Pigasus Awards & Sheldrake

[CFLarsen]

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.

Look, this is insane. If any data can be altered simply by observing it, at any given moment in time, we can't even rely on the results. They could be altered later on, too, when someone observes them!

What about a fly? Can it observe and alter data as well as humans?

A loose analogy might be made to quantum decoherence.

Oh, dear. You just went the way of the Quantum Dodo.

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.

I'm not talking about people watching the output of the GCP RNG's. I am talking about someone watching an event, thereby influencing data.

That's the idea I don't like -

Again, it doesn't matter what you like. You have to drop that notion - that something is true or false based on whether you like it or not.

that there is this "global consciousness entity" that is affecting the RNG's.

That's not what the GCP posits. The theory is that the more people focused on a particular event, the bigger effect there is on the output of the RNGs. There is no "entity". There is the combined "consciousness".

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.

See above.

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.

Replication of what effect?

 

[davidsmith73]

That's not what the GCP posits. The theory is that the more people focused on a particular event, the bigger effect there is on the output of the RNGs. There is no "entity". There is the combined "consciousness".

Where on the GCP site does it say this?

 

[CFLarsen]

Where on the GCP site does it say this?

On the very first page:

Our purpose is to examine subtle correlations that reflect the presence and activity of consciousness in the world. We have learned that when millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network shows correlations. We can interpret this as evidence for participation in a growing global consciousness.
Source

What about a fly? Can it observe and alter data as well as humans?

Replication of what effect?

 

[davidsmith73]

On the very first page:

That quote doesn't distinguish between an single global consciousness entity or combined consciousness. I think the GCP leans more towards the "entity" interpretation because they talk about a consciousness "field".

What about a fly? Can it observe and alter data as well as humans?

A fly might be able to alter the output of an REG, or it might not. Experiments could find that out.

Replication of what effect?

PK effect of course. Thats what we've been talking about. Why do you keep asking these questions that have been answered already?

 

[Hellbound]

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?

Not meaning to jump on Paul's shoes, I'm sure he has his own answer. But I think my feelings on this will mirror those of many.

I don't think there's any psi experiments that show an anomoly that can't be explained, as in there is no possible normal explanation. I believe there are some that haven't been explained, but I also believe there are none that require the existence of psi to be explained (to date). Those that show positive results tend to be surrounded by questionable controls and scanty data, or the results of meta-analyses that use a suspect methodology and inclusion criteria. I also think a normal explanation will eventualyl come out (although I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if it turns out otherwise...but I really place so low a probability on that outcome that I'd expect Faster-than-Light space travel, another current physical impossibility, first).

 

[CFLarsen]

That quote doesn't distinguish between an single global consciousness entity or combined consciousness. I think the GCP leans more towards the "entity" interpretation because they talk about a consciousness "field".

They clearly state that it is the combined consciousnes of many people. That's not an "entity".

A fly might be able to alter the output of an REG, or it might not. Experiments could find that out.

Yeah. And perhaps previous experiments were already altered by a fly observing the data. How will you know if that was the case?

PK effect of course. Thats what we've been talking about. Why do you keep asking these questions that have been answered already?

But there is no PK effect.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We appear to have enough participants to attempt a replication of Sheldrake's email telepathy experiment. There is a thread on it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86065

More participants are welcome. Also, I'd appreciate a critique of the protocol once I post it in that thread.

I did not realize that the receiver emailed her guess to the experimenter one minute before the sender emailed the receiver. I wonder what the results would be if the same protocol was used, but the sender didn't bother to email the receiver?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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?

I think there are "normal" explanations for all of these things, although I certainly can't think of them. I suspect we will learn that humans are really good at picking up subtle clues, such as timing clues. I also think we will discover that some of the statistical analyses are subtly flawed. In the meantime, I have no problem with spending money to continue psi investigations. I'd love to see one paradigm become replicable to the point where researchers are willing to stick their necks out on some theories.

~~ Paul

 

[davidsmith73]

They clearly state that it is the combined consciousnes of many people. That's not an "entity".

