Are there any paranormal phenomena AT ALL??

Hey, Kai avoided the questions asked of him.

I'm suprised.

No questions asked of me were avoided. Usually, however, I didn't answer them a second time, because they are alternative wordings of questions or statements I already gave my reply to earlier in the thread. I haven't seen any new categories of question appearing.
 
Sciborg, with respect I'm *not* looking for signposts for a spiritual journey, or anything like that. I'm observing how the subject of the paranormal fares in terms of categories of long established structures of knowledge acquisition.

Oh, I'm not talking about you in particular. I'm just encouraging people to take a step toward exploring this stuff at the personal level. For people whose primary interest in Psi is debating on forums, they can do so regardless of my posts.

As to what you are apparently observing, it seems to me such a broad topic isn't very fruitful. One can just as easily see someone making a broad topic like, "Why people who support X have no logical arguments" and an OP where no actual arguments are brought forward.

You list a variety of topics in your OP, but there's no specific studies to really examine. Now it seems as though you've narrowed the discussion to PK, perhaps it would be more worth the time of any knowledgeable parties to examine that particular topic instead of reading what seems to me rewordings of the OP without much substance added in these subsequent reiterations.
 
Oh, I'm not talking about you in particular. I'm just encouraging people to take a step toward exploring this stuff at the personal level. For people whose primary interest in Psi is debating on forums, they can do so regardless of my posts.

As to what you are apparently observing, it seems to me such a broad topic isn't very fruitful. One can just as easily see someone making a broad topic like, "Why people who support X have no logical arguments" and an OP where no actual arguments are brought forward.

You list a variety of topics in your OP, but there's no specific studies to really examine. Now it seems as though you've narrowed the discussion to PK, perhaps it would be more worth the time of any knowledgeable parties to examine that particular topic instead of reading what seems to me rewordings of the OP without much substance added in these subsequent reiterations.

Well, I'm trying to clear up misunderstandings of the concept in these "iterations." Some of the questions asked indicate that the concept is not being understood correctly. This is about an irreducible bias that lurks at the ground of ALL experiment...it doesn't matter whether it is psi or PK, or even whether it is anything to do with the paranormal. It can be experiments about baking. Or about the sexual behavior of mayflies.

Paranormal claims just have a particular problem because these days any systematic claim to the existence of replicable effects is essentially at the same scale as the micro bias.
 
By the way, I'd be grateful if someone could point out to me why I seem to be receiving email notifications of every reply made to threads I post in or start, even though I've been sure to switch that off in preferences. It doesn't seem to me to make any difference. I still receive them. My preferences right now has that unticked, yet I'm still receiving an email for every thread reply...
 
No questions asked of me were avoided. Usually, however, I didn't answer them a second time, because they are alternative wordings of questions or statements I already gave my reply to earlier in the thread. I haven't seen any new categories of question appearing.
Kai, please respond to my posts on the previous page. They were not answered in a suitable matter, or at all. It seems you are beginning to get evasive of what's being asked of you.
 
Well, I'm trying to clear up misunderstandings of the concept in these "iterations." Some of the questions asked indicate that the concept is not being understood correctly. This is about an irreducible bias that lurks at the ground of ALL experiment...it doesn't matter whether it is psi or PK, or even whether it is anything to do with the paranormal. It can be experiments about baking. Or about the sexual behavior of mayflies.

Paranormal claims just have a particular problem because these days any systematic claim to the existence of replicable effects is essentially at the same scale as the micro bias.
Please provide the math for the last claim.
 
Yes, we probably are malf. But at least I get what your saying, which is more than I can say for the "SMB" suff. So let's just take this one step further. If I see it myself, along with people I believe are other credible witnesses, you are correct that there does still remain the chance that we are all mistaken. But what if a bunch of scientific people much smarter than us conduct a series of experiments, thousands of trials over decades, and they determine there is a small 3 percent above chance that there really was red underwear in there. You have to pick one--either the red underwear is in there or not. Like Darly Bem said, that 3 percent chance is good enough for the gambling casinos. So that, combined with my own experience is where I'm placing my bet.

Cheers,
Bill
Fair enough Bill... But I'm not sure you do "have to pick one" (as an aside I've been disappointed how anti agnosticism Alex has become in recent podcasts)

For me it just all seems a bit too shaky to form the foundations of an immaterial realm.
 
