"To refuse this challenge of providing something entirely new in the world would be to fall somewhat short of our full humanity."
[ASIDE: Several months ago I googled Gerald Feinberg to see if he had ever written a follow-up piece to The Prometheus Project: Mankind's Search for Long-Range Goals (1969). Sadly, I learned that he had passed away in 1992, and I was unable to locate any follow-up to this optimistic vision of man's potential to shape his future.]
But on to business... that being, the ongoing search/struggle for a formula/mathematical model.
Let me just say that strange thoughts about matrix manipulations have now returned to plague me at odd moments. My search for a workable model of 5-dimensional navigation devolved some years ago into a struggle to master and manipulate matrix mechanics. But I never succeeded in creating a model of anything more than a single aspect of what I felt needed to be represented. I don't remember how I decided to use matrices and matrix operations for these representations, save that I was not familiar enough with anything else (say, set topology) to be able to use it for what I needed.
Anyway, as this progressed, I got further and further into the intricacies of matrix mechanices, and farther and farther from the big picture I was trying to capture. And I was never really sure a matrix representation would work at all. There were too many things I still didn't know how to represent using matrix mechanics... How could I model degree of correspondence between representations? How could I model forward flow of information, and feedback, and priming? Was it possible to model emotion or conviction or attention as operators with differing effects on the mental representation's position in determining the final outcome? Can you use matrices as members of a zero-sum set? (And so it went.)
Eventually I decided to table the model-creating until after I had achieved some brilliant insight that would enable it to go much faster. (Translation: This isn't working.)
Staring in the mirror this morning, I came to the moderately depressing realization that I was probably not going to be the recipient of such a gift of sudden insight. If I want to create a working model, I am probably going to have to model (independently) all the various aspects of 5-dimensional navigation as I believe I understand them, and then hope a more global model can somehow be synthesized from the results. (Oy.)
Which brings me back to the thought - "This would be so much easier if someone else were here in Smearland with me!"
"The Prometheus Project cannot be an effort of one man, or a small number of men, since no small group can encompass the total wisdom or feelings of mankind. I am writing in the hope of stimulating enough interest in these questions so that eventually a sizable fraction of the human race will take part in the discussion..."
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
A Shortcut Through Time (Pt III)
"It seems to me quite likely that the risks of plunging every day into the unconscious without a tether are considerable... it is too easy to become overwhelmed by ego after successful trials. I do it very well and it scares me. So I don't do it in general."
After the training exercise that produced The 5th Dimension: Channels to a New Reality, I didn't push too many other boundaries for awhile. (Yep. That book is still sitting on the bookshelf, waiting to be read... someday.)
One day though, in the afterglow of some surfing, I wondered briefly if I could task to an object that represented information about an event whose outcome I had not yet observed. Just a very vague, half-formed thought. Couldn't be considered proper protocol for any type of training exercise. But then there was an object, right in front of me, commanding my attention. 'Alright, I'll study the object', I thought, with no particular expectations about what parameters, if any, of the object would contain significant information.
Once I had observed the outcome of the event, I began to analyze the object in light of the event. That analysis morphed into an experience that must be one of the closest things I have ever had to a mystical experience. (I don't really know what a mystical experience is, so I'm guessing here.) I could see connections between almost every element of the object, and the event - concepts, words, symbolism, connections between ideas. That experience became so disconcerting that I soon had to stop thinking about the whole thing.
But it did make me seriously think about the nature of information, time, and reality in general. For awhile, anyway. Then self-preservation kicked in and I went to find some coffee. ;)
After the training exercise that produced The 5th Dimension: Channels to a New Reality, I didn't push too many other boundaries for awhile. (Yep. That book is still sitting on the bookshelf, waiting to be read... someday.)
One day though, in the afterglow of some surfing, I wondered briefly if I could task to an object that represented information about an event whose outcome I had not yet observed. Just a very vague, half-formed thought. Couldn't be considered proper protocol for any type of training exercise. But then there was an object, right in front of me, commanding my attention. 'Alright, I'll study the object', I thought, with no particular expectations about what parameters, if any, of the object would contain significant information.
Once I had observed the outcome of the event, I began to analyze the object in light of the event. That analysis morphed into an experience that must be one of the closest things I have ever had to a mystical experience. (I don't really know what a mystical experience is, so I'm guessing here.) I could see connections between almost every element of the object, and the event - concepts, words, symbolism, connections between ideas. That experience became so disconcerting that I soon had to stop thinking about the whole thing.
But it did make me seriously think about the nature of information, time, and reality in general. For awhile, anyway. Then self-preservation kicked in and I went to find some coffee. ;)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
A Shortcut Through Time (Pt II)
"I had become a [scientist] in large part because I considered science - pure science, the search for knowledge for its own sake - to be the noblest and most meaningful of human endeavors. We are here to figure out why we are here. What other purpose is worthy of us?"
I like puzzles. I played Set until I mastered it. (Nineteen seconds was my personal record. Pardon me if I brag a little bit. ;) Some might say that I get a daily paper primarily for the Sudoku puzzle. And then there is the word scramble...
LYRCIAT
Normally you solve this puzzle by systematically re-ordering subsets of the letters to make recognizable pairings. EX: 'LY' is commonly seen at the end of words. You keep doing this until you recognize where all the letters fit to form the unscrambled word. ('No kidding!' you are thinking.)
The point is, that solving this puzzle usually involves 1) a serial set of tasks, 2) which are performed consciously. You are aware of the process that results in the solution. Well, usually...
Many times when I have played this puzzle, I have had the experience of looking at the scrambled word - not staring at it, mind you, but looking at it for a second or so - and then looking up to begin the systematic process of unscrambling the word. And before I can begin the process, the unscrambled word appears in my conscious awareness, before any conscious processing could take place. (And it's right.) This is a little bit disturbing to experience, for the following reasons...
