The JREF Psychics Experiment

[Limbo]

Trentwray asked me to come up with a psychic experiment JREFers could participate in. My idea is a psychic tug-of-war, a psychic struggle to mentally dominate a random number generator. One team of JREF psi-believers VS one team of JREF psi-skeptics.

We enlist JREF volunteers and give them a questionnaire and assign them into groups based on their answers. Then we set up a schedule and we have two groups compete to influence an online random number generator at a website somewhere by using micro-PK (http://www.parapsych.org/mind_over_matter.htm).

For instance, group A could log in to the random number generator website at 7pm and for X minutes they intend for the RNG to output more 1 than 0.

Then wait X amount of time and group B logs in and likewise attempts to get more 1 than 0. See which group gets the most. Big prizes for the most psychic group!

Then the next day switch it around. Have the groups try for more 0 than 1. Do that for a week or two and then chart the results and analyze.

The RNG would run day and night outputting millions of zeroes and ones, and so we will notice a spike of ones when group A logs in and aims for ones. By the same token we will notice a spike of zeroes if we tell group A to aim for zeroes and so we will see the RNG output vary in accord with pre-stated group schedule and pre-stated group intent. We could use a third control group too, if appropriate.

So Trent kept asking and asking so that's what I came up with. Based on the PEAR experiments. What do you all think? It would only work if all JREF is behind it and works together to make it happen. I'm just the idea guy.

[not daSkeptic]

If people are actually interested in doing this, my company might be willing to host the generator and gather the data. We would of course not participate in the event.

ETA: We would also publish the source code used and the raw-data gathered.

[Mirrorglass]

Well, as I've said, provided I don't have to work to hard on it, I'm game.

We will need to be sure the RNG is legit before starting it, of course, but I assume that isn't too big a hurdle.

Before we start, I would like to know what would render this experiment void in Limbo's opinion. For example, if ten people don't bother to sign in during group B's concentration period, will this prevent group A from getting results? What about people outside the groups logging in and channeling their psi at random times?

[Limbo]

Wow! That sounds great daSkeptic!

[Limbo]

We will need to be sure the RNG is legit before starting it, of course, but I assume that isn't too big a hurdle.


Of course. :)

Before we start, I would like to know what would render this experiment void in Limbo's opinion. For example, if ten people don't bother to sign in during group B's concentration period, will this prevent group A from getting results? What about people outside the groups logging in and channeling their psi at random times?


Hmm. Those are necessary details. I'll give it some thought. What do you all think would render it void?

[not daSkeptic]

I suggest the use of a captcha or some other means of ensuring it's an actual person hitting the site.

[Mirrorglass]

I think that'd solve most of the problems I mentioned. It can't asses whether the loggers-in really tried, though (well, there's no way to do that). I'll just hope that's not a problem.

From the skeptic side, if the RNG and documenting are legit, I don't really think there's any way the experiment could be void. Although in the case where it did clearly show the effects of psi, expect that more studies, with different sponsors, would be demanded.

[Limbo]

daSkeptic how much traffic could your company RNG website handle? Can it run an RNG 24/7 for a week or more?

[Limbo]

I think that'd solve most of the problems I mentioned. It can't asses whether the loggers-in really tried, though (well, there's no way to do that). I'll just hope that's not a problem.

From the skeptic side, if the RNG and documenting are legit, I don't really think there's any way the experiment could be void. Although in the case where it did clearly show the effects of psi, expect that more studies, with different sponsors, would be demanded.


I would think there needs to be a certain amount of confidentiality. The times that groups log in should not be known. No participant should know the identities of their fellow group members. Only group members should have the URL to the RNG website. If certain information were made public during the experiment it could be void, imo.

[not daSkeptic]

Although in the case where it did clearly show the effects of psi, expect that more studies, with different sponsors, would be demanded.

Thus the reason for publishing everything. Regardless of the outcome, people are going to want to scrutinize the materials and possibly repeat it.

[not daSkeptic]

daSkeptic how much traffic could your company RNG website handle? Can it run an RNG 24/7 for a week or more?

It would have to be defined exactly what the systems are expected to do. But yes, we have datacenter facilities that could be temporarily assigned to this project. As for traffic load, it is my understanding that would only be a factor during the windows in which people are logging in. All other times the system would just be running on its own, logging output from the RNG with no user involvement.

[Limbo]

Wow. Well that takes care of the biggest problem. The second biggest problem is interest. Without enough people for two teams it won't work. I want LARGE teams. 50-100 people on each team. But I suppose I'll settle for what I can get. After all, psychic struggles are scary things. Bragging rights are at stake.

Maybe we will need to bring in a 'woo' forum to be the psi-believer team? Team Planet X VS Team Woo in a psychic struggle for domination? lol

:catfight:

[Trent Wray]

If it's just for ***** and giggles, I can understand the "fun" behind having two teams. BUT ... I still think it's valid to have just Team Woo participate first by themselves. If it yields a positive result, then Planet X proceeds. If you do both at the same time, I think there are too many "inconclusive" factors. Yes/no? It's not really about my laziness LOL .... more about building the factors to measure the outcome instead of adding too many at one time. Just my op.

Please do not swear in your posts, or mask curse words in an attempt to avoid the auto-censor.

[Limbo]

If it's just for ***** and giggles, I can understand the "fun" behind having two teams. BUT ... I still think it's valid to have just Team Woo participate first by themselves. If it yields a positive result, then Planet X proceeds. If you do both at the same time, I think there are too many "inconclusive" factors. Yes/no? It's not really about my laziness LOL .... more about building the factors to measure the outcome instead of adding too many at one time. Just my op.Moderated content removed.


It'll be fine. The teams won't be logged in at the same time. They won't interfere with each other. And I think the element of direct competition will help put the participants in a psi-conducive frame of mind.

[Loss Leader]

I'm in. But you understand:

One of the groups will win. Random doesn't mean equal. One group's data will have more hits than another's. Who will determine how much variance is required for significance?

[Limbo]

Good question.

[not daSkeptic]

It's not really about my laziness LOL .... more about building the factors to measure the outcome instead of adding too many at one time.

It depends on the exact hypothesis. If the expected effect is the result of anybody accessing an RNG via a web form, then only one group is needed -- the control is the period when there is no user access. However, if the expected effect is the result of certain people accessing an RNG via a web form, then a second group will be needed to control for the presence/absence of human involvement.

[Mirrorglass]

How about we say that to win, a group has to create spikes that would have less than 0.01 chance of happening randomly? If both do, just let the one with bigger changes be the winner. If neither does, call it a draw.

[not daSkeptic]

I'm in. But you understand:

One of the groups will win. Random doesn't mean equal. One group's data will have more hits than another's. Who will determine how much variance is required for significance?

Without any outside influence, a RNG run for a long period of time should generate a roughly equal number of zeros and ones. The systems can be run for a week or two prior to the test to verify this is the case. The key will establishing an agreement between both sides, prior to the test, as to how far from 50/50 things must shift (and in what direction) in order to be considered a success.

[Mirrorglass]

About how many numbers an hour are we talking here?

[not daSkeptic]

About how many numbers an hour are we talking here?

That too would have to be agreed upon. How often is the RNG sampled and for how long? Every 10-seconds for a week?

[Limbo]

You guys might find this interesting.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/correlations.pdf

[Limbo]

That too would have to be agreed upon. How often is the RNG sampled and for how long? Every 10-seconds for a week?


The more the better, right? Why not every second for a month?

[bookitty]

Oooh silliness! Count me in!

[Loss Leader]

Just be sure to define success long before the test begins.

[not daSkeptic]

Purely as a matter of interest, I just ran a little program that generated random 64-bit numbers as fast as possible, counting up the individual ones and zeroes. After more than 10-million samples, the results were as follows:

Zeroes: 49.997912%
Ones: 50.002088%

ETA: Of course, the data would need to be charted across time and not just averaged as I did here.

[HawaiiBigSis]

I'd play too.

[Trent Wray]

Without any outside influence, a RNG run for a long period of time should generate a roughly equal number of zeros and ones. The systems can be run for a week or two prior to the test to verify this is the case. The key will establishing an agreement between both sides, prior to the test, as to how far from 50/50 things must shift (and in what direction) in order to be considered a success.

Just be sure to define success long before the test begins. YES.

Purely as a matter of interest, I just ran a little program that generated random 64-bit numbers as fast as possible, counting up the individual ones and zeroes. After more than 10-million samples, the results were as follows:

Zeroes: 49.997912%
Ones: 50.002088%

ETA: Of course, the data would need to be charted across time and not just averaged as I did here. Perhaps one way for the believers to figure out a good variance to gauge a "positive result" from would be to think about how often they each individually claim to produce a positive result for themselves?

For example --- if Rory finds dowsing to be 90% accurate, and visions 85% accurate, etc and so forth .... factoring all of this in might make him think he is "75% powerful" most of the time. In other words, 75% of the time he thinks something is going to happen, it does, etc. And then somehow convert this percentage into a variance percentage after combining it with the other believers "power meters" :)

Just thinking out loud :)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Don't forget to control for EGG (see: The Global Consciousness Project) effects. Major large catastrophes (as reported in the American press) can confound the results. At least they should do. But for some reason The Bureau of Noetic Nonsense does not apparently consider these "documented" impacts on RNGs when researching micro-PK . . . or visa versa for that matter. :boggled:

I can't wait to see the math. :popcorn6

In the meantime I'll be using my Skeptic Randiesque Abilities to make certain this experiment fails. And we all know how well this works. :D

[Trent Wray]

Don't forget to control for EGG (see: The Global Consciousness Project) effects. Major large catastrophes (as reported in the American press) can confound the results. At least they should do. But for some reason The Bureau of Noetic Nonsense does not apparently consider these "documented" impacts on RNGs when researching micro-PK . . . or visa versa for that matter. :boggled:

I can't wait to see the math. :popcorn6

In the meantime I'll be using my Skeptic Randiesque Abilities to make certain this experiment fails. And we all know how well this works. :D You'll be using SRA? You know SRA also stands for something else don't you ..... ;)

[Limbo]

Hey you know what I would like to see is hundreds of people on each team. Why not? I would like to see the woo team full of hundreds of people who claim to have had many psychic experiences in their life. Full of people who meditate, who are artistic, who are happy, who consider themselves spiritual, from all over the world.

Another thing I think would be cool is some sort of visual feedback from the website during log-in time. Like say for instance group A is logged in and aiming for more 1. As the RNG puts out more 1 a progress bar fills up or something or the color changes or something.

[Limbo]

In the meantime I'll be using my Skeptic Randiesque Abilities to make certain this experiment fails. And we all know how well this works. :D


I'm sure you're joking, after all who could betray the ideals of science like that? :P Plus all participants should have to take an honor vow to comply with the spirit of the protocols and the aims of their group and such.

[not daSkeptic]

Another thing I think would be cool is some sort of visual feedback from the website during log-in time. Like say for instance group A is logged in and aiming for more 1. As the RNG puts out more 1 a progress bar fills up or something or the color changes or something.

Is feedback necessary in order for one to influence a RNG?

[Trent Wray]

Hey you know what I would like to see is hundreds of people on each team. Why not? I would like to see the woo team full of hundreds of people who claim to have had many psychic experiences in their life. Full of people who meditate, who are artistic, who are happy, who consider themselves spiritual, from all over the world. So unbelievers are unhappy and can't hold a crayon properly?

btw .... what does the questionaire look like? is there something from another site already prepared for this kind of thing, or is it going to be constructed here?

[Trent Wray]

Is feedback necessary in order for one to influence a RNG? You know, let's just say, hypothetically speaking, that there is a large response to the "experiment". I'm assuming the more people who know about the RNG site, the more likely someone with the knowledge of how to effect the results thru hacking and such is, right?

Can this be made "fool proof" so to speak?

[Limbo]

Is feedback necessary in order for one to influence a RNG?


I don't know about that but I think the option should be available.

[Limbo]

You know, let's just say, hypothetically speaking, that there is a large response to the "experiment". I'm assuming the more people who know about the RNG site, the more likely someone with the knowledge of how to effect the results thru hacking and such is, right?

Can this be made "fool proof" so to speak?


I was thinking that before and/or after each log in period the website log-in URL could be changed, maybe.

[Limbo]

So unbelievers are unhappy and can't hold a crayon properly?


There are some indications that is the case. Any possible variables should be accommodated.

btw .... what does the questionaire look like? is there something from another site already prepared for this kind of thing, or is it going to be constructed here?


Not sure yet, what do you think we should do? There are some out there we could use.

[Trent Wray]

I was thinking maybe before and after each log in period the website log-in URL could be changed, maybe.

Perhaps ... i don't know if that would be enough.

But how do you propose to get hundreds of psychics involved? Does the JREF get enough peeps that would participate?

[Dockie]

Oops, sorry.......
I thought this was the "Why is the Paranormal so Useless?" thread.
Silly me, please carry on.....

[Dragoonster]

Not sure yet, what do you think we should do? There are some out there we could use.

The questionaire seems problematic to me too. I'm a skeptic and think the experiment would fail to show significant psi, but I'd still love for psi to be real and would try hard to influence the results to show it is. And I've had two experiences in the past which could be best described as "psychic" in quality, though as there's no scientific evidence I still don't really believe.

So, by my beliefs I'd be in the anti-psi group, but by my desires I'd be pro-psi. I'd much rather be placed in the pro-psi group, so would hate a questionaire which kicked me out of it automatically. In fact I'd probably ask to leave the experiment, as my "positive psi effect" during the antis experiment time might skew the "negative psi effect" some might point to as affecting the anti-psi group's performance vs. the pro-psi group.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You'll be using SRA? You know SRA also stands for something else don't you ..... ;)

After a quick bit of GooglingTM I find that the Sackville Rivers Association (SRA) concerns itself with the preservation, restoration and enhancement of the Sackville River.

Oh wait. The State Rail Authority for NSW.

I suppose you are now going to tell me NSW stands for something else as well? :scared: I did not come here for abuse. :mad:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm sure you're joking, after all who could betray the ideals of science like that? :P Plus all participants should have to take an honor vow to comply with the spirit of the protocols and the aims of their group and such.

Who said I would be participating? I do this on a freelance basis. :rolleyes:

[not daSkeptic]

I don't know about that but I think the option should be available.

Any possible variables should be accommodated.

On the contrary, eliminating the effects of variables (if not the variables themselves) is what a controlled trial is all about. The only way to know whether something has an effect on the result is to get rid of everything else.

It's like a wall with ten light switches when you don't know what any of them do. You try one at a time and see what effect it has. You control the rest. If you tried flipping several at once, you wouldn't know which one was doing what.

[fls]

I'm wondering why this hasn't been done already? The bit about needing a team from the JREF is irrelevant. Randi has already said that this particular claim is acceptable for the MDC. Why has Limbo collected some suitable number of believers already to influence an RNG? Wouldn't winning a million dollars shut us up much more satsifyingly than repeating "sheep-goat effect" hundreds of times to deaf ears? The choice seems like it should be a no-brainer.