Yes, we probably are malf. But at least I get what your saying, which is more than I can say for the "SMB" suff. So let's just take this one step further. If I see it myself, along with people I believe are other credible witnesses, you are correct that there does still remain the chance that we are all mistaken. But what if a bunch of scientific people much smarter than us conduct a series of experiments, thousands of trials over decades, and they determine there is a small 3 percent above chance that there really was red underwear in there. You have to pick one--either the red underwear is in there or not. Like Darly Bem said, that 3 percent chance is good enough for the gambling casinos. So that, combined with my own experience is where I'm placing my bet.

Cheers,
Bill
If a bunch of scientists were to do this, their results would still require replication by other scientists. The PEAR Research Group is one example. They did several million micro-pk runs. Yet, an independent team were not able to confirm the results. The days old claim of gravitational waves found is another example of a claim needing independent confirmation. That's how it works. 3% maybe good enough for a casino, but don't bet on it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I already answered those questions Iyace. It’s just that you didn’t notice the answers. But let’s take your repeats of them anyway.

For the sake of this thread, give me ONE example of how codified human behavior can alter auto-randomization features.

Horizontal array. Consider the following experiment. "Random" procedure outputs one of five items in a horizontal array. Each recipient of the item is asked if they agree or disagree with the choice. Over a great many runs a bias is found for the second from the left. This looks like psi. But in fact, it's codified human behavior.

Going deeper, on the assumption that something called “randomness” truly exists (and I do not necessarily assume that) nonrandomness enters into any protocol humans are involved in. Examples would be choice of target pools, choice of language and context to introduce subjects to the requirements of the experiment, subtle steerings in the interpretation of results, formal patterns in the human perception of targets, etc.

Because you haven't clearly defined how codified human behavior would give us access to knowledge in the instance of carefully controlled environments. I'm still waiting for that.

I already answered this. Codified human behavior does not “give us access to knowledge.” It itself is formal pattern of behavior that can make it look like a mysterious influence is acting. Last time you asked the question, I pointed you to the array example. So I’ll do that again. But we can only KNOW about the formal human bias with respect to horizontal arrays because it is an effect MUCH larger than systemic micro bias.

...what? Computers USE RNG hardware to output a tangible value to randomization.

Computers do not use RNG hardware. Computers use what are called pseudo-random methods to generate the semblance of a random number.

But there is another problem here. The concept “random” like the concept “replicable” is a human abstraction. In reality, all world systems have an irreducible information context, and all real world experiments output a “result.” What we mean when we say that the output of an experiment is “no better than chance” or is “random” is that it falls beneath a certain subjective threshold of bias that we choose to find interesting. RNG-based psi experiments have the same replication problems that other kinds of psi experiments suffer from. Therefore, clearly systemic micro bias acts there just as it acts in the other kinds of experiment.
 
Fair enough Bill... But I'm not sure you do "have to pick one" (as an aside I've been disappointed how anti agnosticism Alex has become in recent podcasts)
I agree, and was agnostic, if not leaning towards being skeptical or doubtful, for a long time myself. No one is making us pick one. But when you question it long and hard (17 years for me), you tend to form at least a gut feel one way or the other. I've moved way beyond doubting that the phenomena is genuine, for reasons I've given. But even Stephen Braude said he has days where he swings back and forth on his opinion--although, I think in his case he was talking about survival, not whether psi occurs at all.

Cheers,
Bill
 
Well, I'm trying to clear up misunderstandings of the concept in these "iterations." Some of the questions asked indicate that the concept is not being understood correctly. This is about an irreducible bias that lurks at the ground of ALL experiment...it doesn't matter whether it is psi or PK, or even whether it is anything to do with the paranormal. It can be experiments about baking. Or about the sexual behavior of mayflies.

Paranormal claims just have a particular problem because these days any systematic claim to the existence of replicable effects is essentially at the same scale as the micro bias.

I think making a new thread about systemic micro bias (SMB) might be useful then, as it seems to be a rather bold claim in and of itself.

Paranormal claims of a particular kind may have the problem you're describing, but again even if this is a valid criticism this seems limited to PK investigated in particular experiments. After all Braude has covered instances of macro-PK in his Skeptiko interview and in the above linked Serios presentation.