1) There is only a matter of a second or two between the time the scrambled word was acquired for processing, and the time the solution appears in consciousness. This is not enough time to complete the serial set of tasks needed solve the puzzle in the conventional way.
2) I haven't played this puzzle so much that I could be familiar with all the possible words used and all possible recombinations of the letters of those words.
3) There is no context from which the word can be inferred. And these aren't words that you see every day, though the combination of letters in them are not usually unique enough to make the word obvious.
One day, after I had spent a few minutes thinking about that 'instant solution' experience, I had the thought - 'I wonder if this is what it's like to be a quantum computer.'
These experiences led me to ask the following questions...
Was I really bypassing the serial tasks involved in solving the puzzle? Or were they happening, but just at a much faster rate than what can be shunted through conscious awareness? And if that was the case, what does that say about the concept of time? Does it imply that our ability to consciously perceive time is drastically slower than the speed at which processing in our brain can/does occur?
My experience with the Set puzzle was an ongoing study in the process of pattern recognition. When I began to play Set, it took me 5 to 6 minutes to solve the puzzles. Eventually I broke the 60 second barrier. Then I was consistently solving the puzzle in less than 30 seconds. The sets began to 'jump out' at me. I had managed to train some part of my brain to recognize a very specific set of cues in a very specific setting. I was recognizing the sets more quickly each time I played the puzzle, despite the fact that the actually cards in the sets were not the same ever time, nor was I limited to searching for only one or two patterns. (Seriously, read the rules and try the game. It's fun!)
Had some similar kind of complex pattern recognition network been building all the while I had been playing the word scramble puzzle? If so, how did it get so fast?
Or, was I pulling the solution into awareness from a future point in time? Perhaps from a point in time after I had verified the solution? Hmm...
(Have you figured out the word yet?)
I like puzzles. I played Set until I mastered it. (Nineteen seconds was my personal record. Pardon me if I brag a little bit. ;) Some might say that I get a daily paper primarily for the Sudoku puzzle. And then there is the word scramble...
LYRCIAT
Normally you solve this puzzle by systematically re-ordering subsets of the letters to make recognizable pairings. EX: 'LY' is commonly seen at the end of words. You keep doing this until you recognize where all the letters fit to form the unscrambled word. ('No kidding!' you are thinking.)
The point is, that solving this puzzle usually involves 1) a serial set of tasks, 2) which are performed consciously. You are aware of the process that results in the solution. Well, usually...
Many times when I have played this puzzle, I have had the experience of looking at the scrambled word - not staring at it, mind you, but looking at it for a second or so - and then looking up to begin the systematic process of unscrambling the word. And before I can begin the process, the unscrambled word appears in my conscious awareness, before any conscious processing could take place. (And it's right.) This is a little bit disturbing to experience, for the following reasons...
1) There is only a matter of a second or two between the time the scrambled word was acquired for processing, and the time the solution appears in consciousness. This is not enough time to complete the serial set of tasks needed solve the puzzle in the conventional way.
2) I haven't played this puzzle so much that I could be familiar with all the possible words used and all possible recombinations of the letters of those words.
3) There is no context from which the word can be inferred. And these aren't words that you see every day, though the combination of letters in them are not usually unique enough to make the word obvious.
One day, after I had spent a few minutes thinking about that 'instant solution' experience, I had the thought - 'I wonder if this is what it's like to be a quantum computer.'
These experiences led me to ask the following questions...
Was I really bypassing the serial tasks involved in solving the puzzle? Or were they happening, but just at a much faster rate than what can be shunted through conscious awareness? And if that was the case, what does that say about the concept of time? Does it imply that our ability to consciously perceive time is drastically slower than the speed at which processing in our brain can/does occur?
My experience with the Set puzzle was an ongoing study in the process of pattern recognition. When I began to play Set, it took me 5 to 6 minutes to solve the puzzles. Eventually I broke the 60 second barrier. Then I was consistently solving the puzzle in less than 30 seconds. The sets began to 'jump out' at me. I had managed to train some part of my brain to recognize a very specific set of cues in a very specific setting. I was recognizing the sets more quickly each time I played the puzzle, despite the fact that the actually cards in the sets were not the same ever time, nor was I limited to searching for only one or two patterns. (Seriously, read the rules and try the game. It's fun!)
Had some similar kind of complex pattern recognition network been building all the while I had been playing the word scramble puzzle? If so, how did it get so fast?
Or, was I pulling the solution into awareness from a future point in time? Perhaps from a point in time after I had verified the solution? Hmm...
(Have you figured out the word yet?)
Monday, October 15, 2007
A Shortcut Through Time (Pt I)
"... what if expectation acts to focus our attention on our potential future states, and allows us to 'select' favorable paths to pursue? If gaining information from our futures were possible, then in principle we might be able to navigate through potential futures to achieve a desired outcome." - Radin and Lobach (2007) (here)
Reading that paper got me thinking... and remembering...
One of the first things I wondered about, after accepting that there was a correlation between certain states of expectation and the outcomes I actually observed, was whether or not this was some form of convoluted, inverted precognition (an effect of the actual outcome that traveled back in time), or whether my expectations were somehow the cause of the outcome. Somewhere along the way, I decide to focus on the causal perspective, and from then on I researched primarily from that perspective.
I don't have a whole lot of notes from that period, as it is generally easier not to leave crazy-sounding notes lying around when one has roommates. ;) But I do remember thinking that if it were more cause than effect, then I should be able to change my expectations mid-way to the outcome and see the corresponding results in the observed outcome.
Here's an illustration... Let's say I flip a coin. Prior to observing the outcome, I generate the expectational components that steer me towards the outcome 'Heads'. Then I change my mind. I now want the outcome 'Tails'. So I go about generating the various representations that will steer me to 'Tails'. Which outcome will I observe, and how will that outcome be determined?
