parapsychology and the challenge

[davidsmith73]

Can anyone think of a particular parapsychology experiment that's been done already that, if performed successfully in the company of JREF, would qualify for the million?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Can anyone think of a particular parapsychology experiment that's been done already that, if performed successfully in the company of JREF, would qualify for the million?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Part of why the JREF exists (and why Randi got into this business) is because he was investigating the claims that were made by parapsychology researchers --- claims that, if reproducible, would have shattered the scientific understanding of the day (and of today, for that matter).

Uri Geller would be a good example. If he had actually been able to perform as he claimed, he would certainly have qualified for the million long ago. A number of scientists performed various experiments on him, that if they had been performed "successfully" in the company of JREF would have qualified. But, of course, the reason that they couldn't be performed successfully is because the results had been obtained through trickery and deception which the original researcher had not noticed.

My working assumption, then, would be that any "successful" experiment that has been done outside of the supervision of the JREF or similar group is successful only because the trickery hasn't been caught. Of course, we don't know what sort of trickery was used, because it wasn't caught. But I'm willing to operate on the basis that it was trickery until someone can come up with a more credible hypothesis.

[Carn]

Originally posted by new drkitten


My working assumption, then, would be that any "successful" experiment that has been done outside of the supervision of the JREF or similar group is successful only because the trickery hasn't been caught. Of course, we don't know what sort of trickery was used, because it wasn't caught. But I'm willing to operate on the basis that it was trickery until someone can come up with a more credible hypothesis.

I think you are a bit to radical, since the general scientific standard, which of course was devised for sensible things with plausible theoretical explanations, allows them to go on with "successful" experiments and all they need is a little delusion:
The success criteria with random data.

Generally speaking a experiment is a success if its result has less than 5% to be obtained by chance.

Now if you have 20 parapsychologists doing 1 experiment per year, they will get 1 experiment, which showed something.
They exchange info and during next year they try to replicate the successes of the rest.
The experiment will be copied by the 19 others and therefore likely there will be a further one this year. Gives news of a replicable experiment. Many retries will fail, but as they have no theory behind it, they can select any minute difference(such are always there) as possible suspect that the many were unable to repeat the experiment.
This gives them much to do the following year. Again everyone does the experiment again, again getting one success. Now even they will get suspicious, as the guys who had a success the first year and the second year are unable to reproduce their sucess. In the next year they'll do again and fianally realize the sucess is purely random.

So they spend 3 years realizing that one of them just got lucky.
No take the bias in that unsucessful experiments will not be published as often and you can imagine, that they chase luck for decades that way.

And JREF challenge is always out of reach, because none of their experiments beats the 1 in 1000 chance, much less the 1 in 1000000.

Carn

[MRC_Hans]

Quite right, Carn. And this is central, and something paranormal proponents need to mull over (they might even complain about it): The JREF challenge requires a much greater certainty than a normal statistical analysis.

Hans

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Carn
Generally speaking a experiment is a success if its result has less than 5% to be obtained by chance.Generally yes, for biological experiments. However, that doesn't mean anyone is declaring there's definitely something there, it just means it looks like there's a fair probability that there's something there, and it's worth a closer look.

Then the same researchers and/or others try to replicate the result and track it down to its lair, and in the end a consensus emerges as to what is or isn't going on.

However, in contrast,The field of physics is full of examples of extraordinary effects with p values much lower than 0.05 that failed to be replicated and never became part of established knowledge. The accepted criterion for publication in most physics journals is p=10<SUP> -4</SUP>. That is, as study is published only when one in ten thousand experiments or a smaller fraction would produce the observation as a statistical artefact. Such a strict threshold would be useful in evaluating extraordinary claims, such as may be made for CAVM.Source, Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine Considered, by David Ramey and Bernard Rollin.

Essentially, when dealing with sciences as "hard" as physics, you have to be very sure indeed before you concede that a new effect has been observed. A similar standard of proof should be required for any claim which appears to run contrary to "science as we know it".

Studies with weak statistical significance simply point to potentially fruitful areas for further research. If there's anything there, it will eventually become clear. Unfortunately, with psi (as with most alternative medicine) nothing ever bcomes clear except that they never seem to give up trying.