So we're now in a place that takes us into a very narrow stratum of the paranormal, and thus far from the generalized claim where this thread began. Additionally, I'm still unclear as to exactly what you were doing while you presumably investigated this stuff for decades. Anyone can make a bold claim that [t]here is nothing - you hear this from people with no mathematical or philosophical training who outright reject Mathematical Platonism.

I suspect the final conclusion to all this will be either SMB is shown not to be a factor or is as mysterious a concept as those whose investigation might be tainted by it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prior post I was referring to said:
Well, first of all you were talking about computers. Now you’ve changed to RNG’s (another human technological tool) or (it would seem) to the bare natural process of atomic decay. The pseudo-random processes of computers and their logical behavior are human constructs extended into the world. The very concept “random” is human. Atomic decay is a feature of nature. Even if we accept that as truly “random” (according to our human concept) we cannot eliminate the influence of humans in the architecture of any experiment we are involved in.

....what? Computers USE RNG hardware to output a tangible value to randomization.

I said:
Because you are equating the effect observed in psi research to innate human bias. In effect, you are CLAIMING that the VALUE of human bias is EQUAL to the OBSERVED EFFECT. How is this lost on you? This is a mathematical statement, but you're now claiming that the VALUE of innate human bias is unknown.
You said:
No, I’ve always said that it’s of the SAME order of MAGNITITUDE as the effects discernible in psi experiments.

MAG·NI·TUDE
ˈmagnəˌto͞od/

  1. 2.
    size.
    "electorates of less than average magnitude"
    • A NUMERICAL QUANTITY OR VALUE.
      plural noun: magnitudes
      "the magnitudes of all the economic variables could be determined"
SAME
sām/
adjective
adjective: same
  1. 1.
    identical; not different.
    "she was saying the same thing over and over"
    synonyms:identical, selfsame, very same, one and the same More
    antonyms:another, different
    • not having changed; unchanged.
      "he's worked at the same place for quite a few years"
    • used to emphasize that one is referring to a particular, unique person or thing.
      "people will always notice if you wear the same shirt two days running"
    • referring to a person or thing just mentioned.
      "that same year I went to Boston"
      synonyms:selfsame; More
  2. 2.
    of an identical type; exactly similar.
    "they all wore the same clothes"
    synonyms:matching, identical, alike, duplicate, carbon copy, twin;
    indistinguishable, interchangeable, corresponding, EQUIVALENT, parallel,like, comparable, similar, congruent, concordant, consonant
    "they had the same symptoms"


I have not claimed that one can “provide a mechanism” for human bias. You are the one who appears to be claiming that this is possible (I do not think it is…in fact, I’m damn sure it isn’t). My response to you was about “mysterious acquisition of knowledge” and how the array problem shows clearly enough that “mysterious” can actually have its roots in unsuspected human bias…in this case a very SIMPLE, LARGE EFFECT of human bias.

Oh yes, I forgot. Human bias, the mechanismless, value-less, un-detectable entity that conveniently explains away parapsychology.

I fixed your last sentence, by the way, to make it scientific:

The better version said:
and how the array problem shows clearly enough that “mysterious” can actually have its roots in unsuspected human bias IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER CONTROLS

So, here's a sum up of the argument ( because the site keeps going down ):

Kai keeps claiming that there is an unavoidable element of human bias that is not controllable no matter how hard you try to control for it. He claims that in normal situations and normal to large effect sizes; this bias does not matter very much. It would be a drop in the bucket, so to speak. However, when it comes to things with small effect sizes, like psi and the Higgs Boson, there is that element of uncontrollable human bias that is indistinguishable from the effect. So, in essence, what you're seeing in the effect ( which we call psi ), is actually human bias at work.

Above quoted is some of the issues I have with Kai's assertion. First, and foremost, he claims that innate human bias is something that is not well touched on. If Kai had properly studied scientific literature, he would be well aware that such biases are actually controlled for quite well. This is why studies use placebos, blinding, AR ( auto-randomization ), and other such protocol. Kai says that these procedures do a small amount to the overwhelming about of human bias, but they fall short of eliminating it down to negligible amounts. This, is the second problem I have with Kai's argument, as quoted above.