What I found across repetitions and a variety of outcome situations boiled down to this ... Those expectational components and representations of the outcome that were more accurate, more vivid, more convincing, and which utilized more of my attention, determined the outcome I observed. If I were better able to generate the required representations after I had decided to steer towards a different outcome, then I was going to get the 'changed my mind' outcome.
This result also helped lock me into a causal mode of thinking about this effect. It really seemed like there was something (a forces model was helpful to me at this time) that was summing together, and the end result was rather like adding a positive and a negative number. Whichever number had a higher absolute value won out.
Needless to say, that is probably an overly simplistic representation of what is actually happening.
And now, among other things, I want to know... can the causal role (if any) of non-observational states upon the actual outcome be separated from the effect of the actual observation (traveling back in time) upon those same pre-outcome non-observational states? What would information traveling backwards in time from a future outcome feel like as an experience? Is it possible to enhance sensitivity to this type of effect as well?
Hmmm... must find more coffee now...
Reading that paper got me thinking... and remembering...
One of the first things I wondered about, after accepting that there was a correlation between certain states of expectation and the outcomes I actually observed, was whether or not this was some form of convoluted, inverted precognition (an effect of the actual outcome that traveled back in time), or whether my expectations were somehow the cause of the outcome. Somewhere along the way, I decide to focus on the causal perspective, and from then on I researched primarily from that perspective.
I don't have a whole lot of notes from that period, as it is generally easier not to leave crazy-sounding notes lying around when one has roommates. ;) But I do remember thinking that if it were more cause than effect, then I should be able to change my expectations mid-way to the outcome and see the corresponding results in the observed outcome.
Here's an illustration... Let's say I flip a coin. Prior to observing the outcome, I generate the expectational components that steer me towards the outcome 'Heads'. Then I change my mind. I now want the outcome 'Tails'. So I go about generating the various representations that will steer me to 'Tails'. Which outcome will I observe, and how will that outcome be determined?
What I found across repetitions and a variety of outcome situations boiled down to this ... Those expectational components and representations of the outcome that were more accurate, more vivid, more convincing, and which utilized more of my attention, determined the outcome I observed. If I were better able to generate the required representations after I had decided to steer towards a different outcome, then I was going to get the 'changed my mind' outcome.
This result also helped lock me into a causal mode of thinking about this effect. It really seemed like there was something (a forces model was helpful to me at this time) that was summing together, and the end result was rather like adding a positive and a negative number. Whichever number had a higher absolute value won out.
Needless to say, that is probably an overly simplistic representation of what is actually happening.
And now, among other things, I want to know... can the causal role (if any) of non-observational states upon the actual outcome be separated from the effect of the actual observation (traveling back in time) upon those same pre-outcome non-observational states? What would information traveling backwards in time from a future outcome feel like as an experience? Is it possible to enhance sensitivity to this type of effect as well?
Hmmm... must find more coffee now...
Friday, August 03, 2007
What Happens In Vegas
(Time for another story...)
Once upon a time, I attended a convention. At this convention, I attended a talk. Prior to the talk, I conversed with two individuals sitting next to me. They asked what I did, I told them about what I was studying and, like clockwork, their eyebrows went up in the fashion of skeptics everywhere. "A demonstration is in order," thought I.
There were roughly 100 people attending this talk, and two fairly substantial and desirable door prizes were to be given away before the talk ended. Skipping to the end of the story... Yes, I walked away with one of the door prizes. The interesting part of this story is HOW I plotted a trajectory through Smearland that led a universe where I won one of the door prizes.
To be a truly impressive feat in keeping with my claims, the door prizes would have to be given away in some random fashion. (As opposed to as prizes for a competition which involved knowledge or skill.) Task #1 - Make sure we end up in the universe where the prizes are given away via some random or quasi-random system. (Done.)
Task #2 involved the framework problem. The gist of my problem was this... Under these circumstances, it would have been more difficult for me to navigate to the winning universe if only one critical observation were involved. Ex: If every person had a unique number, all numbers were put into a bin, and two were selected at random. Task #2 - Secure a more favorable framework of observations. (Done. I found the universe where a subgroup of the audience was selected, and then from the subgroup, a winner. Much easier course to navigate for reasons we will discuss later.)
Task #3 - Find the universe where I win one of the door prizes. (Done.)
Task #4 should have been to ensure that I also landed in a universe where the individuals in question put two and two together and concluded that I did know what I was talking about. Alas, I failed in this task. Probably because I was too preoccupied with winning, and I assumed (fatal error) that recognition would follow.
The moral of this story is that each task involves its own critical observations, and each observation was critical in determining the nature and success of the next task. This is the nature of navigating through Smearland. You need to be aware of what other possible outcomes might arise before they occur. You also need to be aware of how one result will impact your ability to see the next set of outcomes and to generate the forces necessary to select that outcome at will.
What would have happened if I had not been successful in Task #2? Of if I had not thought to find a universe other than the obvious one where the two winners were drawn from a pool of all audience members at random? Certainly, if I had won under those circumstance, my skeptic friends may have remembered our conversation and been a little impressed, but the point is, one way or another, I decided to find a universe where I won, and I did. :) Shhh... don't tell anyone.
Once upon a time, I attended a convention. At this convention, I attended a talk. Prior to the talk, I conversed with two individuals sitting next to me. They asked what I did, I told them about what I was studying and, like clockwork, their eyebrows went up in the fashion of skeptics everywhere. "A demonstration is in order," thought I.
There were roughly 100 people attending this talk, and two fairly substantial and desirable door prizes were to be given away before the talk ended. Skipping to the end of the story... Yes, I walked away with one of the door prizes. The interesting part of this story is HOW I plotted a trajectory through Smearland that led a universe where I won one of the door prizes.