Really? The quote you used states that "we have learned that when millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network shows correlations". That is not a statement that commits to a combined consciousness or a single global consciousness entity view. Indeed, its their intention not to fully commit to either. They do evidently think that when the attention of many people is focussed on an event, the RNG output shows a correlated change, but observation of the RNG output by these people is not needed. And they tentatively refer to a "field" of consciousness. Whether that's a reference to an "entity", I'm not sure but it seems so.

Yeah. And perhaps previous experiments were already altered by a fly observing the data. How will you know if that was the case?

By establishing, experimentally, how much effect consecutive observations have on the results. If it turns out that the nth iteration of observations is equally effective than the first then the theory is in trouble! On the other hand, if the efficacy of subsequent observations is significantly reduced or nullified then we could be confident that a fly observing the results in the future would not be responsible for them. You also have to bear in mind that the output of the RNG may have to mean something to the fly in order for it affect it. Hypothetically speaking anyway.

 

[CFLarsen]

Really? The quote you used states that "we have learned that when millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network shows correlations". That is not a statement that commits to a combined consciousness or a single global consciousness entity view. Indeed, its their intention not to fully commit to either. They do evidently think that when the attention of many people is focussed on an event, the RNG output shows a correlated change, but observation of the RNG output by these people is not needed. And they tentatively refer to a "field" of consciousness. Whether that's a reference to an "entity", I'm not sure but it seems so.

"We have learned that when millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network shows correlations" means what it says: If a great many of us think of the same thing, data gets influenced. End of story.

By establishing, experimentally, how much effect consecutive observations have on the results. If it turns out that the nth iteration of observations is equally effective than the first then the theory is in trouble! On the other hand, if the efficacy of subsequent observations is significantly reduced or nullified then we could be confident that a fly observing the results in the future would not be responsible for them.

No, no, no. If a fly can influence the data by observing, then you can never be absolutely certain that nothing has ever observed the data. It could be a gnat, it could be a passenger on a plane, casting an eye on the data, even ever so briefly. Heck, it could also be someone using their remote viewing abilities to observe the data.

Can you exclude the possibility of the latter happening?

You also have to bear in mind that the output of the RNG may have to mean something to the fly in order for it affect it. Hypothetically speaking anyway.

Why?

 

[davidsmith73]

"We have learned that when millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network shows correlations" means what it says: If a great many of us think of the same thing, data gets influenced. End of story.

You are mistaking a description of the correlation with a mechanism. The statement says nothing about whether the effect is mediated by lots of independent consciousness or some global consciousness entity. The GCP does, however, allude to the latter interpretation elsewhere by refering to a consciousness "field". Either way, this is different to the hypothesis I'm talking about where observation of the RNG output is important.

No, no, no. If a fly can influence the data by observing, then you can never be absolutely certain that nothing has ever observed the data. It could be a gnat, it could be a passenger on a plane, casting an eye on the data, even ever so briefly. Heck, it could also be someone using their remote viewing abilities to observe the data.

Can you exclude the possibility of the latter happening?

Science doesn't deal with absolute certainties. Like I said, experiments can answer the question as to what degree subsequent observations effect the result.

With regards to remote viewing the data, that's an interesting question. We can't really exclude or include that possibility because we don't know how RV works. I guess that you are assuming that RV is in "real time". That may not necessarily be the case. RV may also require feedback (in a normal cognitive sense) of the results.

Why?

Because PK experiments seem to be about meaning, ie trying to force more heads or tails etc. A fly doesn't know the meaning of heads and tails so can't be reasonably expected to affect the results of a coin toss if it happens to be flying about the room. If on the other hand you hook up your RNG to provide a fly with a blob of jam when its a 0 or a drip of hydrochloric acid when its 1, then we might expect that to be a "meaningful motivation" for the fly to try and produce more jam.

Anyway, its been a pleasure as always Claus. I'm now going away for a few weeks so this is my last post. I'll be sure to find time to read your reply though

 

[CFLarsen]

You are mistaking a description of the correlation with a mechanism. The statement says nothing about whether the effect is mediated by lots of independent consciousness or some global consciousness entity.

I haven't said anything about the consciousness being independent, nor have I said anything about an entity.

Don't attribute things to me that I haven't said.