Linda

[Trent Wray]

After a quick bit of GooglingTM I find that the Sackville Rivers Association (SRA) concerns itself with the preservation, restoration and enhancement of the Sackville River.

Oh wait. The State Rail Authority for NSW.

I suppose you are now going to tell me NSW stands for something else as well? :scared: I did not come here for abuse. :mad:LOL

Well, if you didn't come here for abuse, I won't tell you that SRA also stands for Satanic Ritual Abuse. ;)

However, back o/t ... I don't see how Satanic Ritual Abuse will hurt the outcome of this test, even if it were used ... ;)

The questionaire seems problematic to me too. I'm a skeptic and think the experiment would fail to show significant psi, but I'd still love for psi to be real and would try hard to influence the results to show it is. And I've had two experiences in the past which could be best described as "psychic" in quality, though as there's no scientific evidence I still don't really believe.

So, by my beliefs I'd be in the anti-psi group, but by my desires I'd be pro-psi. I'd much rather be placed in the pro-psi group, so would hate a questionaire which kicked me out of it automatically. In fact I'd probably ask to leave the experiment, as my "positive psi effect" during the antis experiment time might skew the "negative psi effect" some might point to as affecting the anti-psi group's performance vs. the pro-psi group.

And this is why I think that those who believe in it and think it will actually work should do it themselves first, because you eliminate many factors that could effect the so-called "energy" or "faith" of the skeptic / unbeliever who may be "torn" between various wants, desires, beliefs, etc.
But that's just my op.

[Limbo]

And this is why I think that those who believe in it and think it will actually work should do it themselves first, because you eliminate many factors that could effect the so-called "energy" or "faith" of the skeptic / unbeliever who may be "torn" between various wants, desires, beliefs, etc. But that's just my op.


We could have Team Woo outnumber Team Planet X two-to-one. There is psychic strength in numbers, but of course Team Planet X shouldn't care about that. Team Planet X shouldn't care if every self-proclaimed psychic on the frakking planet was on Team Woo. Team Woo will have all the allegedly psi-conducive variables in their favor. In contrast Team Planet X will be burdened by any and all psi-inhibitive variables that are applicable, and they won't even care because Team Planet X doesn't believe in psi-inhibitive variables.

[Mirrorglass]

I'm wondering why this hasn't been done already? The bit about needing a team from the JREF is irrelevant. Randi has already said that this particular claim is acceptable for the MDC. Why has Limbo collected some suitable number of believers already to influence an RNG? Wouldn't winning a million dollars shut us up much more satsifyingly than repeating "sheep-goat effect" hundreds of times to deaf ears? The choice seems like it should be a no-brainer.

Linda

Well, the rules (or was it the FAQ?) state that the claimants should test their ability before trying out for the million. If this experiment gives positive results, then it's easy for Limbo to just take the challenge then. Also, I don't think that Limbo can, at the moment, provide either affidavits or media presence, but that should change if the experiment is a success.

[Mirrorglass]

We could have Team Woo outnumber Team Planet X two-to-one. There is psychic strength in numbers, but of course Team Planet X shouldn't care about that. Team Planet X shouldn't care if every self-proclaimed psychic on the frakking planet was on Team Woo. Team Woo will have all the allegedly psi-conducive variables in their favor. In contrast Team Planet X will be burdened by any and all psi-inhibitive variables that are applicable, and they won't even care because Team Planet X doesn't believe in psi-inhibitive variables.

That should be fine. In fact, you can have them outnumber Team X thousand-to one, and we'll still accept the results. We'll accept them without a Team X at all, actually, and you can have as many psychics as you like on your team.

[fls]

Well, the rules (or was it the FAQ?) state that the claimants should test their ability before trying out for the million. If this experiment gives positive results, then it's easy for Limbo to just take the challenge then. Also, I don't think that Limbo can, at the moment, provide either affidavits or media presence, but that should change if the experiment is a success.

Exactly. So why is Limbo wasting her/his time here? If all that is needed is a collection of believers, why waste time and effort also putting together a collection of skeptics?

Linda

[Mirrorglass]

I'm a bit uncertain of that too. I think trentwray asked Limbo to design an experiment where the JREF forum community could take part, and there do seem to be some people who are interested (myself included), so I guess that's the reason we're doing this here.

As for what the skeptics actually provide to the experiment.. well, Limbo hasn't been too clear on that, but I guess the woos.. I mean the psychics won't get properly fired up about this unless they have an opposing team of skeptics.

[Limbo]

I'm a bit uncertain of that too. I think trentwray asked Limbo to design an experiment where the JREF forum community could take part, and there do seem to be some people who are interested (myself included), so I guess that's the reason we're doing this here.


Bingo.

As for what the skeptics actually provide to the experiment.. well, Limbo hasn't been too clear on that, but I guess the woos.. I mean the psychics won't get properly fired up about this unless they have an opposing team of skeptics.


Well I'm just the idea guy so I'm hoping JREF does everything and provides everything except the people for Team Woo. Probably not enough believers around here for that.

[Limbo]

Ideally here is what I hope happens. DaSkeptic gets a website going for the RNG. We iron-out a questionnaire and get a website going for that too. We test the RNG for a period of time, and while that's going on we recruit for the two teams by having volunteers fill out the questionnaire online.

Once the RNG is ready and the teams are chosen we begin three rounds of competition. Best two out of three wins. Each round lasts X days. After each round the data is analyzed and a winner is declared if possible. We fix any problems and we tweak the teams and then we move on to the next round.

[Mirrorglass]

It seems we do have the RNG, but don't expect the forum community to do too much. I think you yourself (or any friend you can recruit) should at least provide the questionnaire, since none of us have any idea what it should ask.
You should also at least write the first draft of the protocol we'll use. I suggest we use a simplified version of the Randi challenge protocol. I'll help with it, and I'm sure some others will too, but you need to give us something to work on. What are you expecting will happen?

I'd also like to hear how you would define victory here. Is my suggestion from before acceptable? And perhaps more importantly, if the experiment is a failure, and there are no detectable spikes, will you accept that your claim that group psi can affect a RNG is false?

And it's a good idea to get your believers from other forums. Would you mind posting a link if you start a thread on this elsewhere? I'd be interested to see the discussion.

[Limbo]

It seems we do have the RNG, but don't expect the forum community to do too much. I think you yourself (or any friend you can recruit) should at least provide the questionnaire, since none of us have any idea what it should ask.


Yeah, I'll start looking into it.


You should also at least write the first draft of the protocol we'll use. I suggest we use a simplified version of the Randi challenge protocol. I'll help with it, and I'm sure some others will too, but you need to give us something to work on. What are you expecting will happen?


/shrug

I'd also like to hear how you would define victory here. Is my suggestion from before acceptable? And perhaps more importantly, if the experiment is a failure, and there are no detectable spikes, will you accept that your claim that group psi can affect a RNG is false?


These are all very important things that need further thought.

And it's a good idea to get your believers from other forums. Would you mind posting a link if you start a thread on this elsewhere? I'd be interested to see the discussion.


Maybe before that we should have the RNG website up and running so we know how many believers from other forums it can handle before crashing or whatever? We don't want to overdo it.

[Mirrorglass]

I think we can be pretty certain the RNG will be able to handle hundreds of people, since those people won't (from a scientific viewpoint) be doing anything more than logging on. As far as I know, there has never been an incidence of group psi bringing servers down.

Another thing is that since a company will be investing their resources to this, they'll probably want to be sure there really will be an experiment. So you probably should have the volunteers ready before we turn on the RNG, since we'll just be wasting the company's resources if we start the recruiting after they've started running it.

[Limbo]

I'll need some help getting a questionnaire. Maybe I'll e-mail some parapsychologists and ask for opinions. Then I'll look around for a good place to recruit for Team Woo.

[Mirrorglass]

Sounds good. Let us know when there's progress.

[fls]

I'm a bit uncertain of that too. I think trentwray asked Limbo to design an experiment where the JREF forum community could take part, and there do seem to be some people who are interested (myself included), so I guess that's the reason we're doing this here.

As for what the skeptics actually provide to the experiment.. well, Limbo hasn't been too clear on that, but I guess the woos.. I mean the psychics won't get properly fired up about this unless they have an opposing team of skeptics.

That's a good point. I think that the idea of a competition is more likely to get people to see this through than the carrot of the MDC.

Linda

[Limbo]

Hey you know what would be cool? If Marilyn Schlitz or Dean Radin was in charge of Team Noetic and Randi or Wiseman was in charge of Team Planet X.

[Mirrorglass]

Hey you know what would be cool? If Marilyn Schlitz or Dean Radin was in charge of Team Noetic and Randi or Wiseman was in charge of Team Planet X.

You're getting ahead of yourself. I'm sure they have other things to do with their time. Until you've at least done this experiment once, don't expect the big shots will care about it.

Sure, it would be cool, but I doubt it would happen.

[Limbo]

You're getting ahead of yourself. I'm sure they have other things to do with their time. Until you've at least done this experiment once, don't expect the big shots will care about it.

Sure, it would be cool, but I doubt it would happen.


You mean until WE have done it at least once.

[Mirrorglass]

Sure. But like I've said, from my point of view, we skeptics will essentially just be logging on to the site doing nothing. And if it does work, I'm willing to let you have the million, without claiming any part to the experiment. I will help with the project to a reasonable degree.

I'm just saying you shouldn't pile too many demands on us. All you really need is a good group of psychics and a bunch of skeptics to oppose them, right? So no point in trying to get Randi involved until you've something to show him.

[Trent Wray]

Yes ---- I basically wondered if Limbo would like to design an experiment to show the psi that is "real" so many claim to believe in, and actually provide evidence we can all look at.

NOW ---- here is an idea. Why not let the podcast folks and such know about the experiment :). Won't that draw in some of the Team Woo factor? You might could try even going a bit beyond the "smaller" media aspects and hit Coast to Coast (it's still Noory right?), for example. Or IIG, yes?

[Limbo]

Sure. But like I've said, from my point of view, we skeptics will essentially just be logging on to the site doing nothing.


Yes and no. Skeptics on Team Planet X must agree to psychologically comply with the spirit of the experiment and the aims of their team. So skeptics must log in and intend that during log-in time the RNG outputs more 1 or 0 or equal of each, whatever the case may be.

And if it does work, I'm willing to let you have the million, without claiming any part to the experiment. I will help with the project to a reasonable degree.


Er, the million? I don't care about that. Lets not worry about that for now, it's just a distraction.

I'm just saying you shouldn't pile too many demands on us. All you really need is a good group of psychics and a bunch of skeptics to oppose them, right? So no point in trying to get Randi involved until you've something to show him.


Ok.

[Mirrorglass]

Yes and no. Skeptics on Team Planet X must agree to psychologically comply with the spirit of the experiment and the aims of their team. So skeptics must log in and intend that during log-in time the RNG outputs more 1 or 0 or equal of each, whatever the case may be.


This is a problem. There's absolutely no way to verify what the skeptics, or the believers for that matter, are thinking during the experiment. Even if we agree, we could be lying, or forget. If this will negate the experiment, then I don't see what we can do.

[Limbo]

This is a problem. There's absolutely no way to verify what the skeptics, or the believers for that matter, are thinking during the experiment. Even if we agree, we could be lying, or forget. If this will negate the experiment, then I don't see what we can do.


Yes you could be lying or forget. No doubt a certain percentage of participants will be liars and a certain percentage will forget to log-in once in a while. That's part of the reason why I want large teams, and a good questionnaire that tries to weed out the liars and the ones who can't make much of a psychological commitment to the spirit of the experiment.

[Sunstar]

i would like to know if affecting random number generators is actually a psychic ability. It doesn't seem to be but i could be wrong. It was one of those things that didn't seem to need participants who were psychic in the first place. Ordinary people could do it. So i think your test is bollocks.

[not daSkeptic]

Another thing is that since a company will be investing their resources to this, they'll probably want to be sure there really will be an experiment. So you probably should have the volunteers ready before we turn on the RNG, since we'll just be wasting the company's resources if we start the recruiting after they've started running it.

This is very true. There are costs and risks associated with this venture, which is why my company hasn't yet committed to doing anything. We need to know exactly what we're getting into before we say yes.

I think the best way to get started is with a written protocol.

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm really struggling to see what the point of this is.

And I'm not just being sarky, I really am struggling.

[not daSkeptic]

I'm really struggling to see what the point of this is.

And I'm not just being sarky, I really am struggling.

It's a proposal to test the claim that a random number generator can be influenced by human intent.

[Limbo]

This is very true. There are costs and risks associated with this venture, which is why my company hasn't yet committed to doing anything. We need to know exactly what we're getting into before we say yes.

I think the best way to get started is with a written protocol.


That makes sense but I have no idea how to go about writing such a thing.

[Limbo]

i would like to know if affecting random number generators is actually a psychic ability.


Yes it is. Micro-psychokinesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis

http://www.parapsych.org/mind_over_matter.htm

[not daSkeptic]

That makes sense but I have no idea how to go about writing such a thing.

Just write a step-by-step procedure for the test. Be sure to include exact details on how to judge success or failure.

[Limbo]

I was thinking that at the end of each round the output would be analyzed. Exactly how that will be done I can't say. I will leave that to more qualified people. I predict that when Team Noetic is logged in, we will see deviations in RNG output that are in accord with pre-stated intent. I predict we will see little if any deviation when Team Planet X is logged in. But if we do see deviation from Planet X, then the team with the strongest deviation wins that round. I'm not qualified to say how much deviation is necessary to be significant, or how many days each round needs to be, or how long each team needs to be logged in per session.

[not daSkeptic]

I was thinking that at the end of each round the output would be analyzed.

Why? Would it make any difference to hold off on analysis until all trials are completed?

Exactly how that will be done I can't say.
...
I'm not qualified to say how much deviation is necessary to be significant, or how many days each round needs to be, or how long each team needs to be logged in per session.

These are things that need to be worked out and agreed upon well in advance of doing anything else.

[Limbo]

Why? Would it make any difference to hold off on analysis until all trials are completed?


I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But if we used a system with multiple rounds, then between rounds teams would have opportunities to replace members or change schedules or whatnot.


These are things that need to be worked out and agreed upon well in advance of doing anything else.


Yeah.

[Trent Wray]

Why? Would it make any difference to hold off on analysis until all trials are completed?



These are things that need to be worked out and agreed upon well in advance of doing anything else. I would agree.

Ex: Suppose Team Woo is able to somehow sway the RNG to produce the 1's or whatever upwards of 45% from the mean. "Yeah !!!! We proved there is something to micro PK!"

But then Planet X comes along and does it upwards of 42%. The results are thus inconclusive, even though both of the numbers are impressive. Since the unbelievers produced the same result, it shows nothing. Or do you say, "well, it shows the believers were MORE POWERFUL .." ?

Now if planet X deviates it only 1%, while Team Woo deviates it 4%, do you say "there is something to team Woo!!! afterall, it's statistically impossible to deviate from the norm without some psi being used!"

In both scenarios, merely comparing one teams result to the other is pointless. There should be a deviation from the average taken into account.