To be a truly impressive feat in keeping with my claims, the door prizes would have to be given away in some random fashion. (As opposed to as prizes for a competition which involved knowledge or skill.) Task #1 - Make sure we end up in the universe where the prizes are given away via some random or quasi-random system. (Done.)
Task #2 involved the framework problem. The gist of my problem was this... Under these circumstances, it would have been more difficult for me to navigate to the winning universe if only one critical observation were involved. Ex: If every person had a unique number, all numbers were put into a bin, and two were selected at random. Task #2 - Secure a more favorable framework of observations. (Done. I found the universe where a subgroup of the audience was selected, and then from the subgroup, a winner. Much easier course to navigate for reasons we will discuss later.)
Task #3 - Find the universe where I win one of the door prizes. (Done.)
Task #4 should have been to ensure that I also landed in a universe where the individuals in question put two and two together and concluded that I did know what I was talking about. Alas, I failed in this task. Probably because I was too preoccupied with winning, and I assumed (fatal error) that recognition would follow.
The moral of this story is that each task involves its own critical observations, and each observation was critical in determining the nature and success of the next task. This is the nature of navigating through Smearland. You need to be aware of what other possible outcomes might arise before they occur. You also need to be aware of how one result will impact your ability to see the next set of outcomes and to generate the forces necessary to select that outcome at will.
What would have happened if I had not been successful in Task #2? Of if I had not thought to find a universe other than the obvious one where the two winners were drawn from a pool of all audience members at random? Certainly, if I had won under those circumstance, my skeptic friends may have remembered our conversation and been a little impressed, but the point is, one way or another, I decided to find a universe where I won, and I did. :) Shhh... don't tell anyone.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Journal Club #4
I've talked a bit about expectations. So, what happens when you try to manipulate expectations within the context of a psi experiment?
Pitman, J. A., The effect of manipulating expectations both before and during a test of ESP. Journal of Parapsychology, Spring 2004. (here)
This paper begins with a very general overview of expectations as they may relate to psi performance. The thing to note here is that 'expectations' are never precisely defined in terms of their components - mental imagery, representations of time, degree and nature of emotional content, changes in expectations as testing progresses, etc. It's assumed that everyone has the same definition of 'expectation' and that 'expectation' means the same thing in every study that is discussed. This means that 'expectations' are not being manipulated with a level of precision that will easily lead to future testable hypotheses.
Pitman presents two experiments which have basically the same design. The second experiment corrects subtle flaws in 'random' presentation and increases the number of subjects, as compared to the first experiment. Pitman manipulates expectation in two ways - by artificially inflating (or not) the degree of positive feedback the subjects are given about their ESP 'guessing' trials, and by giving them a placebo (or not) that is presented as a substance that enhances ESP. We are largely left to speculate as to what the actual effects of these manipulations might be upon expectations for success. It is assumed that subjects will have greater expectations of success when given the 'ESP-enhancing' placebo and when given artificially inflated positive ('false') feedback about their success. But again, the nature of these expectations is never elaborated upon.
In both experiments, Pitman found a significant interaction between the placebo manipulation and the feedback manipulation.
"When participants were given false feedback, there was a placebo effect... However, when participants were given true feedback, there was no placebo effect... Further, when participants were given a placebo, there was an effect of feedback... However, when participants were not given a placebo, there was no effect of feedback." (Results - Experiment 1; confirmed in Experiment 2)
In other words, unless your expectations were (theoretically) artificially inflated in two different ways at the same time, your performance was no different from that of everyone else in the study.
Pitman acknowledges that this is a problematic result. "Without a significant effect for the placebo manipulation in increasing predicted ESP performance, explanation of the additive performance for placebo and falsely positive feedback is challenging." (Her next sentence brings to light an additional problem with this study - "One must conclude that all participants started the ESP test with similar levels of expectancy...". Yeah, that's a problem for many reasons.)
I think it's a fascinating result. Due to the imprecise definition of 'expectation' and the vague manipulations thereof in this experiment (and pretty much all similar studies), any conclusion that I would attempt to draw from the data would be highly speculative. But go ahead and twist my arm... okay, okay, I'll speculate.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that, with two sources for expectations of success, participants may have been able to shift their attention between two significantly different frameworks. For example, when I am told that I got the answer wrong, I may be able to shift my attention and draw upon my expectations about the placebo, and it may take several trials worth of false positive feedback for my expectations to again center on the outcome/feedback. With only a single source of expectation for success, my expectations will probably begin to be altered in the subtle ways that lead to a pull towards the opposite outcome. (I tried some of this out on slot machines in Las Vegas. I could only be successful for so long before my expectations, by virtue of simple exposure to success, had qualitatively changed to the point where, without a much greater effort, I was pulled towards an unsuccessful outcome.)
Before I digress too far, I should point out that other studies have shown effects of a single manipulation of expectation. Pitman points out that J.B. Rhine was successful in getting a single main effect of placebo upon ESP performance. Other studies have also attempted to manipulate the participants' beliefs about ESP in an (sometimes successful) attempt to improve their performance. So further speculation about the results of this study would probably only be productive if I were able to include the other studies for comparison purposes.
Subjects in this study were also asked to predict their ESP scores prior to testing, but it appears that these predictions were collected after the placebo manipulation. Of course it's possible that asking the subjects to quantify expectations had an effect in and of itself, but there are not enough details about when and how this data was collected to allow for useful speculation.
The author attempts to make further inferences about 'expectation' as it relates to the subjects' scores on the 'sheep-goat' scale of psi belief, but these are not the expectations we are interested in, and therefore they will not be discussed here. The expectations that occur at the time of testing are, IMHO, the ones most likely to influence the outcome. Their nature most closely matches the representations of the outcome and success or failure, therefore these are the expectations that I think need to be more carefully teased apart and manipulated in future testing.