The GCP does, however, allude to the latter interpretation elsewhere by refering to a consciousness "field". Either way, this is different to the hypothesis I'm talking about where observation of the RNG output is important.

It is exactly the same principle: Being conscious about/observing an event, thereby changing data.

Science doesn't deal with absolute certainties. Like I said, experiments can answer the question as to what degree subsequent observations effect the result.

Not when it comes to detecting an effect that can transcend time and space, as well as changing data at any given moment in time, past, present and future.

With regards to remote viewing the data, that's an interesting question. We can't really exclude or include that possibility because we don't know how RV works.

It doesn't matter how RV works. How will you take into account that someone from the past or future zones in on the data, thereby changing it?

You can't. It's as simple as that. And when you can't prevent such a thing happening, it makes no

The idea of PK, RV, and the like is stillborn. With every "explanation", more problems and absurdities arise.

I guess that you are assuming that RV is in "real time". That may not necessarily be the case. RV may also require feedback (in a normal cognitive sense) of the results.

RV is also about going back in time, and forward in the future.

Because PK experiments seem to be about meaning, ie trying to force more heads or tails etc. A fly doesn't know the meaning of heads and tails so can't be reasonably expected to affect the results of a coin toss if it happens to be flying about the room. If on the other hand you hook up your RNG to provide a fly with a blob of jam when its a 0 or a drip of hydrochloric acid when its 1, then we might expect that to be a "meaningful motivation" for the fly to try and produce more jam.

PK experiments only seem to be about meaning because that's how they are designed. However, if it is merely the observation that changes the data, it doesn't matter if the observer can derive any meaning from it.

Anyway, its been a pleasure as always Claus. I'm now going away for a few weeks so this is my last post. I'll be sure to find time to read your reply though

The thread will be here when you return.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Bierman and Lobach were kind enough to send me the raw data from their telephone telepathy experiment. I have a couple things I'd like to check out in their data. If anyone else is interested, just holler.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've started a thread asking for help from statisticians:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86514

~~ Paul

 

[Cuddles]

Oh, dear. You just went the way of the Quantum Dodo.

Cuddles' Law :
As an internet discussion increases in length, the probablility of quantum physics being invoked as the mechanism behind an unexplained/non-existent phenomenon approaches one, at which point the discussion can be considered over.

This thread has been officially Cuddled.

 

[rikzilla]

Recently found...

A Sheldrake reference from a recently suicided paranoid conspiracy theorist:

Do you think that there is a creative energy in the Chelsea?
Probably. There is an English scientist named Rupert Sheldrake who believes that physical locations have a sort of "memory" he calls "morphic resonance." Basically, it says that if someone was creative in a location before in the past, it is easier for someone to be creative there again in the present. It is also verifiably true, as he points out, that if a scientific experiment has worked once before in a certain location it is more likely to work there again than in a new, untested location.

...Sadly last month Theresa Duncan took her own life with pills and booze, her long time boyfriend, the artist Jeremy Blake killed himself one week after finding his lover's body.

They thought that Masons, The CIA, Satanists, and Scientologists were after them. (They may have a point re: the Scientologists) One thing was for sure, she sure did love Sheldrake.

Currently many more conspiracy theories are being spun about the "murders" of Theresa and Jeremy....I wonder if Sheldrake's morphic resonance theory works for suicides as well as it does for creativity???

What a load of poo.

-z

 

[alex.tsakiris]

Richard Wiseman recently did an interview on a podcast, Skeptiko, in which he mentioned the Jay-tee debate. He said, iirc, that the experiments set out to measure two different things. Sheldrake was interested if the dog seemed to know when the owner arrived home, and Wiseman wether the dog seemed to know when the owner decided to come home. Wiseman also said that he agreed that the data he got does seem to accord with Sheldrake's.

Two points Wiseman made in this interview:

- The data he gathered matches Sheldrake's. These guys battled over this for 10 years. Wiseman finally admitted the obvious (though he still disputes the research conclusions for unspecified reasons).

- He approached the experiment as a debunker, while Sheldrake was approaching it as long-term behavior research. He now acknowledges that truly collaborative research is the only way to settle these questions.