[Trent Wray]

And also .... suppose the deviation is next to nill for Team Woo. Does this get blamed on "false psychics that were part of the team"? Maybe they weren't as adept at their power, where as Rory and Limbo carried more than their psi-weight? Does team Woo say, "Well, if we have more adept and powerful peeps, then we would have swayed it more ..."

I think the reasons why something might be considered a "failure" or a "success" need to be pretty clear beforehand. Otherwise, there is no point. Just go out and buy the Jedi Tube thingy that came out during Xmas and have a competition.

[Limbo]

In both scenarios, merely comparing one teams result to the other is pointless. There should be a deviation from the average taken into account.


Well there is the other 22 hours of the day when no one is logged in to deviate from and compare to. Output must be recorded 24/7. Plus, the deviation should be in a specific pre-stated direction. Zero or one. We should see a pattern of abnormal output that corresponds to the schedule of team activity.

[Trent Wray]

Well there is the other 22 hours of the day when no one is logged in to deviate from. Output must be recorded 24/7. Plus, the deviation should always be in a specific pre-stated direction. Zero or one.
But what I'm saying is what if both teams are able to produce a deviation. Then what?

[Limbo]

But what I'm saying is what if both teams are able to produce a deviation. Then what?


Then we crunch the numbers and the team with the greatest deviation wins.

[not daSkeptic]

Well there is the other 22 hours of the day when no one is logged in to deviate from.

This can be enforced very easily by having the software only display and/or accept the form at certain times. But of course, then there's the question as to whether simply accessing the software at all has an effect. We could separate the RNG and UI components into distinct processes, completely terminating the latter at certain times to ensure nobody is touching it. But then people trying to reach it during those times will still be accessing the server, even if they do get an error message. Could that affect the results? We could block access to the server at the router, but traffic would still technically be hitting the network even if it is just the outside interface of a firewall. Could that affect the results? The upstream ISP could block the traffic, but again people would still be accessing their network.

The big question in all of this is just how close to an RNG do people have to get in order to influence it? Is there a certain geographic distance beyond which there is no effect? Is it a matter of network hops? Does the separation of processes do anything?

[not daSkeptic]

Then we crunch the numbers and the team with the greatest deviation wins.

I fail to see how that would say anything about the original claim.

[Limbo]

This can be enforced very easily by having the software only display and/or accept the form at certain times. But of course, then there's the question as to whether simply accessing the software at all has an effect. We could separate the RNG and UI components into distinct processes, completely terminating the latter at certain times to ensure nobody is touching it. But then people trying to reach it during those times will still be accessing the server, even if they do get an error message. Could that affect the results? We could block access to the server at the router, but traffic would still technically be hitting the network even if it is just the outside interface of a firewall. Could that affect the results? The upstream ISP could block the traffic, but again people would still be accessing their network.

The big question in all of this is just how close to an RNG do people have to get in order to influence it? Is there a certain geographic distance beyond which there is no effect? Is it a matter of network hops? Does the separation of processes do anything?


So for example lets say team A logs in at 7pm. At 7:05 you block access, cut off the UI, and do whatever else you can to block access from inside your company and from outside. At 7:06 the actual test period starts and the team begins focusing intent. Then after X minutes they manually log off.

[Limbo]

I fail to see how that would say anything about the original claim.


If there are significant deviations in a pattern that corresponds to the schedule and aim of team activity would that say anything about the original claim?

[not daSkeptic]

So for example lets say team A logs in at 7pm. At 7:05 you block access, cut off the UI, and do whatever else you can to block access from inside your company and from outside. At 7:06 the actual test period starts and the team begins focusing intent. Then after X minutes they manually log off.

I don't follow. If access to the system is blocked, how can people do anything? Maybe I don't understand the purpose of people "logging in."

[not daSkeptic]

If there are significant deviations in a pattern that corresponds to the schedule and aim of team activity would that say anything about the original claim?

Deviations from what?

[Robin]

I'm wondering why this hasn't been done already? The bit about needing a team from the JREF is irrelevant. Randi has already said that this particular claim is acceptable for the MDC. Why has Limbo collected some suitable number of believers already to influence an RNG? Wouldn't winning a million dollars shut us up much more satsifyingly than repeating "sheep-goat effect" hundreds of times to deaf ears? The choice seems like it should be a no-brainer.

Linda
I have often wondered why the believers in paranormal powers don't attempt to run these experiments with large enough sample sizes to put the matter beyond dispute.

Sure it would be expensive but I think there are sufficient people making money out of the field to fund these type of experiments.

For example if Dean Radin's "presentiment" claims are true then a sufficiently large sample size could actually predict the one's and zeros produced by the random number generator. Such a clear demonstration of retro-temporal causality at a macro level would be a profound result for science. So why doesn't somebody do it?

If the claims made by PEAR were true then this could be demonstrated beyond doubt with a fairly small sample size, but it would require very tight controls.

Of course the suggestion being made in this thread is really just a bit of fun - all the same I would be interested to see this experiment designed properly - with a description of the mathematical analysis that would be used.

[Mirrorglass]

From the skeptic point of view, the whole competition aspect is insignificant. We are expecting both our intent and that of the pyschics to have no effect whatsoever on the RNG. Only the psychic side cares about the skeptics who log on.

I'd like to restate my suggestion that to win a team must 1) Repeatedly cause a significant deviation (for example, a deviation that only has 0.01 change of happening randomly 3 out of 5) and 2) cause deviations with greater total number than the other team.

If neither team satisfies condition 1) , we call it a draw and conclude MPK doesn't work the way Limbo thinks. If either team does, we conclude the test supports Limbo's idea and start thinking of the next one.

Does this sound acceptable to you Limbo? can you cause a deviation as big as I'm requiring?

ETA: Is anyone interested in providing the math for this? I can do some of the number crunching, but statistical analysis isn't really my field of expertise.

[Limbo]

From the skeptic point of view, the whole competition aspect is insignificant. We are expecting both our intent and that of the pyschics to have no effect whatsoever on the RNG. Only the psychic side cares about the skeptics who log on.


Then we need to make sure we get the right kind of skeptics on Team Planet X. Skeptics who can get into the right frame of mind.

I'd like to restate my suggestion that to win a team must 1) Repeatedly cause a significant deviation (for example, a deviation that only has 0.01 change of happening randomly 3 out of 5) and 2) cause deviations with greater total number than the other team.


Do we need statisticians to figure that kind of thing out?

If neither team satisfies condition 1) , we call it a draw and conclude MPK doesn't work the way Limbo thinks. If either team does, we conclude the test supports Limbo's idea and start thinking of the next one.

Does this sound acceptable to you Limbo? can you cause a deviation as big as I'm requiring?


I think we will see deviations big enough to raise eyebrows. What that means in terms of numbers I'm not prepared to say.

[Limbo]

I don't follow. If access to the system is blocked, how can people do anything? Maybe I don't understand the purpose of people "logging in."


Once people log in, they just do psi at the RNG for X minutes and then log out. While logged in they can watch the RNG visual feedback on their monitor, or surf the web, or whatever.

[Robin]

Here is my suggestion

200 volunteers are picked and each assigned a number.

Based on a belief questionnaire each of the volunteers is assigned the category of "psi believer/non psi-believer" Team A will be psi believers and Team B will be non psi believers.

Over a one week period all volunteers agree on a particular hour (or whatever period) of the day in which they can participate.

A hardware random generator is set running for the entire period generating a "1" or "0" each second and saving the results to a data file.

At the assigned time of day the data file will be uploaded at the rate of once a second to a web site and displayed in the form of a plot of a cumulative z score with curves showing p=0.05 and p=0.01 for both the positive and negative.

Team A volunteers will each access the site and enter their number and then be given instructions about whether to try for 1's or 0's. They will get feedback in the form of the plot line rising or falling depending on their influence - they will also be able to see a significant result in the form of the z-score going outside the significance curves.

Team B volunteers then log in and do the same.

Nobody but a participating member of the currently active team should see the active plot.

Then the data can be classified as 1. non influenced data, 2. Team A influenced data and 3. Team B influenced data, depending upon which team was trying to influence it at the time it was gathered.

So then we use an ANOVA to determine if the samples in group 2 or 3 differ significantly from group 1 (at p=0.01).

If one group achieves statistical significance and the other does not then that group is declared the winner.

If both groups achieve statistical significance then the group with the larger effect size wins.

If neither group achieve statistical significance at p=0.01 then neither group wins.

[bookitty]

Then we need to make sure we get the right kind of skeptics on Team Planet X. Skeptics who can get into the right frame of mind.

Do we need statisticians to figure that kind of thing out?

I think we will see deviations big enough to raise eyebrows. What that means in terms of numbers I'm not prepared to say.

The right frame of mind? You are suggesting that the skeptic's frame of mind can influence the outcome of their experiment. The goal of this experiment is to show that believers can influence chance. The skeptics are the control group.

[Limbo]

What do you suggest Bookitty?

[Limbo]

Robin, do you suggest that both teams are logged in at the same time at the same website and attempt to influence the same RNG?

[bookitty]

What do you suggest Bookitty?

I suggest that the skeptics go into it however they please. This will range from why not? to cynicism. The believers think that having focus and a common goal will affect outcome. If the skeptics think the same thing, there is no experiment.

[Robin]

Robin, do you suggest that both teams are logged in at the same time at the same website and attempt to influence the same RNG?
No, as I said, only the people participating in the current trial should see the current plot.

So when team A are attemping to influence the RNG team B or anybody else cannot see the plot. And when team B are attempting to influence the RNG then team A or anybody else cannot see the plot.

[Limbo]

I suggest that the skeptics go into it however they please. This will range from why not? to cynicism. The believers think that having focus and a common goal will affect outcome. If the skeptics think the same thing, there is no experiment.


But we need skeptics who will care enough to log in and out day after day. Skeptics like Dragoonster, who posted earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5716307&postcount=41), would make good candidates IMO. He would log in and he would also attempt to influence the results in favor of his team in the name of furthering knowledge.

A skeptic team that logs in and actually tries is vital, IMO. First because the skeptic team may show a pattern of psi-displacement or some other effect. Second because it will keep a competitive spirit alive which will keep it from getting boring.

[Mirrorglass]

We can have logs that show clearly whether the skeptics logged in or not, so we'll know how many were online. We can't really reliably know what they are thinking, but that doesn't matter for the experiment.

As for the competitive aspect.. I hope you're not actually thinking that if the skeptics aren't serious enough, all the psychics will just lose interest and stop, hence making the results void?

As for the number 200, it sounds a bit ambitious. I think you're lucky if you can get 20 skeptics on this, and that's after you've got a detailed protocol. If you think you can find 180 believers who'll do it, then 200 is fine, but I'd hate for this experiment to fail because we don't have enough people to satisfy you.

[Limbo]

As for the competitive aspect.. I hope you're not actually thinking that if the skeptics aren't serious enough, all the psychics will just lose interest and stop, hence making the results void?


Nope I'm not actually thinking that. My thoughts are much more subtle in the twisted ways of the Force, ha-ha. I want the skeptic team to be made up of skeptics who will try to find their inner Jedi, so to speak. Who will try to beat Team Noetic at its own game. And I want the skeptic community to root for them heart, mind, and soul. So to speak.

[Sledge]

So the skeptic group are actively trying to do something? This gets sillier and sillier.

[Mirrorglass]

Nope I'm not actually thinking that. My thoughts are much more subtle in the twisted ways of the Force, ha-ha. I want the skeptic team to be made up of skeptics who will try to find their inner Jedi, so to speak. Who will try to beat Team Noetic at its own game. And I want the skeptic community to root for them heart, mind, and soul. So to speak.

It's starting to seem to me like you're trying to lead us into accepting psi exists before even starting this test. The skeptic team will not be "trying to beat you in your own game". We can tell them to focus on trying to affect the numbers, but they will still expect nothing to happen. The goal of the skeptics here isn't to show we have more psi than you guys; it's to see whether you guys have any, or for the ones of us that are mean about it, to show you don't.

The thoughts of the forum will most likely be divided; most won't really care, a large part will roll their eyes, a minority will follow the experiment with some interest. None of them will be "rooting for the skeptic team". We just don't believe there's any point in stuff like that.

[Limbo]

It's starting to seem to me like you're trying to lead us into accepting psi exists before even starting this test. The skeptic team will not be "trying to beat you in your own game". We can tell them to focus on trying to affect the numbers, but they will still expect nothing to happen. The goal of the skeptics here isn't to show we have more psi than you guys; it's to see whether you guys have any, or for the ones of us that are mean about it, to show you don't.

The thoughts of the forum will most likely be divided; most won't really care, a large part will roll their eyes, a minority will follow the experiment with some interest. None of them will be "rooting for the skeptic team". We just don't believe there's any point in stuff like that.


I'm trying to control the sheep-goat effect by giving the goats (skeptics) a team to root for and therefore indirectly root for psi. Do you see? So the skeptics need a team that will actually try. It may give us a way around the sheep-goat effect, and there are other benefits as I have mentioned. I'm sure we can find some skeptics like that.

[Mirrorglass]

Okay, that's fair enough. But I still think the skeptics will think the way I've described above. There simply is no way to convince a skeptic to really root for the paranormal.

Anyway, I think we can leave the details for later. For now, I'd like you to provide the questionnaire and the basic test protocol. If you need reference on how to do it, I recommend checking the past applications for the million dollar challenge. (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43) You don't need to be quite as detailed here, and we'll work out the kinks together. But I'd like you to write the preliminary protocol. Feel free to ask for help if you run into issues.

[Limbo]

Okay, that's fair enough. But I still think the skeptics will think the way I've described above. There simply is no way to convince a skeptic to really root for the paranormal.


Many skeptics have said to me that they wish psi was real, but they feel the evidence just isn't there. So they are skeptics. Well, this is their chance. They must reach that part of them that wishes psi was real and use it.

Anyway, I think we can leave the details for later. For now, I'd like you to provide the questionnaire and the basic test protocol. If you need reference on how to do it, I recommend checking the past applications for the million dollar challenge. (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43) You don't need to be quite as detailed here, and we'll work out the kinks together. But I'd like you to write the preliminary protocol. Feel free to ask for help if you run into issues.


Er, wut?

[Trent Wray]

Then we crunch the numbers and the team with the greatest deviation wins. But this, as others have now said, does nothing to provide evidence for the existence of microPK or whatever.

You don't see why?

If BOTH teams produce a variance, it becomes moot. If one team just edges out the other team, this concludes nothing about microPK existing. All it does is show that one team got a better score on Pole Position than another team (no innuendo intended :))

Limbo ----- you're ASSUMING that psi exists. The skeptics are not. If both Woo and PX manage a variance, it proves nothing to PX, and changes nothing Woo already thought anyway. You see?

The experiment is thus turning into the equivalent of a prayer experiment. Two teams pray to see who has the closest answer-to-a-prayer-result. If both teams can claim anything close to an answer or part of one, the result is inconclusive .... because it doesn't prove whose "god is real."

This is why I think the experiment should have a clear variance decided that would count as evidence of psi. Otherwise it's just a staring contest.