Kudos to Pitman for a simple, elegant experimental design, and a fascinating finding!
Pitman, J. A., The effect of manipulating expectations both before and during a test of ESP. Journal of Parapsychology, Spring 2004. (here)
This paper begins with a very general overview of expectations as they may relate to psi performance. The thing to note here is that 'expectations' are never precisely defined in terms of their components - mental imagery, representations of time, degree and nature of emotional content, changes in expectations as testing progresses, etc. It's assumed that everyone has the same definition of 'expectation' and that 'expectation' means the same thing in every study that is discussed. This means that 'expectations' are not being manipulated with a level of precision that will easily lead to future testable hypotheses.
Pitman presents two experiments which have basically the same design. The second experiment corrects subtle flaws in 'random' presentation and increases the number of subjects, as compared to the first experiment. Pitman manipulates expectation in two ways - by artificially inflating (or not) the degree of positive feedback the subjects are given about their ESP 'guessing' trials, and by giving them a placebo (or not) that is presented as a substance that enhances ESP. We are largely left to speculate as to what the actual effects of these manipulations might be upon expectations for success. It is assumed that subjects will have greater expectations of success when given the 'ESP-enhancing' placebo and when given artificially inflated positive ('false') feedback about their success. But again, the nature of these expectations is never elaborated upon.
In both experiments, Pitman found a significant interaction between the placebo manipulation and the feedback manipulation.
"When participants were given false feedback, there was a placebo effect... However, when participants were given true feedback, there was no placebo effect... Further, when participants were given a placebo, there was an effect of feedback... However, when participants were not given a placebo, there was no effect of feedback." (Results - Experiment 1; confirmed in Experiment 2)
In other words, unless your expectations were (theoretically) artificially inflated in two different ways at the same time, your performance was no different from that of everyone else in the study.
Pitman acknowledges that this is a problematic result. "Without a significant effect for the placebo manipulation in increasing predicted ESP performance, explanation of the additive performance for placebo and falsely positive feedback is challenging." (Her next sentence brings to light an additional problem with this study - "One must conclude that all participants started the ESP test with similar levels of expectancy...". Yeah, that's a problem for many reasons.)
I think it's a fascinating result. Due to the imprecise definition of 'expectation' and the vague manipulations thereof in this experiment (and pretty much all similar studies), any conclusion that I would attempt to draw from the data would be highly speculative. But go ahead and twist my arm... okay, okay, I'll speculate.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that, with two sources for expectations of success, participants may have been able to shift their attention between two significantly different frameworks. For example, when I am told that I got the answer wrong, I may be able to shift my attention and draw upon my expectations about the placebo, and it may take several trials worth of false positive feedback for my expectations to again center on the outcome/feedback. With only a single source of expectation for success, my expectations will probably begin to be altered in the subtle ways that lead to a pull towards the opposite outcome. (I tried some of this out on slot machines in Las Vegas. I could only be successful for so long before my expectations, by virtue of simple exposure to success, had qualitatively changed to the point where, without a much greater effort, I was pulled towards an unsuccessful outcome.)
Before I digress too far, I should point out that other studies have shown effects of a single manipulation of expectation. Pitman points out that J.B. Rhine was successful in getting a single main effect of placebo upon ESP performance. Other studies have also attempted to manipulate the participants' beliefs about ESP in an (sometimes successful) attempt to improve their performance. So further speculation about the results of this study would probably only be productive if I were able to include the other studies for comparison purposes.
Subjects in this study were also asked to predict their ESP scores prior to testing, but it appears that these predictions were collected after the placebo manipulation. Of course it's possible that asking the subjects to quantify expectations had an effect in and of itself, but there are not enough details about when and how this data was collected to allow for useful speculation.
The author attempts to make further inferences about 'expectation' as it relates to the subjects' scores on the 'sheep-goat' scale of psi belief, but these are not the expectations we are interested in, and therefore they will not be discussed here. The expectations that occur at the time of testing are, IMHO, the ones most likely to influence the outcome. Their nature most closely matches the representations of the outcome and success or failure, therefore these are the expectations that I think need to be more carefully teased apart and manipulated in future testing.
Kudos to Pitman for a simple, elegant experimental design, and a fascinating finding!
Friday, July 27, 2007
Surfing the Waves of Probability
"But after the momentary exaltation of lifting the rock I saw clearly that such acts were in no sense the goal of the spirit, but just a by-play of its true life, amusing, and sometimes useful, and often dangerous, but never themselves the goal."
That being said, I do still manage to have some fun here is Smearland... :) Especially when I can isolate myself from competing observers and get into the 'zone' where synchronicities are immediate and abundant. I like to call it 'surfing the waves of probability'. It's difficult to explain to someone the sheer joy that you can feel when you throw yourself into the ocean that is the multiverse, find a wave, get into the zone and ride it to a spectacular result? This is a metaphor, of course, but it is most appropriate.
It takes a certain amount of skill to find the universe where your favorite song plays back-to-back on three different radio stations, or to find a universe where something materializes in front of you that perfectly captures your thoughts or feelings. Or to find a universe where the item that you've been looking for, the one that wasn't there a second ago, is now right in front of you (and on sale).
These may seem like trivial examples, and certainly much more spectacular feats have been achieved, but things like this give you a strange sense of oneness with the Universe while allowing you to stretch your wings and soar. So this is what I do for fun - I surf the waves of probability. Some of my most prized possessions are the 1-in-incaluable-odds 'trophies' I've collected after an awesome ride. And some of the greatest opportunities I've had have come about because I rode a wave to that universe.
This was the good part of my vacation, and these are the things I cling to when it seems like I will never succeed in establishing this idea as a valid paradigm for scientific study. You tell me how I can do these things, and I'll let it go. :)
That being said, I do still manage to have some fun here is Smearland... :) Especially when I can isolate myself from competing observers and get into the 'zone' where synchronicities are immediate and abundant. I like to call it 'surfing the waves of probability'. It's difficult to explain to someone the sheer joy that you can feel when you throw yourself into the ocean that is the multiverse, find a wave, get into the zone and ride it to a spectacular result? This is a metaphor, of course, but it is most appropriate.
It takes a certain amount of skill to find the universe where your favorite song plays back-to-back on three different radio stations, or to find a universe where something materializes in front of you that perfectly captures your thoughts or feelings. Or to find a universe where the item that you've been looking for, the one that wasn't there a second ago, is now right in front of you (and on sale).
These may seem like trivial examples, and certainly much more spectacular feats have been achieved, but things like this give you a strange sense of oneness with the Universe while allowing you to stretch your wings and soar. So this is what I do for fun - I surf the waves of probability. Some of my most prized possessions are the 1-in-incaluable-odds 'trophies' I've collected after an awesome ride. And some of the greatest opportunities I've had have come about because I rode a wave to that universe.
This was the good part of my vacation, and these are the things I cling to when it seems like I will never succeed in establishing this idea as a valid paradigm for scientific study. You tell me how I can do these things, and I'll let it go. :)
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Dueling Observers
"Has anyone, including and especially the claimant, gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only confirmatory evidence been sought?"
Believe it or not, I have spent quite some time thinking about how this theory/explanation might be falsified. A true test of falsification would require more concrete predictions about the effects of and interactions between multiple observers of the same outcome. To that end, I am particularly interested in people and situations where someone besides me may be the 'strongest observer'.
One way to find an observer who is likely to have more of an effect on the outcome than I will is to find a situation where the other party has more of an emotional investment in the outcome. I wouldn't attempt to induce any situation where another person might be traumatized (informed consent would taint the experiment anyway), so mostly I take what I can gather from existing situations. And sometimes card and board games get a little out of hand when people think they can best me at 'picking the universe'. ;)
Today provided an excellent situation for study. Two observers (call us N and O) in a situation where O has spent a lot of time thinking about a particular outcome (call it P). O has very specific expectations that lead him to think the outcome will be P1 and not P2 (dichotomous split). O also has a lot of emotions invested in the outcome and claims to want P1. (O tells this all to N, so N isn't guessing at what O is thinking.) N agrees that P1 would be the preferable outcome. N agrees that P1 is the likely outcome based on classical knowledge of the situation, but N (knowing how these things go) suspects that O, as the strongest (or only) observer of the critical moment of observation, would likely find himself in the universe where he experiences P2.
N agrees to be present at the critical window of observation. (The critical window of observation is all observations made at a specific place during the period of time that define the 'event'.) Now we have N and O as the only two observers of significance for the event/outcome P. N can consciously make an effort to steer both N and O towards outcome P1. O is a wild mess of chaotic thought and emotion that is likely to pull them both towards P2. As the end of the critical time window approaches, N feels safe enough in the outcome (P1) to depart from the critical observational space in order to answer the call of nature.
No doubt you can guess what happened. By the time N returned to the scene, the outcome was irreversibly P2. N wants to say to O "What? You couldn't hold that universe for two minutes without me?" but doesn't.
And now N gets to speculate about multiple observer dynamics. :) N has sympathy for the original creators of Observational Theory who must have had one helluva time trying to deal with summing together all the possible forces that contribute to an outcome. The truly disturbing question is - What, if any, elements of N's decision to momentarily leave the scene can be attributed to O's pull towards the ultimate outcome P2?
Believe it or not, I have spent quite some time thinking about how this theory/explanation might be falsified. A true test of falsification would require more concrete predictions about the effects of and interactions between multiple observers of the same outcome. To that end, I am particularly interested in people and situations where someone besides me may be the 'strongest observer'.
One way to find an observer who is likely to have more of an effect on the outcome than I will is to find a situation where the other party has more of an emotional investment in the outcome. I wouldn't attempt to induce any situation where another person might be traumatized (informed consent would taint the experiment anyway), so mostly I take what I can gather from existing situations. And sometimes card and board games get a little out of hand when people think they can best me at 'picking the universe'. ;)
Today provided an excellent situation for study. Two observers (call us N and O) in a situation where O has spent a lot of time thinking about a particular outcome (call it P). O has very specific expectations that lead him to think the outcome will be P1 and not P2 (dichotomous split). O also has a lot of emotions invested in the outcome and claims to want P1. (O tells this all to N, so N isn't guessing at what O is thinking.) N agrees that P1 would be the preferable outcome. N agrees that P1 is the likely outcome based on classical knowledge of the situation, but N (knowing how these things go) suspects that O, as the strongest (or only) observer of the critical moment of observation, would likely find himself in the universe where he experiences P2.
N agrees to be present at the critical window of observation. (The critical window of observation is all observations made at a specific place during the period of time that define the 'event'.) Now we have N and O as the only two observers of significance for the event/outcome P. N can consciously make an effort to steer both N and O towards outcome P1. O is a wild mess of chaotic thought and emotion that is likely to pull them both towards P2. As the end of the critical time window approaches, N feels safe enough in the outcome (P1) to depart from the critical observational space in order to answer the call of nature.
No doubt you can guess what happened. By the time N returned to the scene, the outcome was irreversibly P2. N wants to say to O "What? You couldn't hold that universe for two minutes without me?" but doesn't.
And now N gets to speculate about multiple observer dynamics. :) N has sympathy for the original creators of Observational Theory who must have had one helluva time trying to deal with summing together all the possible forces that contribute to an outcome. The truly disturbing question is - What, if any, elements of N's decision to momentarily leave the scene can be attributed to O's pull towards the ultimate outcome P2?
Friday, July 13, 2007
A Tale of Two Universes
(In light of yesterday's post, this seemed like an appropriate story for today.)
