Next Step?

"It is not encumbent upon thee to complete the work, but neither are thou free to desist from it altogether."

What to tell you now...

Do you have what you need to understand and duplicate what brought me here?

I've tried to filter what I have and give you only the best and most relevant. I've tried to refrain from regressing into arguments about necessary precursor ideas. Plenty of people have written very credible and readable books on the existence of psi phenomena. Along the same lines, plenty of respected science professionals have expounded on the observer problem and its significance. I suppose I could work up and post a bibliography... The 25 Best Books and Papers to Read to Understand Smearland. ;) Hmmm...

"There is never an ending to the exploration of human potential and man's relationship to the cosmos, nor can any one person carry more than the slightest burden for opening new doors of understanding. On the course of my own adventure, I have used and been inspired by the ideas and insights of many great men and women throughout all of recorded human history. My hope in reporting my work is that in some small way - perhaps moving us a step or two further in our quest for understanding - I might have been able to help a little to illuminate the path for those willing to continue the exploration. Which of us will come up with the next 'right question'?"

Eureka Moments

As I think I mentioned earlier, for quite some time during this journey I had no coherent model to explain the effects and relationships I was studying. The data was there, but attempting to discuss it with someone usually took me quite a bit of time because I had no reference points and no cohesive picture of what I thought was happening. My first attempt to discuss this with a seasoned science professional failed so miserably that I still flinch when I think about it. He was very polite about it, but then I had just bought him lunch, so...

Fortunately, after that, I had some great friends who let me talk about it until they understood what I was trying to say, and who then helped me to express myself more clearly. What seems so obvious to me now was by no means obvious then. But as I kept looking at anything that might help me explain the data, I eventually fell into the observer problem and the problem of state selection. Jackpot.

While this provided a more recognizable framework for what I was trying to say, it still didn't provide a model that was easy to describe and use, and from which one could generate predictions. That 'a-ha' moment came one day as I was walking from our building to the parking lot. Two thoughts collided - "There's got to be an easier way to describe this!" and a phrase I had heard a couple of nights before on a sci-fi program, "I've solved the seventh dimension." And the 5-dimensional model was born.

Astonishingly, it proved to be more adept at explanation and prediction than I thought it would. As it turns out, the 5th dimension even integrated well with the other four, as the elements of our various mental representations of space and time could be isolated in terms of their effects on state selection.

Unfortunately, my skill at mathematical representation has yet to prove equal to my vision for what it should contain. Spherical matrix mechanics, anyone?

One Theory To Rule Them All

Once upon a time I began to write an article on the process by which a scientist becomes what our skeptic friends like to call a 'crank'. You know the type - 'My theory explains it all/is the only thing we should be worried about.'

Why would I attempt such an article? Because I could see exactly how I could become so enamored with the explanatory power of my own model that I could begin to ignore and gloss over the hundreds of questions I couldn't answer. (And those were just the questions I came up with.) In fact, I had become so absorbed in my work that my life began to get horribly out of balance in other respects. People noticed and, eventually, I did too.

So rather than choose to continue to battle for recognition in the scientific realm - an arduous process at best, designed to kill whatever joy you may have once felt for your work - I chose to put my observations and ideas here for any and all to judge. No admission fee. User-friendly metaphors. And FUN. Dammit, science should be fun!

If you find any merit in these ideas, please feel free to work on them to your heart's content. If not, then I think that there's an exit here somewhere... :)

Life in Smearland

What would experience be like if you thought in terms of finding the right outcome/picking the universe? Of maximizing the differentials associated with what you had already observed and using them to influence observations you had yet to make?

Thusfar I have mostly stayed away from discussing my own personal applications of this theory. And there are good reasons for that. But sometimes a picture or demonstration can convey what theoretical discussion cannot. And so I re-post the following...

Mission:Improbable

Okay, so here's something really mundane that just struck me today for some reason...

Today I needed to go to the store and purchase three items - conditioner, toilet paper, and laundry detergent (brand, type and size specified beforehand for all three). Let's call these the target items - all parameters for achieving a 'hit' were specified beforehand, including acceptable price (on sale - less than $3, less than $3, and less than $4, respectively - based on many years of purchasing these same items and knowing what a good sale price is). In addition, this exercise included the additional parameter for success of finding all three on sale at the same location.

Once the mission parameters were in place, the search began with a perusal of the ads in the Sunday paper. Oh that I could easily navigate myself to the universe where I simply pick up an ad for my favorite store and see all three items on sale, but for now we'll just leave it that I didn't/couldn't. (Sometimes what looks like the easiest road is not the easiest road simply because we resist things that are too easy.) But I did find the universe where one store had the detergent and the toilet paper on sale. Good enough. Off I go. (Insert Mission:Impossible theme music here.)

An exercise is never a success or failure until all the relevant observations have been made, so I just needed to nudge a little to find the universe where all three items were on sale. No problem. I didn't know exactly how it would be accomplished, but I pulled toward the universe where I got the target item at the target price. And lo and behold, a special in-store coupon book with the coupon that put my item within the target price range. One down. Toilet paper - got it! Two down. Get the laundry detergent and it's mission accomplished.

Wherein I run into an unforseen potential obstacle... there appears to be no target item on the shelf. Has it sold out already? Is it stocked elsewhere in the store? What sequence of observations ensures that I find it? Rapidfire calculations of various standards probabilities flew through my head. As it turned out, the easiest way to ensure success was to find the universe where one last bottle of detergent was hiding at the very back of the shelf. An observation with an easy dichotomous split between the possible outcomes. Ensure the desired outcome, and when ready, make the relevant observation. And sure enough, there it was. The lone bottle of detergent hiding at the back of the shelf.

Proceed to checkout counter, where I am hit with the knowledge that nobody else in this store is thinking like this while buying their items. What would the Universe be like if everyone could get exactly what they want, for exactly the price they want, anytime they want? (Deep thoughts last until a really good song comes on the radio during the drive home.)

Journal Club #2

Schmidt, H. Non-Causality as the Earmark of Psi, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 7, 1993, pp. 125-132.

Not a very long article, but it serves as a reminder the scientists have been [screaming] about the importance of the non-local aspects of psi phenomena for quite some time. (Someday we'll talk about the 1974 international conference on Quantum Physics and Parapsychology.)

The article begins by reviewing how different psi phenomena violate local spatiotemporal causation. We can all agree on this, yes?

"It wasn't easy for me to take the possibility of PK seriously." (p. 126) It wasn't easy for me either to accept the idea that PK is the exertion of some mental force upon the world out there. And no wonder it has been so hard for scientists to find experimental support for this type of model. But, recognizing the importance of the non-local aspects of the effects, how do you break away from this type of model, and what type of model do you replace it with?

As with the other Schmidt article reviewed earlier in this blog, this article provides some keys insights into aspects of observation that are critical in effecting willful state selection. For example...

"the subject...succeeds with a goal oriented attitude, focusing only on the final outcome shown by the display device rather than on the necessary preliminary steps leading up to the outcome." (p. 127, my emphasis) Recall our earlier discussion on framework and the importance of the perceptual representation?

"...there is no indication that the time delay makes PK success more or less difficult." (p.128) Indicating once again that it is the moment of observation and it's related representations that should be our main focus?

"The relevance of psi effects for quantum theory is emphasized by the finding that the effects we observe in the laboratory act only on chance processes." (p. 128, my emphasis) Perhaps reflecting not so much a limitation of psi as a limitation of the testing situation? Anecdotal evidence suggests that such effects need not be limited to chance processes, but perhaps are simply easier to effect on outcomes for which there is no expected outcome.

Unfortunately psi researchers have taken a wrong turn here by assuming that psi effects are therefore weak in nature. Schmidt goes on to make allusions that the apparent smallness of psi effects may be related to the smallness of the particle level where non-local effects are easily observed.

The end of this article takes a pretty wild turn into speculating about the roll of the observer in guiding its own evolution via retro-psychokinetic influence towards favorable mutation rates. Additonal interesting, but unsupported, speculations can also be found near the end of this article.

We'll end with one of Schmidt's concluding comments. "Indeed, the development of new phenomenological models or improvements of the old ones (Schmidt, 1975) may be the most efficient thing to do at this time..." I agree.

Lunatic Fringe

"Your theory is crazy, but it is not crazy enough to be true." - attributed to Niels Bohr

In fulfillment of my professional obligation to share the fruits of my endeavors, I have participated in several forums, including the Towards a Science of Consciousness conference and its offspring, the Quantum Mind conference.

You would think that the coming together of such a group of pioneers would engender a spirit of camaraderie amongst the participants and a sense of respect for the other individuals who have ventured into the final frontier. You would think...

And then you are confronted with the harsh reality of the difference between science as a way of thinking and science as a profession. For example - Science as a way of thinking would examine ideas and evidence for merit, not credentials. Science as a profession demands that you be a little more circumspect in deciding with whom you will associate.

I left these conferences with several impressions...

1) Those trained in hard science (myself included) have a bias against data from the 'soft' sciences or unconventional sources. This bias tends to rear its ugly head when surrounded by the plethora of perspectives and approaches to consciousness research found at these events. Anything 'softer' than you is deemed crazy and not worth your time, and you tend to seek validation from the sciences that are 'harder' than yours.

2) There is strong tendency to associate with those individuals within your own stratum. Maybe it's a comfort-level thing. Maybe it's a fear of risking even more of your reputation as a scientist by failing to know your place.