[Limbo]

But this, as others have now said, does nothing to provide evidence for the existence of microPK or whatever.

You don't see why?


In and of itself, the greatest variance does nothing to provide evidence. But which team has the greatest variance is not the only thing that will be going on. We will have a correlation between the times the deviations occur and the times when people are thinking about causing deviations. For Team Noetic, we will also have a correlation between the direction of the variance and the direction the team was aiming for. Team Planet X may get the opposite direction of their intent (psi-missing or displacement), or may get nothing.

[dafydd]

Daftest thread ever?

[Mick Houlahan]

Yes.

[Lothian]

Limbo, a suggestion. For the experiment make a list of the possible outcomes.

For example


Team A scores more than Team B and the results are significant.
Team B scores more than Team A and the results are significant.
Team A scores more than Team B and the results are not significant…….


Then under each outcome list how each side will explain the result.

i.e
Team A scores more than Team B and the results are not significant…….

Team A - this proves PSI exists and some people have more PSI than others. The reason the results were not signifiacent is some sceptics lied on the initial test to get put in the wrong group. Their ‘PSI missing’ reduced the effect.

Team B – this shows no significant effect for either side. That one team scored slightly higher than another is to be expected. It was random as to which team that was.

If the two explanations from each team do not match you need to go back and design the experiment again, tightening up the procedures and or definitions (i.e. what is significant).

Ideally you will get both sides to agree on a response to each potential outcome before the experiment takes place.

[Limbo]

Thanks Lothian.

Well I wish I could quit my job and work on this. But I can't and Monday is here. Time to get back to work. During the week I have only a little time in the morning and a little at night. I wish I could devote all that time to this experiment idea, but I can't. Trent asked me for an idea that JREF can participate in, but he didn't ask me to actually make it happen. That's up to others. I'll do what I can but that isn't much.

If JREF isn't enthusiastic enough about this idea to take the burden off my shoulders and run with it then JREF probably isn't enthusiastic enough to form an excited team. And if JREF isn't enthusiastic enough to form an excited team then this experiment probably wouldn't work in the first place. JREF has to WANT it so badly that it would carry this idea forward with or without me.

[Stray Cat]

Here we go again then....

[Limbo]

Here we go again then....


What's that supposed to mean?

[Stray Cat]

Your last post makes it look like once again, it's all talk and no action.

I have been following this thread and resisting the urge to jump in because I really wanted it to get organised, but it now looks like we need a "make it happen" person and you are not him.

Which is ironic when you think that us sceptics don't think there is anyone who can actually "make it happen" in the first place anyway.

[Mirrorglass]

Well, to be fair, the request for this thread did come from the skeptic side. But it does seem we don't have anyone who'll actually make this happen. I agreed to help, but I'm not designing an entire experiment where some believers may or may not take part.

So, if no one will actually do the work, I'll consider the experiment to be suspended until further notice.

[Limbo]

Your last post makes it look like once again, it's all talk and no action.

I have been following this thread and resisting the urge to jump in because I really wanted it to get organised, but it now looks like we need a "make it happen" person and you are not him.

Which is ironic when you think that us sceptics don't think there is anyone who can actually "make it happen" in the first place anyway.


Er, if you REALLY want it to get organized, then I suggest you take part in it and help, rather than just sitting there giving the idea-guy a hard time. Maybe you could give the questionaire issue some further thought? I would but I have to go to work and I don't have internet access at work.

And if you've REALLY been following this thread then why are you surprised that I'm not the make-it-happen person? I admitted as much in my OP.

[Mirrorglass]

Limbo ----- you're ASSUMING that psi exists. The skeptics are not. If both Woo and PX manage a variance, it proves nothing to PX, and changes nothing Woo already thought anyway. You see?

Trent, I think you're misunderstanding something here. If both the woo and X got a significant variance, that would be fairly strong evidence for MPK, and show that skeptics have it too. The chances of this happening, of course, are something like 0.0000001 at the current suggested odds.

And in the case where neither team produces a significant variance, we've agreed any variance that did show will be considered coincidence, which it was.

[Stray Cat]

Er, if you REALLY want it to get organized, then I suggest you take part in it and help, rather than just sitting there giving the idea-guy a hard time. Maybe you could give the questionaire issue some further thought? I would but I have to go to work and I don't have internet access at work.
I haven't been giving you a hard time... I have been very restrained along with my observations. Of course, if the experiment got to a stage where it became a viable option, I would be prepared to offer any help that I could. I just didn't see that too many people getting involved at such an early stage would be anything other than counter productive.
You have managed to encourage a few sceptics to take you seriously and offer help, but you can't expect the sceptics to arrange things otherwise when the experiment fails, you will be able to claim that it was the way it was organised. That is why people applying for the MDC have to write their own protocols.

And if you've REALLY been following this thread then why are you surprised that I'm not the make-it-happen person? I admitted as much in my OP.
I'm not surprised at all, just surprised that the talking about the organisation part was so brief before you made it crystal clear that you wouldn't/couldn't do anything to actually make it happen.

[Limbo]

I haven't been giving you a hard time... I have been very restrained along with my observations. Of course, if the experiment got to a stage where it became a viable option, I would be prepared to offer any help that I could. I just didn't see that too many people getting involved at such an early stage would be anything other than counter productive.


I'll decide when you're giving me a hard time and yes you were. Your post was useless and provocative, as usual. If you want to help that's great, you can learn about ESP questionnaires and post a few in this thread sometime this week. I won't have the time to google around for them. And above all stop giving me a hard time.

[Sledge]

Oh good, we've moved on to claims of victimisation. Now there's an excuse for nothing happening.

[Lothian]

Thanks Lothian.

Well I wish I could quit my job and work on this. But I can't and Monday is here. Time to get back to work. During the week I have only a little time in the morning and a little at night. I wish I could devote all that time to this experiment idea, but I can't. Trent asked me for an idea that JREF can participate in, but he didn't ask me to actually make it happen. That's up to others. I'll do what I can but that isn't much.

If JREF isn't enthusiastic enough about this idea to take the burden off my shoulders and run with it then JREF probably isn't enthusiastic enough to form an excited team. And if JREF isn't enthusiastic enough to form an excited team then this experiment probably wouldn't work in the first place. JREF has to WANT it so badly that it would carry this idea forward with or without me.Seems to me that the idea has not been thought through properly. It is not so much 'carrying the idea forward' as to getting it to the start line.

Unless you develop the idea into something workable you are not going to get anyone excited. To clarify; the difficulties with this are not organisational but intellectual.

[dafydd]

What's that supposed to mean?

We've been through this rigmarole many times with so-called psychics and clairvoyants on this site.Not one shred of evidence has ever been presented in favour of the existence of such powers.You are not a novelty here.Here we go again indeed,deja vu.

[Pixel42]

I'm retired and have few calls on my time so I'm happy to put in some leg work if it will help. Currently I'm still somewhat at sea as to exactly what is required to make this happen.

ETA: 30 seconds googling found this questionaire: http://artofhacking.com/IET/OCCULT/ESP-Q.TXT

Looks like drivel to me, but it may satisfy Limbo.

[Stray Cat]

I'll decide when you're giving me a hard time and yes you were.
Well if pointing out that we've been here before with 'enthusiastic' paranormalists who want to prove that they have something to offer and then fail to deliver, yes maybe I am, but only after you made it quite clear that you were not prepared to work at it yourself preferring instead to let everyone else run around for you.

Your post was useless and provocative, as usual. If you want to help that's great, you can learn about ESP questionnaires and post a few in this thread sometime this week.
Why?
I have no interest in learning about ESP questionnaires and think the questionnaire issue is just another layer of delay.
All you need are 6 people who believe and six people who don't, so if a questionnaire were to be issued it would consist of:

1) Do you believe in ESP? [yes] [no] tick appropriate box

Then get enough people to fill it out until you had 6 people ticking yes and 6 people ticking no.



And above all stop giving me a hard time.
I think you're giving yourself a hard time.

[fls]

Trent, I think you're misunderstanding something here. If both the woo and X got a significant variance, that would be fairly strong evidence for MPK, and show that skeptics have it too. The chances of this happening, of course, are something like 0.0000001 at the current suggested odds.

And in the case where neither team produces a significant variance, we've agreed any variance that did show will be considered coincidence, which it was.

It should be pointed out that RNGs tend to produce a greater variance then would be expected if you were dealing with a theoretical distribution. You want to make sure that you don't call normal machine function evidence of psi.

Linda

[Mirrorglass]

It should be pointed out that RNGs tend to produce a greater variance then would be expected if you were dealing with a theoretical distribution. You want to make sure that you don't call normal machine function evidence of psi.

Linda

Thanks for the tip. This is why I'd like to have someone who's more familiar with this kind of thing help with the design, but we can do that after we have the skeleton of the experiment together.

I'm retired and have few calls on my time so I'm happy to put in some leg work if it will help. Currently I'm still somewhat at sea as to exactly what is required to make this happen.

ETA: 30 seconds googling found this questionaire: http://artofhacking.com/IET/OCCULT/ESP-Q.TXT

Looks like drivel to me, but it may satisfy Limbo.

If you really are willing to work on this, that'd be great. At the moment, what we really need is a preliminary testing protocol, million dollar challenge style. It doesn't have to be too accurate at first, since we'll doubtless have to revise it a few times, but a skeleton could actually get us going with this.

As for the questionnaire, that's really something Limbo will have to decide on. From my point of view, all that really matters is we get two groups, roughly divided by belief.

[Pixel42]

At the moment, what we really need is a preliminary testing protocol, million dollar challenge style. It doesn't have to be too accurate at first, since we'll doubtless have to revise it a few times, but a skeleton could actually get us going with this.

OK, this is from what I've gathered so far about the sort of test that's being suggested. I could be misunderstanding. :)

Required:

1. A web site which records in real time the output of a random number generator, set to generate 0s and 1s continuously. I presume there will be some visible display, two bars perhaps, which shows how many 0s and 1s have been generated in the last <some time interval>, updating every <some shorter time interval>, so that the volunteers will have something to look at and some feedback as to whether they are having any effect. A login name and password will be required to access the display at certain specified times. There will be two valid login names/passwords.

2. A group of psi believers (Team W) who will be given one login and password

3. A group of psi non-believers (Team X) who will be given the other login and password

Volunteers will be allocated to Team X or Team W depending on their responses to a questionaire, or to whether they answer 'yes' or 'no' when asked if they believe in psi.

The RNG will first be run without its output being displayed on the web site for a few hours and the number of 0s and 1s generated for each period of (X, value to be agreed) minutes recorded. This data will be used to determine the success criteria before the experiment itself is run. The success criteria will be that the number of 1s generated exceed the number of 0s by a proportion that is statistically significantly greater at the 95% level than the RNG's average pre-experiment output.

To be agreed beforehand:

a) The number of members of a team who need to be participating for the run to be considered a valid run.
b) The number of runs for each team and the time interval for each run
c) The time for each run
d) The success criteria

Protocol:

1. At the series of previously agreed times the first login and password will be enabled for a period of X minutes. The number of members of Team W who login during that time will be recorded. Team W will attempt to influence the RNG such that the number of 1s exceeds the number of 0s.

2. At the series of previously agreed times the second login and password will be enabled for a period of X minutes. The number of members of Team X who login during that time will be recorded. Team X will attempt to influence the RNG such that the number of 1s exceeds the number of 0s.

3. When all test runs are complete those with insufficient participants are discarded.

4. For any test runs that meet the requirement for the minimum number of participants, the proportion of 1s to 0s will be calculated. If it exceeds the previously agreed success criteria it will be counted as a Pass, otherwise it will be counted as a Fail

5. The following will be posted on the website:

Team W: No of Passes, No of Fails

Team X: No of Passes, No of Fails

If one team has more Passes than the other, that team will be declared the winner.

If Team W has more Passes than Team X that will be considered evidence that psi ability is affected by belief/mental attitude.

If one or both teams has at least one Pass, that will be considered evidence that psi exists and further experiments are justified. If neither team has at least one Pass that will be considered evidence that psi does not exist and further experiments are not justified.


Let the tearing apart begin.


[Note that there is little point in discussing the protocol unless requirement (1) is met, so we first need someone with the necessary knowhow to agree to set this up].

[Mirrorglass]

Wow, that looks excellent. Thanks for investing your time into this. There are some details to be worked out, of course, but first I'd like to hear whether the paranormal side considers this to be, in general, acceptable?

[Trent Wray]

Trent, I think you're misunderstanding something here. If both the woo and X got a significant variance, that would be fairly strong evidence for MPK, and show that skeptics have it too. The chances of this happening, of course, are something like 0.0000001 at the current suggested odds.

And in the case where neither team produces a significant variance, we've agreed any variance that did show will be considered coincidence, which it was. I understood that ... but I was trying to make another point which I think could happen, if by some miracle there was a variance at all, but no worries.

And to clarify --- I asked Limbo to think up an experiment that would provide evidence of the psi/paranormal/etc that he more or less claims exists as fact. It was essentially asking him, or whoever, believes in the stuff to produce something for the JREF that would show "his truth". I figured if he could think up something that could be shown to the JREF or involve them, it would be much more fair to his experiment since it would include the skeptic factor.

But I personally still feel as though it's "up to the believers" to show evidence and the burden of proof is on them. That was the basis for asking in the first place. I don't see why those who don't even believe in it have to do anything they don't want to do. Even those who believe don't have to do anything if you don't want to .... BUT, it's an opportunity to show your powers and provide evidence. Talk proves nothing. Read our minds, make the RNG do something, whatever it is that can be agreed upon. Yes?

ETA: posted before seeing Pixel42's draft :)

[not daSkeptic]

I'm still not clear why anybody needs to "log in" as it were. That implies the establishment of a user session, as opposed to simply viewing a web page. Why is that necessary? Is it a control to keep the different teams out of the system until it's their time?

[MortFurd]

It should be pointed out that RNGs tend to produce a greater variance then would be expected if you were dealing with a theoretical distribution. You want to make sure that you don't call normal machine function evidence of psi.

Linda

It should be pointed out that most "RNGs" are really Pseudo Random Number Generators whose output is wholly deterministic. They are given a seed and from that point on the entire sequence of "random numbers" is fixed and cannot be changed. Many (if not all) languages pick a seed when your process (program) starts and just uses the output from the PRNG from that point - they do NOT change seeds or do anything that would change the sequence.

In other words, it won't matter what your psychic powers do, the sequence is determined at the moment the program starts.

To get true RNG and to have something a psychic just maybe, possibly, by some stretch of wild imagination, influence you will need a RNG that uses an external source of entropy. This could be in the form of special, for the purpose hardware, or of software that uses the interval between external events as a source of entropy (arrival time of network packets, keyboard interrupts, mouse movements, etc.)

Under Windows, you would need special hardware and driver, or just a background service to do it all in hardware.

On a Linux system, there is always a true RNG that uses external events and which takes advantage of RNG hardware when available. It can be read by any program through normal file operations.

On Windows, I see on Wikipedia that the CyptoAPI generates its own entropy pool.