One evening, coming back from the store, I was doing about 50 on a six-lane road when a dog ran out in front of my car. I could see it coming, but didn't have enough distance to avoid hitting it. According to all the laws of classical physics that govern motion and force, I was going to hit the dog.
Not wanting to hurt the poor animal, I threw up a barrier to the universe where I would hit the dog. That is to say, in the split second before I would have observed the impact, I eliminated that observation (hitting the dog) from the set of possible observations. The only other possible observation was not hitting the dog. And this observation would be incompatible with the forces (speed, monentum) and distances that were in play. (Incompatible observations ---> UNDONE.)
The laws of Smearland won out and I did not hit the dog. The dog vanished. It did not appear in front of my car, behind my car, or off to either side of my car. And believe me, I slowed down to look. Never shut my eyes. Couldn't have missed it if it had been miraculously able to move out of the way. It didn't go over my car or under my car, and I never felt an impact. I don't know where it ended up. And, believe me, I looked.
What happened to the dog?, you ask. I don't know. I don't make any claims to having teleported myself or the dog. I only suggest that I was able to shift the coordinates of my position in Smearland. Perhaps to another, parallel, universe where there was no dog to hit, if that is an analogy that helps you.
Postscript (3:06 PM) - By now you've torn that story apart looking for every possible 4-dimensional explanation. :) Maybe I have lousy depth perception and underestimated the distance between my car and the dog. Maybe the dog was never there and I saw something else that my brain registered as a dog. Maybe I was distracted just long enough to miss the dog as it ran off. Good! You should be skeptical! And, I have to say, I have wondered what any nearby traffic cameras might have caught on tape...
Fortunately, it is not necessary for you to believe the story in order to see the point. :)
One evening, coming back from the store, I was doing about 50 on a six-lane road when a dog ran out in front of my car. I could see it coming, but didn't have enough distance to avoid hitting it. According to all the laws of classical physics that govern motion and force, I was going to hit the dog.
Not wanting to hurt the poor animal, I threw up a barrier to the universe where I would hit the dog. That is to say, in the split second before I would have observed the impact, I eliminated that observation (hitting the dog) from the set of possible observations. The only other possible observation was not hitting the dog. And this observation would be incompatible with the forces (speed, monentum) and distances that were in play. (Incompatible observations ---> UNDONE.)
The laws of Smearland won out and I did not hit the dog. The dog vanished. It did not appear in front of my car, behind my car, or off to either side of my car. And believe me, I slowed down to look. Never shut my eyes. Couldn't have missed it if it had been miraculously able to move out of the way. It didn't go over my car or under my car, and I never felt an impact. I don't know where it ended up. And, believe me, I looked.
What happened to the dog?, you ask. I don't know. I don't make any claims to having teleported myself or the dog. I only suggest that I was able to shift the coordinates of my position in Smearland. Perhaps to another, parallel, universe where there was no dog to hit, if that is an analogy that helps you.
Postscript (3:06 PM) - By now you've torn that story apart looking for every possible 4-dimensional explanation. :) Maybe I have lousy depth perception and underestimated the distance between my car and the dog. Maybe the dog was never there and I saw something else that my brain registered as a dog. Maybe I was distracted just long enough to miss the dog as it ran off. Good! You should be skeptical! And, I have to say, I have wondered what any nearby traffic cameras might have caught on tape...
Fortunately, it is not necessary for you to believe the story in order to see the point. :)
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Still Skeptical of The Secret
"A new scientific revolution is new scientific knowledge that satisfies at least one of the following two criteria
1) It makes possible previously impossible, even unimaginable, technological capabilities.
2) It engenders a fundamental reconstruction of our philosophical outlook."
What to my wandering eyes doth appear but yet another article on The Secret. Side by side with an article called The End of Science Revisited in the latest issue of Skeptic magazine. (The premise of The End of Science irks me because it bespeaks a lack of faith in the power of the human intellect and the human spirit to see beyond the current 'boundaries' of science. How do you hold on to that idea for 10 - sorry, 11 - years?!?) I feel compelled to snark just a little bit... ;)
"[T]he first thing you need to know is that The Secret isn't a secret" (Applause.) I can honestly say that I had never heard of the 'Law of Attraction' until after I had developed the 5-dimensional model. And having The Secret as a reference point for trying to describe Smearland is a bit like having 'Cooking for Dummies' as the textbook for chef school.
"Like attracts like". Well, actually, no. 'Like' would be creating a replica of actually 1) seeing/hearing/etc. the outcome, 2) at a specific moment in time, 3) with the conviction that it has actually happened, and 4) the forward flow of information that enables a reaction to the experience. Alter any of these components of your 'fake' represenation, and you alter the results as they pertain to your actual observation. These are some of the details that The Secret hasn't revealed. As clever skeptics have already pointed out, when it comes to magnetic signals, like repels like.
The 'Law of Attraction' also fails to mention that where there is the ability to attract, there is also the ability to repel. (You would think that when the primary analogy used is that of a magnet, someone would have come to that conclusion.) That means that it should be possible to 1) attract a good outcome, 2) attract a bad outcome, 3) repel a good outcome, and 4) repel a bad outcome. The Secret/The Law of Attraction deals only with how something might be attracted.
"If you turn it over to the universe, you will be surprised and dazzled by what is delivered. This is where magic and miracles happen." A phenomenon also know as 'release of attention/effort' (#9). Talked about in psi research and in the practice of magick.
"When dealing with instances of extraordinary evil, ... The Law of Attraction break[s] down rather spectacularly." Perhaps that is because The Law of Attraction is only focused on part of the picture. What if attracting a good outcome is not the same as repelling a bad outcome? Why should it be? Think about it. Then read this again, and ask yourself why the dichotomous split between outcomes was important.