Rolfe.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Can anyone think of a particular parapsychology experiment that's been done already that, if performed successfully in the company of JREF, would qualify for the million?
Absolutely! Randi has repeatedly offered Dr. Gary Schwartz the million just to turn over his raw data (http://www.randi.org/jr/021304jeff.html#1) (a deal that Schwartz agreed to, then reneged). I don't have the reference, but I believe that Randi has also offered him the prize if he can repeat his results with proper controls in place.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Carn
I think you are a bit to radical, since the general scientific standard, which of course was devised for sensible things with plausible theoretical explanations, allows them to go on with "successful" experiments and all they need is a little delusion:
The success criteria with random data.

Generally speaking a experiment is a success if its result has less than 5% to be obtained by chance.

Now if you have 20 parapsychologists doing 1 experiment per year, they will get 1 experiment, which showed something.
They exchange info and during next year they try to replicate the successes of the rest.
The experiment will be copied by the 19 others and therefore likely there will be a further one this year. Gives news of a replicable experiment. Many retries will fail, but as they have no theory behind it, they can select any minute difference(such are always there) as possible suspect that the many were unable to repeat the experiment.
This gives them much to do the following year. Again everyone does the experiment again, again getting one success. Now even they will get suspicious, as the guys who had a success the first year and the second year are unable to reproduce their sucess. In the next year they'll do again and fianally realize the sucess is purely random.

So they spend 3 years realizing that one of them just got lucky.
No take the bias in that unsucessful experiments will not be published as often and you can imagine, that they chase luck for decades that way.

And JREF challenge is always out of reach, because none of their experiments beats the 1 in 1000 chance, much less the 1 in 1000000.

Carn


I'm sure nobody minds speculation as long as you acknowledge it as so. Having the evidence that 19 failed psi experiments are performed for every successful 1 is a different matter.#

So is your answer to my question - none ?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Quite right, Carn. And this is central, and something paranormal proponents need to mull over (they might even complain about it): The JREF challenge requires a much greater certainty than a normal statistical analysis.

Hans

I agree that psi experiments should require a greater certainty than more conventional experiments that are based on solid theory, but I don't see any indication as to what objective degree of certainty the JREF adheres to, in the rules that is. It seems to depend upon an agreement between the JREF and the claimant.

That aside, I wonder how many negative psi experiments would have to have been performed to negate all the positive ones so far acheived? Is it really plausable that the time and resources have been available to so few researchers?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Tricky
Absolutely! Randi has repeatedly offered Dr. Gary Schwartz the million just to turn over his raw data (http://www.randi.org/jr/021304jeff.html#1) (a deal that Schwartz agreed to, then reneged).


I guess that Randi knows that Schwartz's methods are invalid and his million is safe. I don't think Schwartz's experiments, as they stand, qualify for a psi experiment that would win the prize.


I don't have the reference, but I believe that Randi has also offered him the prize if he can repeat his results with proper controls in place.

That's interesting. I wonder what experimental design and what level of results Randi requires.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I agree that psi experiments should require a greater certainty than more conventional experiments that are based on solid theory, but I don't see any indication as to what objective degree of certainty the JREF adheres to, in the rules that is. It seems to depend upon an agreement between the JREF and the claimant.

It has been my impression that they are aiming at the one in a million certainty. Quite appropriate, as a million bucks is at stake.

That aside, I wonder how many negative psi experiments would have to have been performed to negate all the positive ones so far acheived?

All the positive ones?? Herein lies trouble; because many of the positive trials have been severely challenged, protocol-wise. So once we look at only those with impeccable protocols, how many remain, if any?

Is it really plausable that the time and resources have been available to so few researchers?

I don't understand that question.

Hans

[Zep]

davidsmith73,

What would you suggest is the situation if the first analysis of 25 years of some psi research data suggested that some particular psi phenomenon existed. But when that self same data was analyzed more closely, the phenomenon became less and less obvious. And when strong analysis was done to remove all biases and influences, the data yielded nothing at all.

What do you think would cause a situation like that?

[Darat]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
...snip...

That's interesting. I wonder what experimental design and what level of results Randi requires.

He has certainly put the money on the line for experiments for homeopathy in the past so I don’t think there is any reason to assume that the same wouldn’t be the case for a specific parapsychology experiment.

Would you consider dowsing to be a "power" that is covered by parapsychology like say telepathy is? If so then again there are plenty of examples of Randi putting the million dollars on the line.

I’d suggest the quickest way to get an answer would be to drop Randi or Kramer an email – they are after all the only ones who can give you a definitive answer.

(Edited for a to.)