Regardless of the OS, you will need to take steps to ensure that the RNG is NOT deterministic and that its entropy pool is influenced by external events. A PRNG merely twiddles bits in the computer's memory

[MortFurd]

I'm still not clear why anybody needs to "log in" as it were. That implies the establishment of a user session, as opposed to simply viewing a web page. Why is that necessary? Is it a control to keep the different teams out of the system until it's their time?
Bookkeeping. When the user logins in, you can correlate changes in the random number output to when someone was ... ahem. Doing something.

If you merely schedule the sessions but don't log the users in, then you don't know if anyone is really participating.

[not daSkeptic]

Bookkeeping. When the user logins in, you can correlate changes in the random number output to when someone was ... ahem. Doing something.

If you merely schedule the sessions but don't log the users in, then you don't know if anyone is really participating.

That can be seen in the access logs. Most servers are configured to log whenever someone requests a page. The only thing a user session would give you is the ability to tell who issued the request, assuming each person had their own individual log-in credentials.

[MortFurd]

OK, this is from what I've gathered so far about the sort of test that's being suggested. I could be misunderstanding. :)

Required:

1. A web site which records in real time the output of a random number generator, set to generate 0s and 1s continuously. I presume there will be some visible display, two bars perhaps, which shows how many 0s and 1s have been generated in the last <some time interval>, updating every <some shorter time interval>, so that the volunteers will have something to look at and some feedback as to whether they are having any effect. A login name and password will be required to access the display at certain specified times. There will be two valid login names/passwords.

True random number generation is a MUST (see my other comments.) Using a PRNG as a source proves nada, since the only way to change the output is to change the seed - which would mean changing a number in the computer's memory and doing it without corrupting the other contents of the RAM.

To prove to all concerned parties that the numbers are generated properly, the source code of the application really needs to be made available.

I would suggest using separate logins for each participant. Most web frameworks aren't going to be good at handling multiple simultaneous logins with just one user name - especially not if you are also going to try to track how many are really online.



2. A group of psi believers (Team W) who will be given one login and password

3. A group of psi non-believers (Team X) who will be given the other login and password

Volunteers will be allocated to Team X or Team W depending on their responses to a questionaire, or to whether they answer 'yes' or 'no' when asked if they believe in psi.

The RNG will first be run without its output being displayed on the web site for a few hours and the number of 0s and 1s generated for each period of (X, value to be agreed) minutes recorded. This data will be used to determine the success criteria before the experiment itself is run. The success criteria will be that the number of 1s generated exceed the number of 0s by a proportion that is statistically significantly greater at the 95% level than the RNG's average pre-experiment output.

To be agreed beforehand:

a) The number of members of a team who need to be participating for the run to be considered a valid run.
b) The number of runs for each team and the time interval for each run
c) The time for each run
d) The success criteria

Protocol:

1. At the series of previously agreed times the first login and password will be enabled for a period of X minutes. The number of members of Team W who login during that time will be recorded. Team W will attempt to influence the RNG such that the number of 1s exceeds the number of 0s.

2. At the series of previously agreed times the second login and password will be enabled for a period of X minutes. The number of members of Team X who login during that time will be recorded. Team X will attempt to influence the RNG such that the number of 1s exceeds the number of 0s.

3. When all test runs are complete those with insufficient participants are discarded.

4. For any test runs that meet the requirement for the minimum number of participants, the proportion of 1s to 0s will be calculated. If it exceeds the previously agreed success criteria it will be counted as a Pass, otherwise it will be counted as a Fail

5. The following will be posted on the website:

Team W: No of Passes, No of Fails

Team X: No of Passes, No of Fails

If one team has more Passes than the other, that team will be declared the winner.

If Team W has more Passes than Team X that will be considered evidence that psi ability is affected by belief/mental attitude.

If one or both teams has at least one Pass, that will be considered evidence that psi exists and further experiments are justified. If neither team has at least one Pass that will be considered evidence that psi does not exist and further experiments are not justified.


Let the tearing apart begin.


[Note that there is little point in discussing the protocol unless requirement (1) is met, so we first need someone with the necessary knowhow to agree to set this up].
I could get a friend who runs his own web server to provide resources, but:
1. His server doesn't have a hardware RNG and is dependent on network activity for entropy - heavy use of the true RNG would rapidly deplete the entropy pool and cause unreliable results.
2. The server is his personal plaything, run from home just for fun. It is connected to the rest of the world over a simple DSL line - measely 128kBit upload, so heavy use with graphics would saturate the bandwidth.

Alternatively, I could write the software using my favorite framework and give it to someone with more resources. Or someone else can write it.

[MortFurd]

That can be seen in the access logs. Most servers are configured to log whenever someone requests a page. The only thing a user session would give you is the ability to tell who issued the request, assuming each person had their own individual log-in credentials.

You see an IP address, and can't tell which team the user belongs to. Individual users aren't important, but the total per team per session is. Any reasonable web framework includes user management (username, password, session, etc) so its a gimme on the setup.

[not daSkeptic]

You see an IP address, and can't tell which team the user belongs to.

I kinda already said that.

[Robin]

True random number generation is a MUST (see my other comments.) Using a PRNG as a source proves nada, since the only way to change the output is to change the seed - which would mean changing a number in the computer's memory and doing it without corrupting the other contents of the RAM.
I believe that someone has already volunteered the possibility of a hardware RNG for this. In order to upload the data all that would be necessary is something as simple as an ftp script that uploaded the data file each second.

I have some graphing software that would do the job, however it is written in Java and not everyone wants a java plug in. Perhaps there is a flash app that would do the job, or else we can just generate one graph per second in a graphic format and have the screen constantly refreshing. That would not take up too much bandwidth.

I believe the technical stuff is all doable, we just need to get agreement on the format.

[Limbo]

Seems to me that the idea has not been thought through properly.


I agree it has not been thought through properly. Yet. It's getting there! I just thought of the basic idea at 13th March 2010, 08:44 AM and I mentioned it to Trent in another thread. Then after a little discussion it was recommended to me that I make this thread. I was already in the process of doing so. I think the basic idea is good and I think it can be made to work.

It is not so much 'carrying the idea forward' as to getting it to the start line.

Unless you develop the idea into something workable you are not going to get anyone excited. To clarify; the difficulties with this are not organisational but intellectual.


Well certainly I will do what I can. I'm just a security guard so don't expect much. It's not like I have the strength of an educational foundation behind me or anything. :p

[Limbo]

And to clarify --- I asked Limbo to think up an experiment that would provide evidence of the psi/paranormal/etc that he more or less claims exists as fact. It was essentially asking him, or whoever, believes in the stuff to produce something for the JREF that would show "his truth". I figured if he could think up something that could be shown to the JREF or involve them, it would be much more fair to his experiment since it would include the skeptic factor.


Be careful what you ask for. ;)

[Limbo]

You see an IP address, and can't tell which team the user belongs to. Individual users aren't important, but the total per team per session is. Any reasonable web framework includes user management (username, password, session, etc) so its a gimme on the setup.


After each round, will analysts be able to tell who was logging in and who wasn't?

[Limbo]

Well if pointing out that we've been here before with 'enthusiastic' paranormalists who want to prove that they have something to offer and then fail to deliver, yes maybe I am, but only after you made it quite clear that you were not prepared to work at it yourself preferring instead to let everyone else run around for you.


Ok, when you put it like that you're absolutely right. Shall we forgive and forget and move on?

Why?
I have no interest in learning about ESP questionnaires and think the questionnaire issue is just another layer of delay.
All you need are 6 people who believe and six people who don't, so if a questionnaire were to be issued it would consist of:


No my friend it is not delay. Using the right questionnaire is vital. We must have the right people on the right teams. We need more than simply believers and more than simply skeptics. And we need MUCH more than 6 people who believe and six people who don't. We need at least 50 on each team. If we really want definitive evidence, that is. The more people we have on each team, the more chance we have of enlisting someone who has truly exceptional psi strength. And the more collective psychic strength there is on the team. Heck if I had my way there would be thousands of psychics on Team Noetic.

[Limbo]

Hey I wonder if this would make a good reality show?

Imagine, a huge HQ that houses the RNG and any other equipment and staff. There could be a panel of parapsychologists who build their team, and a panel of skeptics who build theirs. Each round could last a week, and so on every episode they could analyze the data they accumulate during the week. They could debate about it, and replace weak team members who don't log-in, and could do little personal interest pieces on various panelists and team members. Lots of drama and controversy opportunities. People love that ****.

Skeptics at home would be encouraged to root for the skeptic team of course, and psi believers would be encouraged to root for the psi team. At the end of the season a winner is declared and the data is analyzed in terms of evidence for psi. Then make improvements and tweak the teams and do another season to replicate it!

[Trent Wray]

Hey I wonder if this would make a good reality show?

Imagine, a huge HQ that houses the RNG and any other equipment and staff. There could be a panel of parapsychologists who build their team, and a panel of skeptics who build theirs. Each round could last a week, and so on every episode they could analyze the data they accumulate during the week. They could debate about it, and replace weak team members who don't log-in, and could do little personal interest pieces on various panelists and team members. Lots of drama and controversy opportunities. People love that ****.

Skeptics at home would be encouraged to root for the skeptic team of course, and psi believers would be encouraged to root for the psi team. At the end of the season a winner is declared and the data is analyzed in terms of evidence for psi. Then make improvements and tweak the teams and do another season to replicate it! A huge HQ housing staff and equipment looking for paranormal people? We already have SETI looking for signs of intelligent life elsewhere ... ;)

[Sledge]

If all the people who believed in psi were in one place, it would be one place SETI could cross off their list.

[not daSkeptic]

In order to upload the data all that would be necessary is something as simple as an ftp script that uploaded the data file each second.

Even that could be overkill. Despite my asking, nobody has defined what sort of separations of concerns must exist in this trial. For all we know, it's perfectly acceptable to just put the output of the RNG into text files that are downloadable via the web directly from the same server that's hosting the RNG.

So many fundamental issues must be resolved before we get anywhere near talking about implementation.

[Robin]

Even that could be overkill. Despite my asking, nobody has defined what sort of separations of concerns must exist in this trial. For all we know, it's perfectly acceptable to just put the output of the RNG into text files that are downloadable via the web directly from the same server that's hosting the RNG.

So many fundamental issues must be resolved before we get anywhere near talking about implementation.
For a start we need to know what it is that we are supposed to be testing for.

[Stray Cat]

Ok, when you put it like that you're absolutely right. Shall we forgive and forget and move on?
Yes, I want to see this project move on.

And we need MUCH more than 6 people who believe and six people who don't. We need at least 50 on each team. If we really want definitive evidence, that is. The more people we have on each team, the more chance we have of enlisting someone who has truly exceptional psi strength.
Then I think you are setting yourself up for a project that logistically can not happen. If there is strength in psychic numbers, why do the vast majority of psychics work completely alone? And yet still claim to have super psychic powers?
Afterall, we're not talking about making the statue of liberty disappear here, we're talking about affecting an RNG.
I would seriously reconsider the overly ambitious 50 people on each team and go for a much smaller team initially. If there is even a small result, perhaps the teams can be expanded later for further tests to see if the increase in numbers gives an increase in variation on the RNG.
Besides, running what would in effect be a preliminary test with small numbers will teach everyone a lot about running such a test on a larger scale and make a later test with 50 people per team much more possible from a technical and logistical point of view.

[Akhenaten]

A huge HQ housing staff and equipment looking for paranormal people? We already have SETI looking for signs of intelligent life elsewhere ... ;)





. . . and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'cause there's bugger-all down here on Earth.

[Pixel42]

Using the right questionnaire is vital. We must have the right people on the right teams.
It sounds to me like you are more concerned with trying to prove that some people are better at psi than others than you are at proving that psi exists at all. Surely it's necessary to establish the latter before investigating the former?

The questionaire adds an extra layer of complication that's going to significantly reduce the likelihood of the experiment happening at all. Simply setting up a website that anyone can access at the appropriate times would be much easier and is surely the first step. By all means include a questionaire on the site which those who participate are asked to fill in, if you get any successful runs it might well be worth analysing the results to see if more people of the type you expect were participating at those times. But that's a hell of a big "if".

[Mirrorglass]

Hey I wonder if this would make a good reality show?

Imagine, a huge HQ that houses the RNG and any other equipment and staff. There could be a panel of parapsychologists who build their team, and a panel of skeptics who build theirs. Each round could last a week, and so on every episode they could analyze the data they accumulate during the week. They could debate about it, and replace weak team members who don't log-in, and could do little personal interest pieces on various panelists and team members. Lots of drama and controversy opportunities. People love that ****.

Skeptics at home would be encouraged to root for the skeptic team of course, and psi believers would be encouraged to root for the psi team. At the end of the season a winner is declared and the data is analyzed in terms of evidence for psi. Then make improvements and tweak the teams and do another season to replicate it!

We can think about the licensing rights after we've at least done a preliminary test. I agree with the people here that we should start small, as starting with huge numbers is logistically impossible. We can just do the 6 vs 6 test first, then assume that the lacking results were due to the sample size. By then we'll know enough so that making a larger test happen is feasible.

Anyway, at the very least you should try recruiting us some believers. I assume you hang out at forums where they are plentiful? Could you ask some of the well-spoken ones to drop by here if they're interested in taking part? I'm not gonna listen to any talk about 50 people in a group until you've provided two.

[Limbo]

It sounds to me like you are more concerned with trying to prove that some people are better at psi than others than you are at proving that psi exists at all. Surely it's necessary to establish the latter before investigating the former?


Pixel42, there is reason to believe that if psi is real then personality variables make a difference. There have been studies of that kind of thing. Part of my claim is that psi scores can be roughly predicted based on questionnaire response. If we want strong scores and obvious RNG deviations, then we need to have a strong team, and that means careful selection based on a good questionnaire.

If you're right then careful selection will not help us - nothing will. But if I'm right it will help. Either way, it couldn't hurt.

The questionaire adds an extra layer of complication that's going to significantly reduce the likelihood of the experiment happening at all. Simply setting up a website that anyone can access at the appropriate times would be much easier and is surely the first step. By all means include a questionaire on the site which those who participate are asked to fill in, if you get any successful runs it might well be worth analysing the results to see if more people of the type you expect were participating at those times. But that's a hell of a big "if".


I'm now willing to compromise on the preliminary test and use a rather simple and straightforward questionnaire and small teams, as Mirrorglass suggests in the above post.

[Limbo]

I assume you hang out at forums where they are plentiful? Could you ask some of the well-spoken ones to drop by here if they're interested in taking part?


I should be able to get some by the end of the week.

[devnull]

I think the bigger question is, Limbo, what will you do/think if there is no effect?

[Limbo]

I assume you hang out at forums where they are plentiful? Could you ask some of the well-spoken ones to drop by here if they're interested in taking part?


Before I start looking elsewhere, are there any psi-advocates around here that would like to volunteer? Maybe we can keep the preliminary test in-house.

If you guys know any that hang out at JREF but aren't in this thread, drop em a PM!