Postscript (8:40 PM) - I don't want to leave you with the impression that I think the above paragraph adequately accounts for the problem of evil. The answer to that problem lies, I believe, with a better understand of mutliple-observer dynamics.
1) It makes possible previously impossible, even unimaginable, technological capabilities.
2) It engenders a fundamental reconstruction of our philosophical outlook."
What to my wandering eyes doth appear but yet another article on The Secret. Side by side with an article called The End of Science Revisited in the latest issue of Skeptic magazine. (The premise of The End of Science irks me because it bespeaks a lack of faith in the power of the human intellect and the human spirit to see beyond the current 'boundaries' of science. How do you hold on to that idea for 10 - sorry, 11 - years?!?) I feel compelled to snark just a little bit... ;)
"[T]he first thing you need to know is that The Secret isn't a secret" (Applause.) I can honestly say that I had never heard of the 'Law of Attraction' until after I had developed the 5-dimensional model. And having The Secret as a reference point for trying to describe Smearland is a bit like having 'Cooking for Dummies' as the textbook for chef school.
"Like attracts like". Well, actually, no. 'Like' would be creating a replica of actually 1) seeing/hearing/etc. the outcome, 2) at a specific moment in time, 3) with the conviction that it has actually happened, and 4) the forward flow of information that enables a reaction to the experience. Alter any of these components of your 'fake' represenation, and you alter the results as they pertain to your actual observation. These are some of the details that The Secret hasn't revealed. As clever skeptics have already pointed out, when it comes to magnetic signals, like repels like.
The 'Law of Attraction' also fails to mention that where there is the ability to attract, there is also the ability to repel. (You would think that when the primary analogy used is that of a magnet, someone would have come to that conclusion.) That means that it should be possible to 1) attract a good outcome, 2) attract a bad outcome, 3) repel a good outcome, and 4) repel a bad outcome. The Secret/The Law of Attraction deals only with how something might be attracted.
"If you turn it over to the universe, you will be surprised and dazzled by what is delivered. This is where magic and miracles happen." A phenomenon also know as 'release of attention/effort' (#9). Talked about in psi research and in the practice of magick.
"When dealing with instances of extraordinary evil, ... The Law of Attraction break[s] down rather spectacularly." Perhaps that is because The Law of Attraction is only focused on part of the picture. What if attracting a good outcome is not the same as repelling a bad outcome? Why should it be? Think about it. Then read this again, and ask yourself why the dichotomous split between outcomes was important.
Postscript (8:40 PM) - I don't want to leave you with the impression that I think the above paragraph adequately accounts for the problem of evil. The answer to that problem lies, I believe, with a better understand of mutliple-observer dynamics.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Outside the Gates of Science
Outside the Gates of Science, by Damien Broderick (2007).
Couldn't wait any longer. Had to buy it. Oddly, reading this book feels like coming in from the cold. It takes me back to a time when I thought that all that I wanted was a job researching the limits of the mind.
I'm just flipping through the book and I see references to probability fields, Greg Egan, 'applied psychic technology', Evan Harris Walker, Houtkooper, and Observer Theory. (happy sigh)
Put your skepticism on hold for a few days, read this book, and see how the other half lives. ;)
Couldn't wait any longer. Had to buy it. Oddly, reading this book feels like coming in from the cold. It takes me back to a time when I thought that all that I wanted was a job researching the limits of the mind.
I'm just flipping through the book and I see references to probability fields, Greg Egan, 'applied psychic technology', Evan Harris Walker, Houtkooper, and Observer Theory. (happy sigh)
Put your skepticism on hold for a few days, read this book, and see how the other half lives. ;)
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
The Psychic Grid
"It is a fearful thing to set out to determine truth for oneself."
Many years ago, when I was going through my first 'What the hell is this?!' phase of curiousity about psychic phenomena, a well-meaning person purchased the book The Psychic Grid by Dr. Beatrice Bruteau (1979) for me at a used book sale. While the book ended up having nothing to do with the ESP definition of 'psychic', it was nonetheless extremely eye-opening.
Today I was thinking about writing a short piece of fiction about what it might be like to be connected to other minds, in the telepathic, mind-web kind of way. When I thought about calling the piece The Psychic Grid, I decided it might be time to take another look at the book that I remembered as being so key in pushing me to study the mind. I pulled it out of the permanent collection, and began to flip through the pages. I was astonished that so many of the quotes I had underlined (in various colors of ink, for each of the times I had read that book) still had the same 'punch you in the gut with the profoundness of truth' quality that I remembered.
Even though it has nothing to do with synchronicity or probability, I still have to put this book on the 25 Best list.
"Confronting change and the unfamiliar is unsettling, but perfect settledness is death."
"Most new discoveries are suddenly-seen things that were always there."
Many years ago, when I was going through my first 'What the hell is this?!' phase of curiousity about psychic phenomena, a well-meaning person purchased the book The Psychic Grid by Dr. Beatrice Bruteau (1979) for me at a used book sale. While the book ended up having nothing to do with the ESP definition of 'psychic', it was nonetheless extremely eye-opening.
Today I was thinking about writing a short piece of fiction about what it might be like to be connected to other minds, in the telepathic, mind-web kind of way. When I thought about calling the piece The Psychic Grid, I decided it might be time to take another look at the book that I remembered as being so key in pushing me to study the mind. I pulled it out of the permanent collection, and began to flip through the pages. I was astonished that so many of the quotes I had underlined (in various colors of ink, for each of the times I had read that book) still had the same 'punch you in the gut with the profoundness of truth' quality that I remembered.
Even though it has nothing to do with synchronicity or probability, I still have to put this book on the 25 Best list.
"Confronting change and the unfamiliar is unsettling, but perfect settledness is death."
"Most new discoveries are suddenly-seen things that were always there."
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
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. :)
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. :)
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
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."
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."
Friday, May 04, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
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.
"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.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
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.)
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.)
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
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.)
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)