Project Alpha (True story on Psi phenomena)

by bohm 30 Replies latest jw friends

  • bohm
    bohm

    Metratron:

    I really want to keep this conversation constructive, so i hope you do not take this the wrong way. I do not have strong oppinions on Psi research like i do on eg. the buddhist wheel of pain (or whatever it is called) or the existense of the aboriginal dream-world.

    When i wrote it would violate the laws of physics i meant just that - they would have to be augmented and our understanding of the brain would have to undergo a major paradigme shift. then it would be the new laws of physics ofcourse :-).

    Regarding extraordinary claims bla bla bla - yah, i will give you it has become a bit of a coatrack on which to hang your brain. However, there is a degree of truth in it which i can explain if you want.

    I will try to keep this conversation constructive by putting myself in 'the firing zone'.

    Lets assume that YOU are a Psi researcher who wish to devise an experiment to discover Psi. More exactly, lets take the coin-example (ie. a psychic can predict coin flips, and in 10'000 flips the psychic will have 2 flips more right than chance dictate. That is a weak but detectable experiment).

    Now you want to do your experiment RIGHT. I mean super, super right. The test subjects are isolated in bunkers 200m beneath the earth so they cant have radio contact with the surface and all is video monitored. the machine is callibrated by NSA an tested extensively, and the stream of random numbers is XOR'ed together with a stream supplied by Randi himself on a special sealed harddrive that can only be read once.

    The experiment is guarded by heavy experimental protecols. Since psychic energy require much concentration, each 'session' with a psychic subject takes 4 hours, and you have made a prior agreement with the subjects that they get exactly 4 hours with the machine (corresponding to N coin flips). The 4 hours is important since that is the amount of time required to build up psychic energy.

    At the end, you expect to detect the 2 extra flips with a p-value at about 1/1000.

    All of this makes the experiment quite expensive to (staff, flying psychics in and out, video, equipment, etc), so its a bit of a one-shot thing. But if you keep to protecols, it will be definite proof one way or another - either Psi exist or it does not. Randi agrees that if you get the p-value he will give you the money (he, himself, test the experiment in many ways the months before the psychics come in).

    ..oo000oo...

    3 months into the experiment, during the last 4-hour session of the day, a particular psychic comes in, lets call him Al-Kazah. He is very sure of himself, and claim he will "blow you away" and guess about 1 extra flip out of 10 on a good day, and today he feel charged. You put him in the bunker and tell him to commence.

    As you watch him on camera you can see he does not seem to have a good day - he is far behind average. You expect about 2 subjects to do as bad as Al-Kazah during the experiments and dutifully record his abysmal record as the protecols dictate. Al-Kazah is not pleased, however. You can see him on camera as he become more and more agitated. He ask you if the machine is 'working' several times and 2 hours in he refuse to coorporate. He scream at you and tell you there is a 'daemon' in the machine and it has 'eaten' his powers - he accuse you of being in a pact with satan and you eventually have to remove him from the room and call in an ambulance. There are 2 hours worth of coin flips remaning in Al-Kazahs session and he will not be able to complete them.

    This is a serious question: What do you do?

    a) Trash Al-Kazahs data so far. Since the coin flips are statistically independent, you can scrap N flips today and it will in no way affect the flips you get tomorrow, the day after tomorrow or anything. You can then either extend the experiment with one more subject or, more likely, just calculate with one less subject overall, getting a slightly larger p-value, but you still expect it to be okay since you gave yourself some margin.

    b) Trash the entire experiment, waving goodbye to the 3mil. the experiment has cost and the chance of winning the prize.

    c) Call Randi and tell him what has happened. Propose to him that you take Al-Kazahs seat and finish the remaning 2 hours of his session. Since you are not psychic, you can argue your influence on the experiment is neglible - from Randis standpoint it will mean nothing at all if Al-Kazah or you finish the experiment, since neither of you have any powers (according to him). We assume you are certain Randi will agree to such a deal since he is a gentleman and want to laugh at you in the end, and you taking his seat will be recorded in the video and in your final report, just like good research dictate.

    d) Something else. (describe)

    Seriously, what approach would you take, assuming you are honest and want to take the approach that introduce no bias as far as detecting Psi goes? (others may answer as well, i will try to evaluate them from a statistical perspective later).