[Limbo]

I think the bigger question is, Limbo, what will you do/think if there is no effect?


Meh, I think the bigger question is what will you do/think when there is an effect. As someone who has experienced veridical psi firsthand I have little doubt that if everything is done how I want it done then we will capture a demonstrated psi effect and it will be replicable.

[SumDood]

I'm sorry that I'm too lazy to go through all the pages in this thread to find the original claim, but let me try and summarize my understanding here:

Limbo says that a group of 'PSI believers' (between 50 - 1000) can log into a website and without knowing where on the planet the server is located, not knowing how the page is routed to their local machines and lacking any knowledge of the program that randomly generates numbers, this group can alter the numbers generated?

[Limbo]

I'm sorry that I'm too lazy to go through all the pages in this thread to find the original claim, but let me try and summarize my understanding here:

Limbo says that a group of 'PSI believers' (between 50 - 1000) can log into a website and without knowing where on the planet the server is located, not knowing how the page is routed to their local machines and lacking any knowledge of the program that randomly generates numbers, this group can alter the numbers generated?


Why would they not have knowledge of the program that randomly generates numbers? Shouldn't that kind of detail be common knowledge, available to anyone interested? I mean people will want to make sure it's legit.

But yeah that's the gist of it.

[Lothian]

Meh, I think the bigger question is what will you do/think when there is an effect. As someone who has experienced veridical psi firsthand I have little doubt that if everything is done how I want it done then we will capture a demonstrated psi effect and it will be replicable.This is an important question. If you will not accept that a failure of the test represents the failure of professed psychics to produce the effects they claim there is little point in continuing.

Too many failures have been explained away. That is why the design of the test needs to leave no wriggling room for either side.

[SumDood]

Why would they not have knowledge of the program that randomly generates numbers? Shouldn't that kind of detail be common knowledge, available to anyone interested?

But yeah that's the gist of it.

I didn't see any stipulation that the PSI Believers are computer programmers/engineers. Would the source code that is used in the Random Number Generator need to be supplied to the group? Without a decent background in programming this would be useless.

[Limbo]

This is an important question. If you will not accept that a failure of the test represents the failure of professed psychics to produce the effects they claim there is little point in continuing.

Too many failures have been explained away. That is why the design of the test needs to leave no wriggling room for either side.


It is an important point. How do you suggest we make sure that skeptics can't explain away positive results?

[Darat]

It is an important point. How do you suggest we make sure that skeptics can't explain away positive results?

Eh? A "skeptic" will simply follow the evidence - so why would a "skeptic" want to explain away any result?

[Limbo]

I didn't see any stipulation that the PSI Believers are computer programmers/engineers. Would the source code that is used in the Random Number Generator need to be supplied to the group? Without a decent background in programming this would be useless.


Well, I would think that if we have a large team of PSI believers, then some of them might be computer savvy. It's not like we all work in New-Age bookstores and carnivals.

Wouldn't each team need to feel sure that the other team has not tampered with the source code?

[Limbo]

eh? A "skeptic" will simply follow the evidence - so why would a "skeptic" want to explain away any result?


rofl

[Darat]

rofl

:confused:

[devnull]

if everything is done how I want it done

Right, I have my answer - wake me up when its all over.

[fls]

:confused:

Limbo's point is that we already have conclusive definitive proof of psi which the skeptics merely explain away.

Linda

[Tempest_Rage]

It is an important point. How do you suggest we make sure that skeptics can't explain away positive results?

Make sure to use statistics (instead of fairy tales) to analyze the data. Make sure your methodology is sound beforehand. That'll take care of us skeptics. Solved.

Now how do we make sure the woos can't just all start whining about nonsensical negative energies, and conspiracies?

[Lothian]

It is an important point. How do you suggest we make sure that skeptics can't explain away positive results?Put simply both sides need to sign up before the test to statements similar to those below

A result in excess of X will demonstrate a PSI effect and evidence that psychics can do what they claim with regards (insert experiment here).

A result short of X will demonstrate no PSI effect and evidence that psychics can not do what they claim with regards (insert experiment here).

[Limbo]

Make sure to use statistics (instead of fairy tales) to analyze the data. Make sure your methodology is sound beforehand. That'll take care of us skeptics. Solved.

Now how do we make sure the woos can't just all start whining about nonsensical negative energies, and conspiracies?


I would expect an insightful reader of this thread to realize by now that my questionnaire efforts and team composition concerns and skeptic frame-of-mind concerns are about weakening the "nonsensical negative energies" and buffing the "nonsensical positive energies."

[fls]

It should be pointed out that most "RNGs" are really Pseudo Random Number Generators whose output is wholly deterministic. They are given a seed and from that point on the entire sequence of "random numbers" is fixed and cannot be changed. Many (if not all) languages pick a seed when your process (program) starts and just uses the output from the PRNG from that point - they do NOT change seeds or do anything that would change the sequence.

In other words, it won't matter what your psychic powers do, the sequence is determined at the moment the program starts.

To get true RNG and to have something a psychic just maybe, possibly, by some stretch of wild imagination, influence you will need a RNG that uses an external source of entropy. This could be in the form of special, for the purpose hardware, or of software that uses the interval between external events as a source of entropy (arrival time of network packets, keyboard interrupts, mouse movements, etc.)

I realize that most RNG's are PRNG's. I was referring to those used by PEAR which were purportedly true RNG's. The measured variance for those experiments (even during periods of no influence) was greater than the theoretical variance. I presumed that Limbo was familiar enough with the studies to realize that these were the sorts of machines that the participants would need to use.

Linda

[Tempest_Rage]

I would expect an insightful reader of this thread to realize that my questionnaire efforts and team composition concerns and skeptic frame-of-mind concerns are all designed to control the "nonsensical negative energies."

So your question was asking for suggestions on methodology that would satisfy scientific standards? Or were you implying there is a skeptic conspiracy keeping the woo down?

I took it to mean the latter. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

ETA: Someone needs to start of with a good lit review, so we can really get into it.

[SumDood]

Well, I would think that if we have a large team of PSI believers, then some of them might be computer savvy. It's not like we all work in New-Age bookstores and carnivals.

Agreed, but I'm assuming that you think believers with little or no computer programming background will still have an effect on the numbers generated. Is this correct?

Wouldn't each team need to feel sure that the other team has not tampered with the source code?That would be nice, but practically impossible. Just because the source code is presented to your team, there is no way of proving that the exact code is running on the server on the web site at the time of the test.

Which is another reason why this test is absurd. If I understand you correctly, you're saying a believer can look at his or her screen and think 'Only produce zeros!' really hard and the PSI energy interprets that command and can follow the right cord from the monitor to the pc and then follow the right cord from the pc to the local routing stations and then know exactly where in the world to find the correct server and then the energy will know how the computer is generating numbers and will know how to alter that process to only produce zeros. Wouldn't it be a WHOLE lot easier to just go to the nearest woo convention, gather everyone in a conference room and say "blow out this candle with your collective minds" or "change the time on this digital clock from 12:00 to 6:15" or "make this diode light up"?

[Lothian]

Agreed, but I'm assuming that you think believers with little or no computer programming background will still have an effect on the numbers generated. Is this correct?

That would be nice, but practically impossible. Just because the source code is presented to your team, there is no way of proving that the exact code is running on the server on the web site at the time of the test.

Which is another reason why this test is absurd. If I understand you correctly, you're saying a believer can look at his or her screen and think 'Only produce zeros!' really hard and the PSI energy interprets that command and can follow the right cord from the monitor to the pc and then follow the right cord from the pc to the local routing stations and then know exactly where in the world to find the correct server and then the energy will know how the computer is generating numbers and will know how to alter that process to only produce zeros. Wouldn't it be a WHOLE lot easier to just go to the nearest woo convention, gather everyone in a conference room and say "blow out this candle with your collective minds" or "change the time on this digital clock from 12:00 to 6:15" or "make this diode light up"?You are missing the point. What better way can there be to conclusively demonstrate that psychics can see into the future, read minds, achieve telekinesis, talk to the dead and remote view than making a computer produce 2,050,000 zeros in a run of 4,000,000 numbers?

[dafydd]

I would expect an insightful reader of this thread to realize by now that my questionnaire efforts and team composition concerns and skeptic frame-of-mind concerns are about weakening the "nonsensical negative energies" and buffing the "nonsensical positive energies."

A lot of the failed applicants for the Million Dollar Challenge have used the negative vibes excuse.

[Mirrorglass]

Put simply both sides need to sign up before the test to statements similar to those below

A result in excess of X will demonstrate a PSI effect and evidence that psychics can do what they claim with regards (insert experiment here).

A result short of X will demonstrate no PSI effect and evidence that psychics can not do what they claim with regards (insert experiment here).

Exactly. I can make a statement, and I'm confident here that all the skeptics reading this will agree:

If the result indeed is in excess of X, as Lothian put it, the skeptics will not try to explain it away. We will, however, demand the experiment to be repeated. If the results repeat.. Well, then we take the scientific world by storm with the biggest find of the century.

What I would like from Limbo is a similar statement that if the result is short of X, he will not blame it on the test being faulty. He may ask for some repeating of the test, but if no results show, he will agree that group psi in fact doesn't work like this. So far he's yet to give any statement to this effect.

So, Limbo? Do you agree that if the experiment is done properly, and no effect is shown, that means you were wrong about psi?

[tsig]

Limbo's point is that we already have conclusive definitive proof of psi which the skeptics merely explain away.

Linda

Then this "test" is pointless.

[not daSkeptic]

Why would they not have knowledge of the program that randomly generates numbers? Shouldn't that kind of detail be common knowledge, available to anyone interested? I mean people will want to make sure it's legit.

I believe SumDood was referring to a lack of knowledge during the test. It's a control to ensure that prior knowledge of the RNG system does not influence the result. Afterward, yes, everything should be made public so that it can be scrutinized and repeated.

But yeah that's the gist of it.

If that's the case, then why is it necessary for people to visit a website at all? If what you're saying is true, then it would seem all that's necessary is for a RNG to be running somewhere, and at certain dates and times people do whatever they do to influence it.

[fls]

If that's the case, then why is it necessary for people to visit a website at all? If what you're saying is true, then it would seem all that's necessary is for a RNG to be running somewhere, and at certain dates and times people do whatever they do to influence it.

I think that you need to be concentrating on the output in order to influence the machine. You need to be logged in so that you can sort of fine-tune 'whatever it is you are doing to influence the machine' to get the desired result.

Linda

[not daSkeptic]

I think that you need to be concentrating on the output in order to influence the machine. You need to be logged in so that you can sort of fine-tune 'whatever it is you are doing to influence the machine' to get the desired result.

That's the sort of thing I'm trying to find out. I'm trying to understand what exactly is required in terms of a relationship between the RNG and those trying to influence it.

[Trent Wray]

That's the sort of thing I'm trying to find out. I'm trying to understand what exactly is required in terms of a relationship between the RNG and those trying to influence it. Trust, attraction, and a give and take attitude.

[BobR]

Perhaps an alternative idea to the OP's would be for all teams to collaborate in attempting to influence an RNG downward (or upward) rather than two teams attempting to achieve opposing goals. That would be a more direct experiment.

However, it sounds a bit contrary to the general spirit of the forum, which is essentially adversarial.

[Akhenaten]

We are the RNG. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.


All your number are belong to us.

[BobR]

Eh? A "skeptic" will simply follow the evidence - so why would a "skeptic" want to explain away any result?
Perhaps if skeptic were a misnomer when applied to them. Most of the "skeptics" I find are more properly termed "contradictors."

[Trent Wray]

Perhaps if skeptic were a misnomer when applied to them. Most of the "skeptics" I find are more properly termed "contradictors."
No they're not!

[Olowkow]

From what I have seen, these "tests" often spend hundreds of pages trying to decide what to do, and wind up never getting any testing done. Here is a starting place:

http://www.random.org/

All kinds of random generators. Let the believers practice a little, and report their successes or failures on "the honor system", then devise a real test.

[MortFurd]

That's the sort of thing I'm trying to find out. I'm trying to understand what exactly is required in terms of a relationship between the RNG and those trying to influence it.
Damifino. All I know is that you need to see how many were really trying when the trials are run. To do that you need a log in - you could just check the web server logs for IP addresses, but then you can't split thing down by team. The team thing seems to be an integral part of Limbo's plan.

[MortFurd]

From what I have seen, these "tests" often spend hundreds of pages trying to decide what to do, and wind up never getting any testing done. Here is a starting place:

Snip...
Nothing ever gets done cause the believers always back out or set completely crazy conditions.

[not daSkeptic]

All I know is that you need to see how many were really trying when the trials are run.
...
The team thing seems to be an integral part of Limbo's plan.

Although it has been suggested, it has not yet been established as necessary, which is why I'm asking.

[Olowkow]

Nothing ever gets done cause the believers always back out or set completely crazy conditions.

In which case, it would seem to me that any attempt at a test is pretty much pointless behavior.

My observation is that very little gets done, because believers often back out or set sort of crazy conditions, and those trying to set up a protocol get too wound up in theoretical nitpicking or infighting. Of course, after the failure is where the interesting absolutes and excuses on the part of believers in the paranormal start popping up.

Also, why is it so important that the psi believer be pinned to the floor and cry "uncle" if he fails? Could it be that he is intimidated by this requirement, and is hesitant to participate?

[Fnord]

Perhaps if skeptic were a misnomer when applied to them. Most of the "skeptics" I find are more properly termed "contradictors."
.
Only when it comes to faith, Bobber. Only when it comes to faith.

Faith proves nothing; therefor, it can not be used as "evidence".

[Olowkow]

http://www.random.org/

Maybe someone would like to try playing with the "sequence" generator on this site. It is supposedly truly random in its generation since it is triggered by atmospheric noise.

You can make a list of however many numbers in any number of columns. There is a time stamp also on the list, so it could be copied and pasted with proof of the time when it was generated. One could, say, try to get more single digit numbers while concentrating and trying to influence it, it is very fast. I personally don't believe that it can be influenced, but if the psi-ists report that they have had successes, then a test could easily be devised using the time stamp feature to confirm this.

[Limbo]

If that's the case, then why is it necessary for people to visit a website at all? If what you're saying is true, then it would seem all that's necessary is for a RNG to be running somewhere, and at certain dates and times people do whatever they do to influence it.


I think you're right, basically all that is really necessary is for a target RNG to be running somewhere, and at certain dates and times people 'do whatever they do' to influence it.

But it is still necessary for people to visit a website and log in for many reasons. For instance, they need to receive instructions - is the team going to aim for more zeroes or ones today? That information should only be available to team members who log-in that day.

And when a team member is logged in, he or she has the option for various forms of visual feedback on their computer monitor. Only people who are logged in will have that option.

[not daSkeptic]

... they need to receive instructions - is the team going to aim for more zeroes or ones today? That information should only be available to team members who log-in that day.

I assume this is a control intended to prevent those who are not part of the trial from influencing the result?

And when a team member is logged in, he or she has the option for various forms of visual feedback on their computer monitor. Only people who are logged in will have that option.