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Zep
davidsmith73,

What would you suggest is the situation if the first analysis of 25 years of some psi research data suggested that some particular psi phenomenon existed. But when that self same data was analyzed more closely, the phenomenon became less and less obvious. And when strong analysis was done to remove all biases and influences, the data yielded nothing at all.

What do you think would cause a situation like that?

The PEAR paper is certainly a tough read. I am trying to figure out, what is it specifically about the later analytical methods that removes bias and influences? From what I can understand, the difference between the earlier and later methods is that the later ones used more options for responses by the RVers.

eg, Q1) is the scene indoors?

answers: 1- absent
2- unsure
3- present
4- dominant

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Darat
Would you consider dowsing to be a "power" that is covered by parapsychology like say telepathy is? If so then again there are plenty of examples of Randi putting the million dollars on the line.


I wouldn't consider dowsing in the same category as other more likely phenomena like telepathy simply because dowsing isn't something that's spontaneously experienced by normal people in a variety of contexts. Instead it's something that people have "tried" to do for reasons I can't really understand. I don't think its a natural phenomena, in fact I think it's just some foolish types walking about with sticks and dangling crystals.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I'm sure nobody minds speculation as long as you acknowledge it as so. Having the evidence that 19 failed psi experiments are performed for every successful 1 is a different matter.#
That is not what was claimed. You've missed the point entirely. Let's try again.

The point is not that there are nineteen failures for every success, but that if you take 5% as success, then there will be at least one success for every nineteen failures. If you take 5% significance as a criterion of success then even if there's no psi involved, you'll succeed 5% of the time. Right? 'Cos that's what it means.

This is why we normally ask for a repeatable experiment. One success at the 5% level might be fluke.

Randi, on the other hand only gets one experiment, so it must be designed large enough that there is a very very low probability of the phenomenon occurring by chance.

Got it?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I wouldn't consider dowsing in the same category as other more likely phenomena like telepathy simply because dowsing isn't something that's spontaneously experienced by normal people in a variety of contexts. Instead it's something that people have "tried" to do for reasons I can't really understand. I don't think its a natural phenomena, in fact I think it's just some foolish types walking about with sticks and dangling crystals.

And trying to influence the output of a random number generator is something that IS spontaneously experienced by normal people?

Seems like some foolish types sitting around trying to make a computer do their psychic bidding....

doesn't seem any more rational to me than what the crystal danglers are up to.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
That is not what was claimed. You've missed the point entirely. Let's try again.

The point is not that there are nineteen failures for every success, but that if you take 5% as success, then there will be at least one success for every nineteen failures. If you take 5% significance as a criterion of success then even if there's no psi involved, you'll succeed 5% of the time. Right? 'Cos that's what it means.

This is why we normally ask for a repeatable experiment. One success at the 5% level might be fluke.

Randi, on the other hand only gets one experiment, so it must be designed large enough that there is a very very low probability of the phenomenon occurring by chance.

Got it?


Oh ok, I was under the impression that Carn was implying that the success rate already achieved for psi research is a fluke. Hence his words:


This gives them much to do the following year. Again everyone does the experiment again, again getting one success. Now even they will get suspicious, as the guys who had a success the first year and the second year are unable to reproduce their sucess. In the next year they'll do again and fianally realize the sucess is purely random.

So they spend 3 years realizing that one of them just got lucky.
No take the bias in that unsucessful experiments will not be published as often and you can imagine, that they chase luck for decades that way.

And JREF challenge is always out of reach, because none of their experiments beats the 1 in 1000 chance, much less the 1 in 1000000.


Significance of the results aside, is there any psi experiment that would qualify on methodological grounds?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Psiload
And trying to influence the output of a random number generator is something that IS spontaneously experienced by normal people?

Seems like some foolish types sitting around trying to make a computer do their psychic bidding....

doesn't seem any more rational to me than what the crystal danglers are up to.

The sense of free will as something that can effect the physical world is something experienced by everyone, for example volitional movement. So it would be an investigation into whether this feeling is really an illusion or whether it can really effect physical processes beyond the workings of the brain. Conventional science usually performs experiments on free will under the assumption that the feeling is a generated, non-causal phenomena based on normal physical processes occuring in the brain. PK tests are testing the alternative hypothesis. So yes, I would say it's a pretty obvious and rational thing to test.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I guess that Randi knows that Schwartz's methods are invalid and his million is safe. I don't think Schwartz's experiments, as they stand, qualify for a psi experiment that would win the prize.
They are some of the most well known and frequently cited experiments available today. They have the material, if not philosophical support of a large, state-run university where Schwarts is a full professor. They have tested some of the most well-known "psychics" in the world.