  • bohm
    bohm

    BTS, you can take the seat of the researcher in the dilemma above as well if you like! :-)

  • metatron
    metatron

    I don't comprehend the purpose of your hypothetical situation. It seems bizarre but perhaps you have some specific reason for suggesting it (?)

    Anyhow, I wouldn't allow Randi within a hundred miles of such an experiment! Randi has a legitimate role in exposing crude frauds, however, if we agree that ESP can only be a small effect generally, then his ad hominem attacks and otherwise justified obnoxiousness have no place in such an endeavour. If ESP is subtle, then we don't want people who may wreck that subtlety.

    Further, if the results of the Toronto poltergeist experiment are to be accepted, you need a group that are willing to believe to get crazy things going, not entrenched disbelievers.

    If you want to pour over statisics, beyond the lengthy PEAR results, I suggest you look at the ganzfield work of Honorton, Hyman and Utts. It's very involved and too voluminous to cite here.

    metatron

  • bohm
    bohm

    Metratron: Then lets leave Randi out of the experiment and look at it as a PEAR-type experiment. What parts of the hypothetical situation do you object against? Yes i have a specific purpose - to discuss the role of bias in experimental situations.

    I am not suggesting the situation is common, and all Psi studies fail because some of the participants dont want to play along (like Al-Kazah) - not at all! i would guess the above has never happened quite that way.

    I want to discuss a common situation, that the experiment has to deviate from the agreed protecol for some reason (it could also be there was a power-outage or something), and how it may influence the situation. This is not a 'gotcha' situation where i want to laugh at you or something :-).

    So what would you do? which of a-d would you take to prevent bias from going into the experiment?

  • bohm
    bohm

    if you feel like it, you can also comment on the merits and difficulties of each option a-d?

    i want to emphasize i did not copy-paste this from a blog somewhere. there is no 'correct' answer in that sence.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Do either of you have an opinion on this?

    http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

    BTS

  • bohm
    bohm

    BTS, not really yet. i have not looked into Psi research.

  • bohm
    bohm

    BTS: Regarding what you posted.

    IF they select their events, (sept. 11, new years eve, bombins, earthquakes, etc.) AFTER they IN ANY WAY have become aware of the correlation of the 'eggs', then the study is heavily compromised. However, if they select the events, intervals, etc. BEFORE, any statistically significant result would as far as i could tell be equivalent to being able to predict the future.

  • metatron
    metatron

    d) Something else.

    You do 28 years worth of statistical trials and have it ignored. You could report various results with qualifications explained in regard to individual problems. Over more than 2 decades, such variances might be swallowed up in statistical noise. NOT THAT IT MATTERS, ANYWAY.

    "it will be definite proof one way or the other". No, it won't. It will be ignored and forgotten in a few years.

    Somewhat off topic, this "extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims" fallacy is not just an idle curiosity. It may be interfereing with our survival as a civilization. Martin Rees recently ( Science authority in UK) made the same "extraordinary proof" assertion in relation to Cold Fusion results, even though these results have been replicated across the globe for more than 20 years.

    Do we ruin our oceans, bankrupt our national economies and empower Mid East terrorists because a virtual priesthood of 'science' refuses to accept evidence that it doesn't like? After 20 years? Ignoring a potentially endless energy source?

    Ok, it isn't ESP ............. but it illustrates the danger I believe we collectively face when 'religious' behavior takes control of what should be science.

    metatron

  • bohm
    bohm

    Okay, so you choose d. What 'something else' do you do? You got to carry the experiment forward one way or another in such a way no bias is introduced to the result.

    I want to add that tabletop fusion is not extraordinary in any way. Tabletop fusion that produce more energy than goes in is, but i dont want to change the subject?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit