Entangled Expectations

I have to get this out of my system before I can finish reading this paper... Pardon me.

Here's the paper I'm in the middle of reading... Lucadou, W.v., Romer, H., and Walach, H., (2007) , 'Synchronistic Phenomena as Entanglment Correlations in Generalized Quantum Theory', Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14 (4), pp. 50-74. (abstract)

The premise of the paper is that entanglement correlations will explain 'synchronistic or psi' phenomena. Can't argue with that yet, because I haven't gotten that far into the paper.

I stopped at the descriptions of various 'observations' associated with psi phenomena. Quoting now from pages 52-53 (my emphasis)...

(a) The well known decline effect: Whenever a psi-experiment at first shows positive results, later data or replications will wipe out the primarily observed effect and will, possibly after tantalising revivals (see footnote 8) eventually level off to the null hypothesis.

(b) The reciprocity between effect strength and reliability of psi phenomena: the more drastic an effect, the less reproducible it turns out to be and vice versa.

(c) Elusiveness (evasion): When one tries to pinpoint psi phenomena, they show a tendency to disappear, where they are sought for and to surface at some other unexpected place. This is the so-called displacement effect.

(end quote)

I'm going to argue that there is already an underlying common denominator in these phenomena. It is the same denominator that we've touched on before in this blog. The common thread here is EXPECTATION.

Picking apart the wording of these descriptions will point out that in each case observations have been made that alter expectations for future results. Here we go...

"Whenever a psi-experiment at first shows positive results [observation], later data or replications will wipe out the primarily observed effect [fail to meet the expectation generated by the first observation that such results continue at the given strength/rate]" When you think about it, expectations are really the only things that change from the first set of results and the later data or replications. None of the conditions of the experiment change. One has to wonder if failure to observe the first set of results would have allowed the effect to continue unchecked.

"the more drastic an effect ['drastic' means I have compare this effect to previous effects I have observed and expectations I have about what should be a normal effect], the less reproducible it turns out to be and vice versa [Bigger effects are, by definition, more signifcant to the observers. The more significant an effect is, the more impact it has in the reorganization of associated memories and the generation of future expectations.]"

"When one tries to pinpoint psi phenomena ['pinpoint' means that I know when and where I can expect to see psi phenomena], they show a tendency to disappear, where they are sought for [expected] and to surface at some other unexpected place [didn't even have to insert the word]"

Expectations and their various components and precursors are what we use to navigate in Smearland. Sometimes the effects are intentional (if you are good at what you are doing), and sometimes they are unintentional. Expectations can be manipulated fairly easily, leading to a plethora of testable hypotheses.

I expect that I will now be able to calmly finish reading this paper. :)

Shermer's Secret

I admit it. I did it. In the name of research, I finally watched the movie The Secret. (And because I was also interested in seeing how people reacted to such an idea, I went to a metaphysics group showing of the movie.)

My first reaction to the movie - "Oh my God, this is boring!" I expected the watered-down psuedo-science on the level of What the Bleep, but this just took too much time to say too little of practical value. Most of the time was spent saying it again and again and again.

Skeptic Michael Shermer wrote about The Secret in this month's Scientific American. He does a great job of tearing apart the 'science' that was presented, so I won't repeat those observations here. I do want to say one thing though... the fact that this movie presented such weak 'science' in an attempt to support the idea that we can somehow control our experiences does not mean that the idea is invalid. Some people are able to exert predictable, repeatable effects upon the outcomes they observe. I'm arguing that the actual mechanism is still waiting to be brought to light.

More fascinating than the movie were the reactions to it from the various members of the group I was with. My observations from that discussion...

1) Across the board it seems, people feel safer discussing this idea when it is applied to trivial issues, such as finding a parking space or getting green lights when driving. (This phenomenon could be a series of blog entries in and of itself.)

2) No one liked the fact that someone would charge money to share this knowledge. Apparently that's not too 'enlightened'. (I object to charging money for something with such poorly detailed information as to the actual procedures for practical use.)

3) Only one person brought up the fact that this idea could be put to use in malignant ways. (And he was the person that everyone had a bad reaction to before his comments.) Just as we were beginning to drift into a productive discussion on ethics, the group ended.

One final note...

Shermer's objections to The Secret also come in the form of 'No one would have chosen that evil/suffering/tragedy for themselves. How can you say that their thoughts brought them that?!' That's a valid objection that needs to be addressed by any system/theory that claims that the mind has an influence on reality, including mine.

In the Palaces of Memory

"The wizard knows that to be truly alive, she must die to the past at every moment."

Since I had to choose something a bit more conventional to study in graduate school, I ended up studying memory. Good choice, as it turns out.

I hinted at the importance of memory mechanisms last week. How is it useful to understand the fragile nature of memory, the different levels of encoding, the mechanisms of encoding, the role of attention in encoding, the function of sleep in sorting partially-processed information, long-term potentiation, etc.?

So glad you asked.

Current theories of quantum physics hold that once I have observed the outcome, something (the wave function) has 'collapsed' and the outcome I observed is now the only possible outcome I will ever observe. Gotta disagree there... A observation is nothing more than a particular pattern of neural activity. Further, it is a pattern of activity at a particular moment in time. That pattern of activity, which is the sum of goings-on at the subatomic level, will influence future patterns of activity, but there is nothing supporting the idea that an observation casts a permanent change in the state of universe, other than that usually most future observations are consistent with it. This does not mean that future observations have to be consistent with it.

And how do we know that most observations are consistent with past observations? By accessing our memories of past observations. Suppose it were possible to find a future outcome that is inconsistent with a past outcome, and to have experienced them both? (Remember the UNDO project?) So let's ask the following questions...

What does it mean to UNDO an event? What factors might determine whether an event can be UNDONE?

To 'UNDO' an event means that new observations exist, and that these observations are inconsistent with previous observations. Furthermore, this inconsistency cannot be resolved with a 4-dimensional explanation. It's possible an event could be fully or partially UNDONE. Accordingly, new observations can be described in terms of their consistency with past observations using the following continuum...

consistent -- compatible -- inconsistent -- incompatible

You cannot tell that an event has been UNDONE until key observations exist which are incompatible.

Which raises the second question - What factors might determine whether or not an event can be UNDONE? From the Smearland perspective, the short answer is - the number and strength of the memories that must be 'overwritten' and/or contradicted. An event that is like many other events has little weight in the neural net. It might be more difficult to counter the impact of an event that is unique and significant.

Break it down a little bit more... A 'significant' event is one that generates many other moments of conscious experience (leaving many memory traces), and therefore has a lot of potential to influence expectations about future events/outcomes. A significant event will be much more difficult to UNDO in a single shot. An insignificant event, which is not prioritized within the neural net, is less likely to be recalled when a contradiction arises, or when expectations are being formed about a new event/outcome.

There's a lot more to be said about the role of memory, and the process of UNDOing. But unless you have personally experienced two sets of incompatible observations, you will need to think about this for awhile to understand the true impact of what I'm suggesting.

Je L'ay Emprins

"How strange are the manuscripts, great traveler of the unknown. They appear separately, but seem as one to those who know that the colors of the rainbow become a single white light. How to find that single ray?"

I guess no one ever said this would be easy.

When I talk about this idea to anyone with a science background, I inevitably get some version of the following... Well, how does that fit with what (name)'s book/paper/theory says about consciousness/neuroscience/physics?

Quite frequently I can't answer that question because I haven't read said book/paper. I would probably be shooting myself in the foot to name all the 'significant' books and papers I haven't read. What I have read has been largely determined by the data I was looking at.

Nothing will get you to Smearland faster than paying attention to what is going on in your own mind. (Read that sentence again.)

The books and papers I have mentioned here will help you figure out to what you should be paying attention. They may give you the necessary jolt that changes your perspective just enough that you can begin to see what we are talking about. But that is all they will do. By themselves they will never convince you that anything we've discussed here is valid. Only data will do that, and rightly so.

"Do not accept what you hear by report, do not accept tradition, do not accept a statement because it is found in our books, nor because it is the saying of your teacher... Be ye lamps unto yourselves."

When, Why ...If

An it harm none, do as ye will.

As you make your way into Smearland and you begin to see exactly what is possible, you will be tempted to try a few things out.

I'm not going to tell you what you should and shouldn't try if/when you find yourself able to navigate at will in 5 dimensions. I have no authority to do so.

I will tell you that the Universe has absolutely no problem kicking your ass if you get too cocky or arrogant, or do something you know you shouldn't be doing. It seems to be a self-correcting system that is limited only by its input. Most of us can't escape the input from our conscience. And arrogance alters our expectations of ourselves and those around us.

Neural networks are a good analogy. Every time you activate a particular node, you change the likelihood that that same node will fire (pass on a signal) the next time it, or the nodes surrounding it, are activated. One activation may also change the level of activation that is necessary for it to pass on that signal the next time. Navigation in Smearland has a whole lot to do with what is going on in your brain. Neurons activating and firing are the sources of chemicals, and chemicals are the (ultimately) the sources of subatmoic particles. I'm grossly oversimplifying this right now - we haven't even begun to talk about the mechanisms of memory, attention, emotions, etc. - but trust me when I say that each action alters the potentials associated with future action.

I highly recommend educating yourself - psychology and neuroscience being more important than physics at this point. The paradigm of 5-dimensional existence is so new that many, if not all, of our assumptions about the ways things are can be questioned. It is largely from these assumptions that we derive ethics. I'm not saying that you should not be guided by an ethical or moral code of some kind; I'm saying that I am not able to tell you which one is best and why. That you will have to decide for yourself based on reason and experience.

