis are quite complex, and quite beyond my ken, but their claims on their webpages are very clear and quite extraordinary!
I have emailed them about their extraordinary claims ...

--------
Sir/Madam,

On http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html it says -

"... yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator."

"... they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations."

These statements are incorrect.
If they were correct then you would be eligible for $US1 million dollars from the JREF foundation.
Please feel free to provide poor excuses for not claiming the JREF prize.

Thanks in anticipation,
...
-------

I am yet to receive a reply from them in person, but I did get a reply from their minder to say that the recipients were elsewhere and would return in 2 weeks.

Thinking about it, It should be VERY easy to test such a claim ...

Extraordinary claim to be tested:
Human consciousness can alter the behaviour of a RNG.
The claimant specifies the specific conditions, and the magnitude and timing of 'deviation from expected'.
These will be subjected to all the normal scrutiny for testability and 'chance expectations', etc.

Test preparation:
Two 'functionally identical' units are prepared.
Each unit contains a RNG and simple monitoring software.
The software monitors the output from RNG and outputs (graphs) the 'deviation from expected', over time.
The units are designed to run continuously, and the graphs are timestamped.

Remember to always use the KISS principle!
Ideally, the RNG and monitoring software should be as simple as possible.
It is quite feasible that the two units are built from very simple components.
However, it is probably easier to use standard PCs, provided it can be assured that the behaviour of the RNGs and monitoring software are 'functionally identical' (eg, at least the RNGs would need to be configured and seeded identically).
Comparison of the graphs (under non claim-test conditions) would show identical behaviour.
If not then sceptics would be truly amazed!!!

Unit C is the control unit.
Unit T is the test unit.
Unit C is located in a secure location elsewhere (ie, far away from 'influence' of the 'altering conscious field' or whatever voodoo is used).
Unit T is located in a secure testing venue.
Both units are identical, synchronized, and continuously running.
Final checks are made that the timestamped output graphs are identical as expected.

Claimant then performs prescribed voodoo ritual.

Comparison of the output graphs are made.

Using my crystal ball, I can see that no money is paid out!
Wadderyarecon?

PS, I am a software engineer, so would prefer not to endure long ear-bashing about the randomness of (so-called) RNGs. IMHO, this is just a small technical detail that can be easily handled.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Flange Desire
(eg, at least the RNGs would need to be configured and seeded identically)

Seeded?

A pseudo-random number generator is a software algorithm; it gets seeded and, given a particular seed, its output is determined. A hardware random number generator cannot be seeded; its output is unpredictable and nonrepeatable.

 

[Hitch]

Human consciousness can alter the behaviour of a RNG.

"Alter?" What consitutes "altering?" Anything other than a flat distribution is an "alteration?" Or would the "alteration" have to be described beforehand? How much on an "alteration" is an "alteration?"

This sounds like the kind of vague fishing expedition claim that the applicant can never describe well enough to design a protocol. So then they run off on a tangent about how the JREF will never give a fair test.

Decide what you're going to do before talking about a claim.

 

[Flange Desire]

"Alter?" What consitutes "altering?" Anything other than a flat distribution is an "alteration?" Or would the "alteration" have to be described beforehand? How much on an "alteration" is an "alteration?"

This sounds like the kind of vague fishing expedition claim that the applicant can never describe well enough to design a protocol. So then they run off on a tangent about how the JREF will never give a fair test.

Decide what you're going to do before talking about a claim.

Yes, this is the core issue.
If ever they do make a claim application, then of course their claims must be quantifiable and measurable.
For details on what the 'altering' is, you would need to look closely at their website.
As I said - I do not really understand the details of their statistical analysis, nor their test setup. Their overall claims are quite clear tho.

PS, As you know, this thread is only a discussion point, and not a real claim application.

 

[Flange Desire]

Re: Re: Proposed protocol for PEAR

Seeded?

A pseudo-random number generator is a software algorithm; it gets seeded and, given a particular seed, its output is determined. A hardware random number generator cannot be seeded; its output is unpredictable and nonrepeatable.

Yep, whatever.
It does not really matter, just as long as the resulting distribution (of the 2 units) are 'functionally identical'.
The statisticians out there could sort out the gritty details of what constitutes 'functionally identical' (one might hope).

 

[fls]

"... yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator."

"... they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations."

These statements are incorrect.
If they were correct then you would be eligible for $US1 million dollars from the JREF foundation.
Please feel free to provide poor excuses for not claiming the JREF prize.

They would not be eligible for the JREF prize. They use one-tailed significance testing which puts them at a 1 in 10 chance - not even close to the JREF standard.

Plus there are a number of other manipulations of the data to enable them to claim "highly significant deviations from chance expectations" that I would not condone if it were my million.

Linda

 

[jj]

There are already a number of discussions here and there on this board, you might want to search for PEAR and see what crops up.

Aside from a couple of PEAR supporters who routinely cross the line into ad-hom, baiting, mis-statements of what other said, and a whole host of malformed deliberate rhetorical behaviors (like asking people who point out flaws in the experiment for "data", when the flaw is mathematical), there is little to be said for the PEAR data, as far as I can tell.

 

[Sherman Bay]

I've followed the PEAR phenomena for years, and I, too, admit their statistical analysis is beyond me. Personally, I suspect any anomaly they claim to have detected is an anomaly they have generated with misuse of statistics. But never mind about that.

Before we design a challenge protocol, I think we need to narrow down just what is being claimed here. Do they claim that human minds can alter the operation of a hardware randomizer? That might be hard to test. But if they claim to be able to alter the output of a software randomizer, things suddenly get a lot easier.

A software randomizer is only a computer program. Given N iterations, a seed of X, two identical programs running on identical CPUs that accept no external inputs will produce identical numbers. Now we've got something we can test. Start two synchronized-clock devices at the same time, and challenge someone to alter any generated number in one machine only.

But wait -- a software randomizer is only a computer program. If the claim is made that they can alter the internal workings of ONE KIND of computer program, is the altering ability limited only to randomizing programs? How about game programs? Accounting programs? Microsoft programs?

How about trying to alter the contents of RAM? Easy to test. Have the claimant specify which byte and bit and give them N minutes to change it with their mind.

Now I know the problem with my WinPC. My neighbor is sending thoughtless thought-waves. Who needs WiFi?