I think you would be hard pressed to find another research project with such credentials, and while I realize that such visibility does not make his methods valid, you would think that the visibility would at least attract the best psi researchers in the business. After all, it's hard to get a grant to do psi research. The University of Arizona ought to be a Mecca for such people.

Which raises another question. Why is it so hard for psi researchers to agree on a methodology? In every other line of research, one superior technique will eventually become predominant because it consistantly works better than others. But this is not the case with psi. None of them seem to work better consistantly. It is not as if they haven't tried lots of different methods. Years of constant tweaking of the paramaters have yielded no better results, and in fact, have reduced "psi effects" practically to noise level, so much so that it requires torturing the data with things like meta-analysis to reveal any effect at all. If this trend continues, such effects should disappear entirely.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Tricky
They are some of the most well known and frequently cited experiments available today. They have the material, if not philosophical support of a large, state-run university where Schwarts is a full professor. They have tested some of the most well-known "psychics" in the world.



Who have they been cited by?



I think you would be hard pressed to find another research project with such credentials, and while I realize that such visibility does not make his methods valid, you would think that the visibility would at least attract the best psi researchers in the business. After all, it's hard to get a grant to do psi research. The University of Arizona ought to be a Mecca for such people.



Why would serious psi researchers attempt to carry out research as sloppy as Schwartz's? Methods are everything in psi research, we both know that.



Which raises another question. Why is it so hard for psi researchers to agree on a methodology? In every other line of research, one superior technique will eventually become predominant because it consistantly works better than others. But this is not the case with psi. None of them work better consistantly. It is not as if they haven't tried lots of different methods. Years of constant tweaking of the paramaters have yielded no better results, and in fact, have reduced "psi effect" practically to noise level, so much so that it requires torturing the data with things like meta-analysise to reveal any effect at all. If this trend continues, such effects should disappear entirely.


Which experiments are you talking about?

[IXP]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
The PEAR paper is certainly a tough read. I am trying to figure out, what is it specifically about the later analytical methods that removes bias and influences? From what I can understand, the difference between the earlier and later methods is that the later ones used more options for responses by the RVers.

eg, Q1) is the scene indoors?

answers: 1- absent
2- unsure
3- present
4- dominant

Can you give a link for this paper?

IXP

[Carn]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
The sense of free will as something that can effect the physical world is something experienced by everyone, for example volitional movement. So it would be an investigation into whether this feeling is really an illusion or whether it can really effect physical processes beyond the workings of the brain. Conventional science usually performs experiments on free will under the assumption that the feeling is a generated, non-causal phenomena based on normal physical processes occuring in the brain. PK tests are testing the alternative hypothesis. So yes, I would say it's a pretty obvious and rational thing to test.

I'm too dense to see your point, what has moving my arm got to do with influencing number generatos?
Even if i have a free will and can move my body however way i like, everyday knowledge only implies, that this "free will" can cantrol a part of body reactions directly, a lot or maybe all rest of body reactions indirectly via subconcious, but anything outside the body can only be influenced inside the boundaries of physical laws, e.g. move something by normal applicattion of force ("pushing","pulling",...) or warming things by body heat.

I do not see starting with "i can move my body" in any logical way end up with "maybe i can move the pencil over there".


About my first post here, i did not intend to explain a proven fact.
new drkitten wrote:
"My working assumption, then, would be that any "successful" experiment that has been done outside of the supervision of the JREF or similar group is successful only because the trickery hasn't been caught. Of course, we don't know what sort of trickery was used, because it wasn't caught. But I'm willing to operate on the basis that it was trickery until someone can come up with a more credible hypothesis."


The "any" implies that practicallly all psi researchers are a bunch of tricksters and frauds.
I do not think this is true, mainly based on my naive believe, that most humans do not deliberately lie. (I even belive that lot of politicians do not lie knowingly, you are free to laugh about me). From that i conclude, that it is unlikely that all psi researchers do so. Also i think this implication is close to insulting.
Therefore i had to object and as new drkitten, said he would change his opinion upon seeing a "credible hypothesis", i tried to describe one.
Obviously its problematic to use to explain all positive psi results only on the 1in 20 is successful anyway, but i was just trying to show new drkitten, that probability alone guarantees, that some positive psi results could have been gotten via chance and therefore the assumption there is always trickery is not necssary, to explain all of what is going on in psi reasearch a part can also be caused by honest reseachers, who just got lucky with a few experiments.

The important question of course is there something beside trickery, faulty experiments and self delusion by lucky experiments going on in psi research?

If the answer is "yes", then these experiments are certainly candidates for JREF million.

Do you have links to any possible candidates?

Carn

[Carn]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


Significance of the results aside, is there any psi experiment that would qualify on methodological grounds?

Certainly most telikinesis experiments, put the objects inside a enclosed glass container, maybe cooled down to minimize air convections, make objects move twice, go home with a million.
It gets only more complicated, when you have objects, that can be influenced by electromagnetical force of a strength, which can be created by carryable devices.

Telepathy with symbols, that are selected randomly, and receiver only says which symbol is received is also ok(with all the safe guards against trickery)

What i know about the ganzfeld experiments could have problems, because there the definition of a hit would be problematic.

Out of body experinences are pretty straightforward, just tell what is in the next room.

Communing with the dead, is also in principal possible, but only if questions are asked, where the answer is either obviously a hit or a miss(e.g. ask for gender or full name, not something similar).

Carn

[Zep]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
The PEAR paper is certainly a tough read. I am trying to figure out, what is it specifically about the later analytical methods that removes bias and influences? From what I can understand, the difference between the earlier and later methods is that the later ones used more options for responses by the RVers.

eg, Q1) is the scene indoors?

answers: 1- absent
2- unsure
3- present
4- dominant Sort of.

The original scoring methodology left a lot to be desired initially. By way of explanation, if an RVer said they saw "flowers", if there were flowers anywhere in the sent scene, it was scored as a hit - in a vase on the table, in a picture in the room, on the wallpaper, outside the window, a bunch on a hill in the far distance, etc. In short, it was hard NOT to score hits, especially under such subjective evaluation. And this was how the tests were scored initially, and it's hardly surprising that there were indeed positive results for RVers.

The changes they made, in response to the howls of derison from the critics, were basically to re-score the original results, gradually removing the subjectivity (i.e. made more objective). Hits were scored a higher ranking if they were more exact, and lower if they were vague (your list is an intermediate form of this method). They clearly expected to highlight even more clearly the RV results this way - sweep all objections away.

However the final result, as honestly written in that paper, indicated the RVers did no better than if they had simply guessed, i.e. no RV ability used at all. Just like any average Joe, or even like an n-sided dice.

That's all well and good - the analysis was pretty thorough. The PROBLEM came at the end with all the ducking-and-weaving in trying to explain away this lack of results. They appealed to feng shui and ancient seers...and even Freud as an argument from authority (apparently, Sigmund "believed"!). It makes startling reading...

[edit: myspacebarisnotworkingsometimes]

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by IXP
Can you give a link for this paper?

IXP

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/IU.pdf


good luck!

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Carn
I'm too dense to see your point, what has moving my arm got to do with influencing number generatos?
Even if i have a free will and can move my body however way i like, everyday knowledge only implies, that this "free will" can cantrol a part of body reactions directly, a lot or maybe all rest of body reactions indirectly via subconcious, but anything outside the body can only be influenced inside the boundaries of physical laws, e.g. move something by normal applicattion of force ("pushing","pulling",...) or warming things by body heat.

I do not see starting with "i can move my body" in any logical way end up with "maybe i can move the pencil over there".



This is my reasoning for doing the research, but it may be by no means the reasoning of the actual experimenters.

The activity of the brain is based on stochastic processes courtesy of ion channels. If the ion channels are affected in a substantial way then you have a basis for causing a whole manner of neural events, such as movement or various cognitive processes. Hence, if the feeling of free will is "acting" at the site of ion channel activity then perhaps this could be demonstrated in principle by attempting to affect a stochastic process outside the confines of the cascade of neural activity that occurs in the brain. In fact it might be a better demonstrattion to perform an experiment where the operator tries to influence a remote biological REG such as a single cell with a dense concentration of ion channels. You could simply measure the change in ionic concentration inside or outside the cell during influence/no influence periods. This would demonstrate that free will is not such an illusion as we thought. But in principle the cell experiment is no different than a regular REG experiment. Interestingly PK acting on ion channels might provide a mechanism for how ESP works since perception would rely on a change in brain activity. I know that is just replacing one unknown with another but it would be a step towards describing a unitary phenomena. Just my thoughts.

[MRC_Hans]

"then you have a basis for causing a whole manner of neural events"

Who or what is the you in this case? You are proposing some detached entity that influences the iron channels, but what if "you" simply equals the functions of the brain, the total of neural events?

Hans

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
"then you have a basis for causing a whole manner of neural events"

Who or what is the you in this case? You are proposing some detached entity that influences the iron channels, but what if "you" simply equals the functions of the brain, the total of neural events?

Hans

If free will equals the functions of the brain, the total of neural events, then we would expect that attempting to influence a remote REG will have no effect. Alternatively, if free will is able to reach beyond the processes that occur in the brain and effect a remote system then that suggests free will is not equal to such neural activity. The difficult part would be defining what free will is under the alternative. I don't think that it necessarily has to be some kind of "detached entity". Instead, I think the identity or boundary between the observation of a system and the outcome of the system itelf will have to merge so that they are described as part of the same process. That's why I put the word "acting" in inverted commas. Free will would encompass the observation and the observed state of the system with the two being linked (in some way!). No separated detached entity floating around exterting PK wherever it feels.

[IXP]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
If free will equals the functions of the brain, the total of neural events, then we would expect that attempting to influence a remote REG will have no effect. Alternatively, if free will is able to reach beyond the processes that occur in the brain and effect a remote system then that suggests free will is not equal to such neural activity. The difficult part would be defining what free will is under the alternative. I don't think that it necessarily has to be some kind of "detached entity". Instead, I think the identity or boundary between the observation of a system and the outcome of the system itelf will have to merge so that they are described as part of the same process. That's why I put the word "acting" in inverted commas. Free will would encompass the observation and the observed state of the system with the two being linked (in some way!). No separated detached entity floating around exterting PK wherever it feels.

Davidsmith,

If you have not read "Consciosness Explained" by Daniel Dennet, or "How The Mind Works" by Stephen Pinker, I stronly suggest that you do. Both give very strong arguments for why Cartesian dualism, as you are espousing, fails in light of what we know about brain physiology.

IXP

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Carn

About my first post here, i did not intend to explain a proven fact.
new drkitten wrote:
"My working assumption, then, would be that any "successful" experiment that has been done outside of the supervision of the JREF or similar group is successful only because the trickery hasn't been caught. Of course, we don't know what sort of trickery was used, because it wasn't caught. But I'm willing to operate on the basis that it was trickery until someone can come up with a more credible hypothesis."


The "any" implies that practicallly all psi researchers are a bunch of tricksters and frauds.

I do not think this is true, mainly based on my naive believe, that most humans do not deliberately lie. (I even belive that lot of politicians do not lie knowingly, you are free to laugh about me). From that i conclude, that it is unlikely that all psi researchers do so. Also i think this implication is close to insulting.


Only "close to insulting"? I think you're misreading me.

I do not believe that practically all psi researchers are a bunch of tricksters and frauds.

I believe that allpsi researchers who claim positive results are either incompetent orthey are tricksters and frauds.

I also believe that a competent researcher would a) be familiar with the higher standards for an alpha cutoff that usually hold when presenting extremely unusual results and b) replicate his results to make sure that they're not a 5% fluke. But given the sort of statistical results trumpeted by a typical "successful" psi-researcher, the results are rarely at or near the 5% cutoff. This does not imply mere incompetence, but outright trickery, either on the part of the subject (which the researchers are incompetent to detect, pace Geller) or outright research fraud.


Therefore i had to object and as new drkitten, said he would change his opinion upon seeing a "credible hypothesis", i tried to describe one.


Given the reported distribution of results, I don't consider this to be a particularly credible hypothesis. I have not yet seen any evidence to suggest that there is a single honest, competent psi researcher who has claimed positive results out there.

[Carn]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
If free will equals the functions of the brain, the total of neural events, then we would expect that attempting to influence a remote REG will have no effect.

Alternatively, if free will is able to reach beyond the processes that occur in the brain and effect a remote system then that suggests free will is not equal to such neural activity.

You miss a third alternativ:
The fre will does not equal the functions of the brain, but still can only influence what is happening in the brain.

We could have a "soul", but still be unable to do any psi or communing with the dead or whatever. You cannot argue that in case of free will more than brain function, there is any conclusion, because you have no way to tell, what "more" is in that case.

The other way round, if psi is proven, then you still do not know, if we have a free will, you would only know, that something in humans is defying today known natural laws.

So why do you look at psi research, when you're real interest is whether there is a free will or not?
Psi will help you neither way, you will be as clever as before about the question.

Carn

[Carn]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Only "close to insulting"? I think you're misreading me.

Ok, it is a very euphemistic description.

Originally posted by new drkitten

I believe that allpsi researchers who claim positive results are either incompetent orthey are tricksters and frauds.


Agreed, because now there is also "incompetence".

Carn

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
If free will equals the functions of the brain, the total of neural events, then we would expect that attempting to influence a remote REG will have no effect.

Which is exactly what we observe.

Alternatively, if free will is able to reach beyond the processes that occur in the brain and effect a remote system then that suggests free will is not equal to such neural activity.

However, no validated observations show that. Indeed, if such an ability was intrinsic to the mind, we should be able to observe it on a daily basis, not just in elaborate test settings with doubtful protocol control.

The difficult part would be defining what free will is under the alternative.

But then, why go to the trouble? Why attempt to identify something that apparantly does not exist?

I don't think that it necessarily has to be some kind of "detached entity".

Let's use the term discrete entity, then. If it is able to function independently of the brain, it must be discrete. If it is not able to function independently, then why assume it is anything but a brain function?

Instead, I think the identity or boundary between the observation of a system and the outcome of the system itelf will have to merge so that they are described as part of the same process. That's why I put the word "acting" in inverted commas. Free will would encompass the observation and the observed state of the system with the two being linked (in some way!). No separated detached entity floating around exterting PK wherever it feels.

You end up in the same dead end as so many others: Once you try to produce a description that is logically coherent, you end up describing the materialistic solution, with a superfluous hypothetical paranormal overhead.

Remove the paranormal from your equation, and the bottom line stays the same.

Hans

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


Which is exactly what we observe.


I'm not so sure. The most recent meta-analysis shows this (taken from http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP%20ULT%20AP%20GB.pdf) :

A further data search by Fiona Steinkamp and co-workers was made for experiments using a concurrent output of the RNG for
the control series; this gave 357 experimental studies and 142 control studies. The Stouffer Z for the experimental studies was 13.09 but when weighted for study size became 2.70, p = .004, with a very small effect size of ð = .50003. A significant negative curvilinear relationship was found between study size and effect size indicating the effect came from smaller studies. Moreover it was the selected participants who performed significantly better:
Steinkamp, F., Boller, E., & Bösch, H. (2002) Experiments
examining the possibility of human intention interacting with random number generators: A preliminary meta-analysis.
Proceedings of the 45thConvention of the Parapsychological Association, Paris. Pp. 256- 272.



However, no validated observations show that. Indeed, if such an ability was intrinsic to the mind, we should be able to observe it on a daily basis, not just in elaborate test settings with doubtful protocol control.

We may well be observing it on a daily basis whenever we volitionally move our body, imagine, recall a memory etc. Also, if the effect is as small as the experiments suggest then any real effect that occurs outside of the brain would probably go unnoticed, except when we are specifically looking for it in an experiment.


But then, why go to the trouble? Why attempt to identify something that apparantly does not exist?

"apparently" being the operative word.


Let's use the term discrete entity, then. If it is able to function independently of the brain, it must be discrete. If it is not able to function independently, then why assume it is anything but a brain function?

Different from brain function yes, but I would prefer to call it a discrete process rather than entity. There doesn't have to be a notion of an aethereous medium that injects mindfull free will into the physical system. Free will could be a process where the definition includes the observation and the observed system directly interacting in a way that produces the phenomena we call PK. I agree that if it is not able to function independently of the brain then we should assume it is defined as brain function in the normal way. However, we disagree on the results of PK experiments so I suppose we're not going to get any further here!


You end up in the same dead end as so many others: Once you try to produce a description that is logically coherent, you end up describing the materialistic solution, with a superfluous hypothetical paranormal overhead.
Remove the paranormal from your equation, and the bottom line stays the same.


My suggestion, and probably the suggestion of others, is that conscious experience is able to interact directly with a physical system. Indeed, they may be part of the same system. I know this is a very underdeveloped hypothesis but materialism does not describe such an interaction.
Just getting back to my original point, I think it's clear that people going round performing PK experiments is not in the same category as dowsing because PK experiments are an empirical attempt to answer issues that have been around in philosophy for centuries. Is the mind caused or causal etc.