And if you are in Smearland and you begin to feel the pull of the 'save the cheerleader, save the world' mentality, might I highly recommend Robin Wood's book When, Why ...If.

The Mind Over Matter Study

The Rhine Research Center, haven for parapsychological research, has the following on their website...

"There are reports from all cultures throughout history in which objects or events in the environment appear to be influenced by the human mind. We are looking for people who may have experienced such effects known as psychokinesis or PK (also called telekinesis) to participate in a research study at the Rhine Research Center.

PK experiences are those where your conscious or unconscious mind seems to directly influence the physical world around you, without the use of any known physical means. Some examples might be: affecting the roll of dice, affecting lights or other electrical equipment, affecting your computer, bending spoons, moving objects, or psychic healing. Unexplained physical effects are also reported surrounding times of near-death, dying or after the death of a loved one, for example, a clock stopping at the exact time of someone’s death. These are also of interest for this study.

We are collecting reports of this type of experiences and would love to hear from you by email or postal mail. At a later stage we will be undertaking face-to-face or telephone interviews with some individuals who have experienced this type of phenomena, and who are willing to discuss their experiences in more detail. All reports are confidential."

I wonder what they would make of this story...

Once upon a time, I had a seasonal job dealing blackjack at casino parties. (Come on, you knew I was going to try that.)

It was a slow night, and near the end of the night a man walked up to my table. People play for fake money at these parties, and they usually use that fake money to buy raffle tickets or to participate in some kind of bidding for prizes. This man (naturally) wanted to win some more money before the end of the night. My table is empty and he quips to me something to the effect of 'Is this a lucky table?'. (Knowing smile.) Me: Let me see what I can do for you, sir.

He plays all seven available hands at the table, and bets the max ($5000) on each hand. At this point, I don't just want to ensure that he wins one or two hands; I want to ensure that he wins every hand. (I get a little cocky when challenged.) To ensure that he wins every hand, I first have to ensure that none of his hands bust. Which I did. I didn't do this by focusing on the initial two cards in each hand; focusing on getting him one or two blackjacks probably would have resulted in less of a payout overall because I would have been working within a less favorable framework of events. Rather, I waited until there was a need to control the outcome - i.e., when the man felt compelled to hit for more cards. (We haven't discussed the advantages of a dichotomous split in possible outcomes yet, but that's the tool I used to keep him from busting in these situations.)

After he played out his seven hands (all of which were still viable), I then had to focus on my hand. And the easiest way for him to win was for me to bust. Which I did. That man walked away with an extra $35,000 and never had a clue as to what went down during that game. He didn't even tip his friendly (and talented) dealer.

Do-It-Yourself Quantum Eraser

Here's something interesting to play around with, provided you have and can find the 'business end' of a laser. Also, check out the accompanying article from this month's issue of Scientific American.

The gist of the article is this - "How particles behave can depend on what information about them can possibly be accessed... By removing information about things that have happened, a quantum eraser seemingly influences past events."

When we are thinking about that sentence in Smearland, we are thinking in terms of what the observer can see at the moment and how that process is impacted by what the observer has seen previously and the knowledge that the observer has which generates expectations about what s/he should be seeing.

The fact that we can see this effect at all should be telling us NOT that the world out there is incomprehensibly strange, but that our ability to interface with whatever the ultimate state of reality is (conscious experience) has some interesting limitations. (Are they limits that can be transcended? Absolutely.) What would happen if we looked at this effect from the perspective of what is going on inside the observer, and used these perceived limitations to work backwards to something that might be an essential component/substrate of conscious experience? One big question to ponder - Why are we incapable of perceiving matter in its smeared state?

Other questions to think about...

Would it be possible to replicate the same kind of quantum erasing if the only information that needed to be 'erased' existed in human memory? (Yes.)

Is there any good reason to think that the nature of the memory enneagram containing the information about a particle might be substantially different than the nature of the enneagram containing information about a larger object or event? (Nope.)

To Tell A Tall Tale

"All at once, I think, it came to him that the lecturer must remain standing in the square on a rickety soapbox and speak at the top of his lungs, and be heckled by boobs... but the storyteller sits in cross-legged comfort in the shade, and his listeners crowd round to hear him whisper, offering beer for his sore throat. And when he is done, they give him money, without him even asking."

There have been a couple of times when I've thought of chucking it all and becoming a science fiction writer. Inspire the next generation in much the same way I was inspired.

Chris Roberson can say the following, and people eat it up. (Lucky him!)

"I found a way to escape, rising above the four-dimensional limitations of space and time to grow into a being of five dimensions, able to survive in and navigate the larger world beyond." - Chris Roberson, Here, There, & Everywhere, (2005), p. 272.

But I guess ultimately I still want the research project and collaborators and the chance to see where someone else can take this research. At least one person found a way to have both... (Read that last one twice and then do some googling.)