3) Many more people who participate in such forums are motivated by the desire to validate what they have chosen to do than they are by the desire to explore what others have done. Everybody has something to say, but nobody is listening unless what is being said will impact the credibility of their own research. Is there another way to structure these events that might result in a quicker, more efficient and productive exchange of ideas? One wonders... Perhaps if collaboration facilitation were an occupation unto itself...

I have participated in such forums both before and after receiving my Ph.D., and I do not exempt myself from these failures. But I do think that I have learned that science as a profession can quite often stand in the way of scientific progress.

Still, these are the games scientists play, so I'm sure I'll turn out for a few more conferences. ;)

The UNDO Project

(And just to show you what lies on the edges of the frontier now...)

Once upon a time, in a place where the sky was always blue and 100 years meant nothing, a small group of inspired individuals pondered the critical question of quantum physics - Is there an arena in which quantum events occur, and does it exist before we observe it or emerge as we observe it?

Ridding themselves of the constraints of common assumptions about quantum topology, these individuals imagined that past events could be altered "as a result of appropriate measurement". And the UNDO (or Topology Leaps) Project was conceived.

Text from UNDO project website...

<<'Undo' follows from the claims of quantum topology. `Undo' involves the changing of spacetime. Say for instance that an explosion has occurred; in principle it is possible that by observation itself the arena that is spacetime may be so altered that the explosion did not occur. In this sense it has been undone. This is a quasi undoing or altering, which occurs as a result of appropriate measurement. This would not be possible without quantum effects, and the goal of this project is to find appropriate measurements of spacetime, which involve those effects. Quantum measurements are those which unavoidably effect that which is being measured. The point about this process is that it is the act of measurement itself, which creates the stadium, and further measurements may create altered or different stadia. This is not the same as travelling back in time; what takes place is an alteration so that a previous setting is undone, in the sense that it did not exist. Einstein claimed that the past and the future are in a given, predefined or frozen spacetime. The Undo project melts it.>>'

Can it be done?' is the obvious question. The more interesting question is 'Who or what inspired these individuals to think outside the quantum box?' ;)

The Final Frontier

So I was doing the requisite coffee-run today when I came across a copy of last week's U.S. News and World Report. And lo and behold the cover story - about "one of the last great intellectual frontiers", the study of consciousness.

And so I re-post the following...

The Final Frontier

By the time I was looking for the ultimate adventure, space was no longer the final frontier. It was the late 1980s and the mind was being hailed as the last uncharted terrain. Or consciousness was, or the brain, depending on who was talking. Physicists realized that they needed the mind to explain how the state vector collapsed. Psychologists were already so specialized that few knew the history of anything except their own sub-discipline. Neuroscientists were beginning to acquire the level of technology needed for obtaining new insights into the workings of the brain. And everybody wanted to understand the mystery of consciousness. Including me.

Perhaps I would not have cared so much if I hadn't had my own set of experiences with the anomalies of consciousness. Certainly I had always preferred the adventure of the unknown, and I was observant enough to realize that there were wonders of the mind that were acknowledged by society but which science had difficulty explaining. Call me hooked. A mystery. A Holy Grail that was within reach. What power could be gained by understanding the nature of the human mind? And what adventures might be had in explaining its limits?

More than even I dreamed possible...

Socratic Method

"...but one thing I would fight for to the end, both in word or deed if I were able - that if we believed we should try to find out what is not known, we should be better and braver and less idle than if we believed that what we do not know it is impossible to find out and that we need not even try."

I didn't start out asking big questions. For several years I mined data fields that had nothing to do with quantum physics or the observer problem; in fact, I couldn't have told you the first thing about either of them. I wanted to know about the anomalies of my experience.

The first place to look for answers was my experience. Did these correlations replicate? What parameters could be altered, and what, if any, were the corresponding effects? What experiments might be designed to determine if cause-effect relationships were in play? What limits existed to these effects?

The next place to look was at the experiences of others. Who else had these types of experiences? What were they called? How were they studied? What was documented and known about them? How did it match to what I experience? Thus began my affinity with parapsychological research.

After that came the search for the mechanisms behind the effects. Parapsychologists were focusing on the effects themselves and on the correlations (personality types, etc.) that went with them. But what lay behind those effects? Ultimately this leads to the study of consciousness, the brain, and the mind. And it was only here that I really began to study the concepts of quantum physics. Even then, the concepts of navigating parallel universes/the multiverse/5-dimensions represented a progression of ideas as more and more pieces fell into place.

The next step with a new idea was, of course, replication. Could I teach someone else to produce these effects using these methods? Only after satisfying myself that the answer to this question was 'yes' did I decide this was something to talk about.