Is this necessary in order to achieve the desired results, or is it just something that would be nice to have?

[Limbo]

I assume this is a control intended to prevent those who are not part of the trial from influencing the result?


That's a good assumption.

Is this necessary in order to achieve the desired results, or is it just something that would be nice to have?


For many it will be necessary. Wouldn't you like to have the option?

daSkeptic do you foresee difficulties or something?

[Limbo]

Exactly. I can make a statement, and I'm confident here that all the skeptics reading this will agree:

If the result indeed is in excess of X, as Lothian put it, the skeptics will not try to explain it away. We will, however, demand the experiment to be repeated. If the results repeat.. Well, then we take the scientific world by storm with the biggest find of the century.

What I would like from Limbo is a similar statement that if the result is short of X, he will not blame it on the test being faulty. He may ask for some repeating of the test, but if no results show, he will agree that group psi in fact doesn't work like this. So far he's yet to give any statement to this effect.

So, Limbo? Do you agree that if the experiment is done properly, and no effect is shown, that means you were wrong about psi?


If the experiment is done properly then it will still need to be replicated. So I think I will wait and see. But keep in mind that I'm not designing this experiment to convince myself psi is real. I'm already quite convinced of that. I'm designing it to convince JREF.

In my woo opinion the only way to do that is to overwhelm the collective unconscious psi of JREF. Your own damn unconscious psi is what is making it so elusive and tricky, JREF. To overcome that I want an enthusiastic skeptic team that will try to find their inner Jedi, and I want skeptics to root for them even though they are essentially the control group, I want skeptics to play along even if they feel silly. Root for them as if they were all Luke frakking Skywalker. It's all in good fun, and we may learn something either way. And I want the skeptic team outnumbered two-to-one, if that wouldn't screw up the analysis or anything.

[not daSkeptic]

That's a good assumption.

So then the inability to log into an arbitrary website somehow blocks one from remotely influencing a random number generator located somewhere in the world?

For many it will be necessary. Wouldn't you like to have the option?

Not if it isn't necessary, no. I would worry its presence was influencing the results.

[Limbo]

So then the inability to log into an arbitrary website somehow blocks one from remotely influencing a random number generator located somewhere in the world?


There are many reasons that I want each member of each team to have his or her own log-in ID for a customized website. Can you provide that?

Not if it isn't necessary, no. I would worry its presence was influencing the results.


It's necessary, unless you can give me more than your worries.

[not daSkeptic]

There are many reasons that I want each member of each team to have his or her own log-in ID for a customized website. Can you provide that?

Not without knowing why.

It's necessary, unless you can give me more than your worries.

Why is it necessary?

[Miss_Kitt]

Well I'm just the idea guy so I'm hoping JREF does everything and provides everything except the people for Team Woo. Probably not enough believers around here for that.

Wait, it's one thing to ask for recruits of non-psi believers, and quite another thing to push the entire expense, hassle, and responsibility of designing, documenting, and running the experiment onto the JREF. This organization does not exist to run tests of psi, ghosts, UFOs, magnetic resonance in crop circles or dowsing for lost treasure!

If you want advice on how to set up a test, there are probably some people who would help you with that because they enjoy reviewing test protocols. I'd take that over to the MDC section and say up front what you want.

I don't see funding or running logistics for your test as an appropriate use of the JREF's money or resources.

Just my thoughts, MK

[Limbo]

Not without knowing why.


You mean in addition to all the reasons already given? How many more do you need?

Why is it necessary?


So that we can experiment with different sorts of feedback themes and strategies if we choose. For instance lets say that the aim of my team today is to get more ones out of the RNG. So lets see what happens if all the men are given erotic visual feedback. Pics of hot chicks when my team starts getting more ones, and ugly chicks if not.

[Dragoonster]

So that we can experiment with different sorts of feedback themes and strategies if we choose. For instance lets say that the aim of my team today is to get more ones out of the RNG. So lets see what happens if all the men are given erotic visual feedback. Pics of hot chicks when my team starts getting more ones, and ugly chicks if not.

That seems kind of crazy. Keep it simple--every additional weird thing is going to put people off from participating, and make them more skeptical that this is an objective (or single-hypothesis) scientific experiment. And it's going to increase the factors involved exponentially, which will cast doubt (or provide post facto excuse) as to which factors actually influenced the results.

The only feedback should be the real-time line of the RNG, if that. If that's not acceptable, then the assertion is that micro-PK is impossible without feedback of hot/ugly people's pictures. Is that an assertion you're making?

[Limbo]

That seems kind of crazy. Keep it simple--every additional weird thing is going to put people off from participating, and make them more skeptical that this is an objective (or single-hypothesis) scientific experiment. And it's going to increase the factors involved exponentially, which will cast doubt (or provide post facto excuse) as to which factors actually influenced the results.

The only feedback should be the real-time line of the RNG, if that. If that's not acceptable, then the assertion is that micro-PK is impossible without feedback of hot/ugly people's pictures. Is that an assertion you're making?


My aim is that the pro-psi team be given every possible psi-condusive advantage. Both in terms of team composition and strategic tools. Among those tools is feedback.

I really don't see where all the resistance is coming from.

[Sledge]

Because you're throwing in variables that assume psi exists before proving that it does.

[not daSkeptic]

I really don't see where all the resistance is coming from.

It's exactly as Sledge said. You're overcomplicating and confusing the issue rather than performing a simple yes/no test.

[Limbo]

For the preliminary test, yeah it can be simple. Simple yes/no feedback would be fine for the preliminary. Just so long as the team members can chose to know if their team achieves significance.

[bookitty]

If the experiment is done properly then it will still need to be replicated. So I think I will wait and see. But keep in mind that I'm not designing this experiment to convince myself psi is real. I'm already quite convinced of that. I'm designing it to convince JREF.

In my woo opinion the only way to do that is to overwhelm the collective unconscious psi of JREF. Your own damn unconscious psi is what is making it so elusive and tricky, JREF. To overcome that I want an enthusiastic skeptic team that will try to find their inner Jedi, and I want skeptics to root for them even though they are essentially the control group, I want skeptics to play along even if they feel silly. Root for them as if they were all Luke frakking Skywalker. It's all in good fun, and we may learn something either way. And I want the skeptic team outnumbered two-to-one, if that wouldn't screw up the analysis or anything.

You do realize that you have set up any number of easy outs here, right? If the skeptics are too numerous, not enthusiastic enough, unable to find their inner jedi (?) or will not "play along" then the experiment will not prove anything to you.

In other words, if you get the results you want than you will see conclusive evidence. If you don't you have a bunch of ready made excuses. AND you would like the JREF to handle all the work and expenses.

What's in it for them?

[Limbo]

You do realize that you have set up any number of easy outs here, right? If the skeptics are too numerous, not enthusiastic enough, unable to find their inner jedi (?) or will not "play along" then the experiment will not prove anything to you.

In other words, if you get the results you want than you will see conclusive evidence. If you don't you have a bunch of ready made excuses. AND you would like the JREF to handle all the work and expenses.

What's in it for them?


If I'm right and these measures that I take enable us to capture the elusive psi and replicate then yea that is its own reward. That is what's in it for you - a scientific and cultural golden age.

[bookitty]

If I'm right and these measures that I take enable us to capture the elusive psi then yea that is it's own reward. That is what's in it for you - a scientific and cultural golden age.

That's very pretty. Unfortunately, it would derail this thread to point out the number of ways that statement is incorrect. Suffice to say that the JREF is already working towards "a scientific and cultural golden age" based on reason. They have no need to distract themselves with one based on psi.

Although, if you truly believe that capturing the elusive psi will do all of these wonderful things, why don't you want to expend the energy and finances? Surely you'll be paid back a million fold.

[Limbo]

That's very pretty. Unfortunately, it would derail this thread to point out the number of ways that statement is incorrect. Suffice to say that the JREF is already working towards "a scientific and cultural golden age" based on reason. They have no need to distract themselves with one based on psi.


Yeah I know.

Although, if you truly believe that capturing the elusive psi will do all of these wonderful things, why don't you want to expend the energy and finances? Surely you'll be paid back a million fold.


It requires more time and energy and finances than I have. Trent asked me to come up with an idea myself. He didn't say anything about expending all the energy and money I have. Which is not much. No, it's up to JREF. At least I would like JREF to be involved. If not maybe I'll see if some other organization is interested.

[Dragoonster]

My aim is that the pro-psi team be given every possible psi-condusive advantage. Both in terms of team composition and strategic tools. Among those tools is feedback.

I really don't see where all the resistance is coming from.

As bookitty says, for one it gives an out. If the experiment fails, it may be because the pro-psis didn't have enough of those advantages, or not the right kind. Maybe it would've worked if they were hooked up to corrective electroshock feedback to make sure they were really trying.

Skeptics don't care if one psychic can only perform with hot women as positive feedback, and another with their custom-made pictures of positive tulips versus negative kudzu vines as feedback. We don't care if one psychic didn't perform well because they skipped their morning tea. We just want a simple, non-contested experiment, with as few factors as possible.

This shouldn't be set up as an experiment on psychic psychology and performance motivation. The experiment is meant to find out if humans can influence a remote RNG using the power of their mind or will. Not whether psychics perform better depending on what feedback or conditions are available. If the latter was the experiment, then there should be multiple groups of pro-psi folks, each with their own feedback and conditions, and the statistical significance would probably be different as well.

It just seems you're trying to bunch too many things into one experiment.

eta: I do appreciate your efforts to get this done, and I myself am too lazy to contribute as much, but it shouldn't be very complicated an experiment.

[bookitty]

Yeah I know.




It requires more energy and finance than I have. Trent asked me to come up with an idea myself. He didn't say anything about expending all the energy and money I have. Which is not much. No, it's up to JREF. At least I would like JREF to be involved. If not maybe I'll see if some other organization is interested.

In that case, I suggest you go back to the drawing board. The experiment, as it stands now, offers nothing of any interest to a skeptic. Not because they are cynical but because the outcome will prove nothing.

If you want the JREF or any skeptical assistance, find an experiment that will convince you if it fails.

[Fnord]

It's exactly as Sledge said. You're overcomplicating and confusing the issue rather than performing a simple yes/no test.

Demonstration trumps debate.

[not daSkeptic]

For the preliminary test, yeah it can be simple. Simple yes/no feedback would be fine for the preliminary. Just so long as the team members can chose to know if their team achieves significance.

Not yes/no feedback, a yes/no test. That is, a test which has only two possible outcomes:

There was a measurable effect on the random number generator beyond what would be expected under non-influenced conditions; or
There was no measurable effect on the random number generator beyond what would be expected under non-influenced conditions.

No feedback, no users logging in, just a RNG whose output is logged while people try to remotely influence it on certain pre-arranged days. Unless you can provide some sort of solid justification as to why anything more than this is necessary, then I submit that it isn't.

[Pixel42]

But keep in mind that I'm not designing this experiment to convince myself psi is real. I'm already quite convinced of that. I'm designing it to convince JREF.
You do realise that that is exactly the mistake every single failed applicant for the MDC has made? They help to design a test protocol which will convince JREF that they can also see is fair, but they are already fully convinced themselves; the test is just to convince those silly JREF people. They're so confident they don't even bother to do a dry run of the agreed protocol before taking the formal test. Unfortunately the "evidence" which has convinced them is far inferior to that which is actually required to establish the truth as they find out when, to their utter astonishment, they fail the test.

If you want the JREF or any skeptical assistance, find an experiment that will convince you if it fails.
Exactly. An experiment which is not going to settle the matter either way is a waste of everyone's time, including Limbo's.

[Cosmic Roy]

I see the sense in having psychics register their participation by logging on, but please could somebody explain to me the need for another 'team' of skeptics?

It should be pointed out that most "RNGs" are really Pseudo Random Number Generators whose output is wholly deterministic. They are given a seed and from that point on the entire sequence of "random numbers" is fixed and cannot be changed. Many (if not all) languages pick a seed when your process (program) starts and just uses the output from the PRNG from that point - they do NOT change seeds or do anything that would change the sequence.

In other words, it won't matter what your psychic powers do, the sequence is determined at the moment the program starts.

To get true RNG and to have something a psychic just maybe, possibly, by some stretch of wild imagination, influence you will need a RNG that uses an external source of entropy. This could be in the form of special, for the purpose hardware, or of software that uses the interval between external events as a source of entropy (arrival time of network packets, keyboard interrupts, mouse movements, etc.)

I'm not sure I see a difference here. Perhaps I've misunderstood, but aren't both kinds of randomness simply the result of physical law acting on complex systems about which we have insufficient information to make accurate predictions? Whether the source of complexity is a numerical process acting on an unknown seed, or atmospheric turbulence making starlight twinkle, it is unknown, but still subject to physical law, and in principle knowable. Why is it that a psychic might be expected to be able to influence one distant physical process but not another?

[Darat]

If I'm right and these measures that I take enable us to capture the elusive psi and replicate then yea that is its own reward. That is what's in it for you - a scientific and cultural golden age.

Say this experiment is successful, what would it have demonstrated?

[Darat]

Not yes/no feedback, a yes/no test. That is, a test which has only two possible outcomes:

There was a measurable effect on the random number generator beyond what would be expected under non-influenced conditions; or
There was no measurable effect on the random number generator beyond what would be expected under non-influenced conditions.

No feedback, no users logging in, just a RNG whose output is logged while people try to remotely influence it on certain pre-arranged days. Unless you can provide some sort of solid justification as to why anything more than this is necessary, then I submit that it isn't.

Is one enough? Don't we ideally have to have more than one so that we can work out if any deviation is significant compared to what a non-influenced RNG is producing? I know that in theory a RNG will be 50/50 but if we had two identical systems running, one to be influenced and one not to be, then we can rule out some unknown influence that might be accounting for any significant deviation from 50/50.

[fls]

But keep in mind that I'm not designing this experiment to convince myself psi is real. I'm already quite convinced of that. I'm designing it to convince JREF.

Then you are going about it the wrong way. A poorly designed, uncontrolled experiment will not convince skeptics. What you should do is design an experiment with a control, with random (using methods which have nothing to do with the RNG) assignment of the active vs. control condition (blinded). For example, once you have decided what your feedback will be, for each trial you will be presented with that feedback, but some of the time it will be the actual feedback and some of the time it will be pre-recorded feedback. Then a more reliable comparison can be made.

The experiment could still contain a skeptic group undergoing the same procedure. But if you did a preliminary experiment first just with Team Noetic and were able to show a significant difference between the control and active conditions, I think you'd find many more skeptics wanting to be a participant on the JREF team.

Linda

[Limbo]

No feedback, no users logging in, just a RNG whose output is logged while people try to remotely influence it on certain pre-arranged days. Unless you can provide some sort of solid justification as to why anything more than this is necessary, then I submit that it isn't.


Is it that it's too much for your company to handle? I wouldn't want to burden you. But yes, user accounts and a website they can log into is necessary. I and others have given you reasons why. I don't see why more reasons are needed. If you can't or won't handle it then just say so.

[Limbo]

You do realise that that is exactly the mistake every single failed applicant for the MDC has made?


First, if you have a problem with my idea or whatever then take it up with Trent. I only gave him what he asked for. I was asked to come up with an idea for JREF, I was asked to make this thread. If you don't like it, do you know where you can stick it? If not I can draw you a picture.

Second, I am not applying for the MDC.

You guys are really beginning to piss me off. Even more than usual. I am very close to saying screw JREF and seeing if I can get another organization interested in my idea. I think it'll work just fine without you.

[Lothian]

You guys are really beginning to piss me off. Even more than usual. I am very close to saying screw JREF and seeing if I can get another organization interested in my idea. I think it'll work just fine without you.Good luck. You have two choices as I see it. You conduct a proper experiment with tight controls, in which case I suspect you will need an organisation similar to this one where you will get similar feedback or
Alternatively you can do an uncontrolled poorly designed experiment which will "work just fine" but will demonstrate nothing.

[Limbo]

Good luck. You have two choices as I see it. You conduct a proper experiment with tight controls, in which case I suspect you will need an organization similar to this one where you will get similar feedback or
Alternatively you can do an uncontrolled poorly designed experiment which will "work just fine" but will demonstrate nothing.


No ****** Gee. I had no idea I would need an organization similar to this one. It's a good thing I have an organization like this one to tell me these things.

Yes Lothian, I would love to work with JREF. If you can keep JREFers from pissing me off, maybe we can get somewhere.

[Lothian]

No ****** Gee. I had no idea I would need an organization similar to this one. It's a good thing I have an organization like this one to tell me these things.

Yes Lothian, I would love to work with JREF. If you can keep JREFers from pissing me off, maybe we can get somewhere.You seem to be getting pissed off when people point out that PSI might not be real and you might not be prepared for failure.

I suggest that getting angry is a sign they are right.

[Limbo]

You seem to be getting pissed off when people point out that PSI might not be real and you might not be prepared for failure.

I suggest that getting angry is a sign they are right.


You seem to think things are always as they seem. ;)

Lothian, I want to get this ironed out. We can't do that if people are going to distrust me and second guess me and disrespect me. That's how I feel. And constant demands to understand every little detail right now are not helpful, neither are demands that I make some sort of premature world-view commitment to this outcome or that outcome. You guys need to just back-off if you're not helping with a smile. Maybe this thread needs to be heavily moderated? I would not like it if all this came to naught because some asshat decided it would be fun to piss me off. This is no time for the typical disdain so many of you have for woo-woos like me. It's almost like a background radiation. Give it a rest for once and try to treat me like a friend.

There will be plenty of time for distrust later. For instance, daSkeptic right now I need you to trust me when I say something is necessary and just tell me straight up if your company can do it or not so that we can move on.

[devnull]

You seem to think things are always as they seem.

Lothian, I want to get this ironed out. We can't do that if people are going to distrust me and second guess me and disrespect me and demand to understand every little detail right now. You guys need to just back off if you're not helping.

There will be plenty of time for distrust later. For instance, daSkeptic right now I need you to trust me when I say something is necessary and just tell me straight up if your company can do it or not so that we can move on.

Why would anyone commit time/effort to something, when they know full well that when it fails you will turn to one of about a thousand "outs" left in the protocol?

No one has time for such nonsense.

[Darat]

...snip...

You guys are really beginning to piss me off. Even more than usual. I am very close to saying screw JREF and seeing if I can get another organization interested in my idea. I think it'll work just fine without you.

I'm slightly confused - have you got the JREF interested in this? Or by saying "JREF" you are referring to yourself and the other people that are members of the JREF Forum?

[Darat]

No ****** Gee. I had no idea I would need an organization similar to this one. It's a good thing I have an organization like this one to tell me these things.

Yes Lothian, I would love to work with JREF. If you can keep JREFers from pissing me off, maybe we can get somewhere.

You are a "JREFer"!

[Limbo]

You are a "JREFer"!


I stand corrected. I should have said my fellow JREFers.

[Lothian]

There will be plenty of time for distrust later. For instance, daSkeptic right now I need you to trust me when I say something is necessary and just tell me straight up if your company can do it or not so that we can move on.You are missing the post. Face facts, we don’t trust each other. You don’t trust us when we say there is no such thing as PSI. We don’t trust you when you say there is.

The whole point of this is to take trust out of the equation. Everything is on the table and clearly explained. Before we start we know what we are doing, why we are doing it and what the cause of the outcome will be.

We are not going to accept a poorly designed experiment and trust a positive result is down to PSI. Similarly if you are not going to accept that a failure of the experiment is evidence that there is no PSI the experiment needs to tightened up so that you do.

[Limbo]

You are missing the post. Face facts, we don’t trust each other. You don’t trust us when we say there is no such thing as PSI. We don’t trust you when you say there is.

The whole point of this is to take trust out of the equation. Everything is on the table and clearly explained. Before we start we know what we are doing, why we are doing it and what the cause of the outcome will be.

We are not going to accept a poorly designed experiment and trust a positive result is down to PSI. Similarly if you are not going to accept that a failure of the experiment is evidence that there is no PSI the experiment needs to tightened up so that you do.


Linda, here is the answer to your earlier question about why something like this hasn't been done already. No trust. Skeptics aren't going to understand my reasons for things and it's too time consuming to explain everything. They can't let something into the experiment that they don't understand, so we hit a bottleneck.

You above all people should know me well enough to know that I couldn't design an experiment without taking the sheep-goat effect seriously, Linda. Do you grok how I try to limit the effect, and do you begrudge my efforts?

[Lothian]

Limbo,

A constructive suggestion.

Seems at the moment that there is a lot of discussion on whether there is one or two groups. Whether there should be 6 or 50 participants, whether people need to log on etc.

Seems to me that you are doing it the wrong way round. You are looking to design an experiment then look to see if you can come up with a theory for the results.

It should be the other way round and the starting point is a specific claim.

If you write down a specific claim the experiment will flow from that. Here are a couple of suggestions.

50 psychics simultaneously concentrating on influencing a RNG which produces either a 1 or a 0 at 10 second intervals for a 10 minute test will result in an excess of 45 of the 60 numbers being =1.

Psychics can influence a RNG which produces either a 1 or a 0 at 1 second intervals for a 20 minute test. With 12 participants, 6 psychic and 6 skeptic each undertaking a separate test the combined scores of the psychics will produce 150 more 0s than the 6 skeptics.

These are just quick ideas that can be improved on but the point is that the two tests above test the same PSI effect but would need to be constructed differently.

So to start please lay out the claim so we know exactly what we are testing.

[Mashuna]

If you can't explain or document the test claim, there's never going to be a satisfactory experiment. That's not an issue around sceptics being involved rather than psychic believers, it's just experimental design.

[Lothian]

Linda, here is the answer to your earlier question about why something like this hasn't been done already. No trust. Skeptics aren't going to understand my reasons for things and it's too time consuming to explain everything. They can't let something into the experiment that they don't understand, so we hit a bottleneck.
If you have a specific claim (see my post above) the 'reason for things' should be clear. If not, it does need explaining if the results are to be credible. If I am demonstrating a perpetual motion machine why does it need to be plugged into the mains socket?

[Dragoonster]

This is just getting overcomplicated and overdefended by everyone. The only necessary control at this point is the baseline statistical likelihood, of 50% 1s and 50% 0s, that will take place when the RNG is generating but no users can access the site. The only necessary result for a preliminary or conclusory Yes/No answer is a statistically significant deviation from that baseline (which I don't know, not a statistician).

A host has been found to run an RNG and sign participants up. There's some question of whether it's a true RNG, which might be important.

But the feedback, the separate groups are all fluff as far as I can see. There's no reason at all for the anti-psychics to participate except to give them something to do and to isolate them from a possible pro-psi time with the RNG site, which would only be expected to influence things by the pro-psis. But we can simply ignore that. If there's no restrictions on group makeup and no statistical result is shown, it'll still have been a succesful experiment--it'll tell us that no pro-psi result was shown with a mixed group attempting to influence (or not) the RNG at the same time. The methodology will be known to have worked (or might need tweaking), but the important thing is that it will have gotten off the ground, and will have attained a result with all current variables and allowances.

After that if the pro-psis want to run a psi-only experiment, they can, assuming they can get the numbers and people here don't try to torpedo it. But I don't really care if Limbo or all psychics on Earth accepts a null result from a mixed-group, or a minimum-feedback process, because he/she can try again until he/she is satisfied, which may be after this experiment, or after the next one, or never. The important thing would be getting an experimental result done.

So how about a simple, no frills initial test? The site is opened at a specific time per day, anyone or anyone registered can log in and try to influence (or not) the RNG. We can have a simple "pro-psi or anti-psi" question during registration, for post-experiment analysis or simple demographics. If it becomes popular and is stable and the host's patience isn't worn out and his business can allow for another, a follow-up test could be requested that can be "pro-psi". The first time seems "pro-skeptic" enough, so that could be the control for the follow-up method, which Limbo alone could determine (if workable by the host).

[Limbo]

Thank you Lothian very helpful.

For the preliminary, I want the RNG to have a website that the teams can log into. A discussion forum somewhere would be nice too. I want simple feedback of some kind available to the team when they are doing micro-PK. Two teams of 6. Believers and skeptics. Maybe the first run could last a week, with each team logging in once per day for X minutes. Then the data is analyzed.

There, that is the preliminary. Maybe we can just stick to that.

[Dragoonster]

Thank you Lothian very helpful.

For the preliminary, I want the RNG to have a website that the teams can log into. A discussion forum somewhere would be nice too. I want simple feedback of some kind available to the team when they are doing micro-PK. Two teams of 6. Believers and skeptics. Maybe the first run could last a week, with each team logging in once per day for X minutes. Then the data is analyzed.

There, that is the preliminary. Maybe we can just stick to that.

Sounds good!

[Mirrorglass]

I think there is some merit to some of Limbo's complaints. At the moment there are a dozen skeptics badgering him about his conditions, and to be fair, he really was asked to start this thread by trent and myself.

I'm not saying we skeptics are being unreasonable; on the contrary. But if this thread keeps going the way it is, it's going to end with Limbo walking away angry, and no one learns anything at all. So I suggest we have a little patience with the silliness, and try to smoothly bring it down to an acceptable level.

[Mirrorglass]

Oh, the last three posts came while I was typing. That sounds pretty good to me too. Now I guess we start designing the software?

[Cosmic Roy]

Thank you Lothian very helpful.

For the preliminary, I want the RNG to have a website that the teams can log into. A discussion forum somewhere would be nice too. I want simple feedback of some kind available to the team when they are doing micro-PK. Two teams of 6. Believers and skeptics. Maybe the first run could last a week, with each team logging in once per day for X minutes. Then the data is analyzed.

There, that is the preliminary. Maybe we can just stick to that.

Could somebody please tell me why there needs to be a team of skeptics? Are they meant to be:

a control group that does nothing?
a participatory group that tries to psychically counter the psychics' efforts?
a participatory group that tries to influence the RNG in the same direction as the psychics?

[Limbo]

Could somebody please tell me why there needs to be a team of skeptics? Are they meant to be:

a control group that does nothing?
a participatory group that tries to psychically counter the psychics' efforts?
a participatory group that tries to influence the RNG in the same direction as the psychics?



Is it necessary for everyone to fully understand every detail like this before we can proceed? I mean, you could be opening a can-of-worms. Is that what we want right now?

[Cosmic Roy]

Is it necessary for everyone to fully understand every detail like this before we can proceed? I mean, you could be opening a can-of-worms. Is that what we want right now?

Of course, what I do or don't understand has no bearing on any experiment that may or may not happen. I'm asking for my own satisfaction. If you don't have time to tell me, that's ok; maybe someone else can.

[Lothian]

Thank you Lothian very helpful.

For the preliminary, I want the RNG to have a website that the teams can log into. A discussion forum somewhere would be nice too. I want simple feedback of some kind available to the team when they are doing micro-PK. Two teams of 6. Believers and skeptics. Maybe the first run could last a week, with each team logging in once per day for X minutes. Then the data is analyzed.

There, that is the preliminary. Maybe we can just stick to that.Good I think..... I am still struggling to see a specific claim.

[Limbo]

Good I think..... I am still struggling to see a specific claim.


Then re-read the thread.

[Limbo]

Of course, what I do or don't understand has no bearing on any experiment that may or may not happen. I'm asking for my own satisfaction. If you don't have time to tell me, that's ok; maybe someone else can.


I hope so! :)

[Lothian]

Then re-read the thread.Either you did not understand my post or I missed a post of yours. If the former I am happy to explain again. If the latter I would appreciate you telling me in which post you made a specific claim as to what PSI effect can be demonstrated.

I will not be re-reading the thread, but am happy to leave it alone if that is what you would prefer.

[Mirrorglass]

Could somebody please tell me why there needs to be a team of skeptics? Are they meant to be:

* a control group that does nothing?
* a participatory group that tries to psychically counter the psychics' efforts?
* a participatory group that tries to influence the RNG in the same direction as the psychics?


Of course, what I do or don't understand has no bearing on any experiment that may or may not happen. I'm asking for my own satisfaction. If you don't have time to tell me, that's ok; maybe someone else can.

It's number three. This is apparently supposed to counter the collective skeptic psi that would otherwise sabotage the experiment.

[Cosmic Roy]

It's number three. This is apparently supposed to counter the collective skeptic psi that would otherwise sabotage the experiment.

Thank you, Mirrorglass. So, are six honest skeptics going to counter the confounding psi of an unknowable number of skeptics who might be lurking here now with the intention of upsetting the result? It seems to me that a negative result might be explained away as being due to both teams being overwhelmed by unregistered skeptical influencers.

Wouldn't it be easier to have just a single team of claimed psychics attempt to influence the RNG at a time that was not made public? The control could be an equal output period of the RNG during which no attempt was made to influence it.

Note to Limbo: I'm not trying to undermine your experiment here, and I don't mean to introduce changes to your method after you've spent so long arriving at it. I'm just genuinely curious as to why such a complicated approach is being chosen over one that would be easier to implement and has the potential to produce a more definitive result.

[Sledge]

I have to agree with Cosmic Roy here, I really don't see what the skeptic group is supposed to do in this experiment.

[fls]

You above all people should know me well enough to know that I couldn't design an experiment without taking the sheep-goat effect seriously, Linda. Do you grok how I try to limit the effect, and do you begrudge my efforts?

I understand that you want to take seriously the sheep-goat effect, and that the experiment needs to take into account the way that any influence is supposed to work. But that was sorta the point of the design I suggested. If it is only sheep who are accessing the feedback, and thereby influencing the output, that eliminates the effect of goats - especially when we don't know when or where the sessions are taking place. And the presence of a control group allows you to form some sort of conclusion from the results which would be missing from your design as it stands. Even though you've set up criteria by which one side or the other 'wins', it doesn't have any relevance beyond the contest - i.e. it doesn't allow us to draw any conclusions about psi or sheep or goats - even if it includes a questionaire about beliefs.

Linda