Kai, whether he knows it or not, is making a mathematical statement when he says that the effect size we see is the result of human bias. We'll let ES mean effect size, and HB mean human bias ( or codified behaviors ). Thus, we achieve the following equation:

ES-HB=0

Which means our two hypotheses are:

H(0) ES-HB=0
H(1) ES-HB != 0

This, in essence, means that if you know the proper amount of human bias, and the proper amount of effect size, then we can use that to verify whether or not Kai's hypothesis ( in this case the null hypothesis h(0) is Kai's ). However, Kai directly claims that this is not a mathematical issue, even though it clearly is using the definition of his words above. Kai chooses to say that HB ( human bias ) is a featureless, valueless entity. It cannot be studied, and it cannot be understood. This statement seems silly, as we're talking about it right now. Clearly it's been observed, so it can be studied.

However, for sake of keeping his argument on life support, Kai chooses to shove his hypothesis into unfalsifiability. There's no way to test whether or not Kai's hypothesis is true.

There remains a deeper issue though, and those are with the assumptions that Kai places on human bias. For instance, why would human bias lead to a positive effect. Why would human bias not work in the negative direction? For instance, the placebo effect ( one form of experimental bias ) can work in the opposite direction as well.
 
Paranormal claims of a particular kind may have the problem you're describing, but again even if this is a valid criticism this seems limited to PK investigated in particular experiments. After all Braude has covered instances of macro-PK in his Skeptiko interview and in the above linked Serios presentation.

Braude's "gold leaf lady" I have always found particularly interesting (at anecdote level). But we neither have a series of studies by different mindset research teams done on the gold leaf lady, nor a set of gold leaf ladies to work with, and this situation is highly typical of paranormal claim. In other words, long term sustainable replication, including replication by "foes" of one's worldivew, is notoriously evasive.
 
Furthermore, in reference to Kai's last post, most parapsychological work now IS done with TRNGs. Here is how a TRNG works:

TRNG said:
(TRNG, True Random Number Generator) is an apparatus that generates random numbers from a physical process, rather than a computer program. Such devices are often based on microscopic phenomena that generate low-level, statistically random "noise" signals, such as thermal noise, the photoelectric effect, and other quantum phenomena. These processes are, in theory, completely unpredictable, and the theory's assertions of unpredictability are subject to experimental test. A hardware random number generator typically consists of a transducer to convert some aspect of the physical phenomena to an electrical signal, an amplifier and other electronic circuitry to increase the amplitude of the random fluctuations to a macroscopic level, and some type of analog to digital converter to convert the output into a digital number, often a simple binary digit 0 or 1. By repeatedly sampling the randomly varying signal, a series of random numbers is obtained.

Also, if such processes were NOT completely random, free-choice experiments would yield significant results as well. A change in protocol, like mild sensory deprivation ( in the case of the Ganzfeld ), would not significantly skew results towards a higher effect. In fact, one would hypothesis that such a change in protocol would DIMINISH human bias, as our sensory inputs receive significantly less usable information to interpret subliminal human patterning. When hit rates for free-choice experiments ( without ganzfeld effects ) reveal a 25% hit rate ( as they historically do ), then Kai would need to explain why ' subtle human bias ' did not seem to display itself in that situation if it is, as he claims, unavoidable and always present. In fact, his use of subtle human bias seems to mimic his criticisms of psi; apparently it shows up when it wants without any sort of consistency.

However, Kai makes the claim that:
Going deeper, on the assumption that something called “randomness” truly exists (and I do not necessarily assume that) nonrandomness enters into any protocol humans are involved in. Examples would be choice of target pools, choice of language and context to introduce subjects to the requirements of the experiment, subtle steerings in the interpretation of results, formal patterns in the human perception of targets, etc.

However, Kai also does not seem to understand that the choice of target pools is itself random. In fact, in many Ganzfeld experiments, not only is the selection of targets in the pool random, but the target pool itself is selected randomly from a much larger database. The rest of the list of biases are also well known in the literature, and controlled quite well through blinding, randomization ( again ), and spacial divorce.
 
Horizontal array. Consider the following experiment. "Random" procedure outputs one of five items in a horizontal array. Each recipient of the item is asked if they agree or disagree with the choice. Over a great many runs a bias is found for the second from the left. This looks like psi. But in fact, it's codified human behavior.

Would you mind linking the study?

Computers do not use RNG hardware. Computers use what are called pseudo-random methods to generate the semblance of a random number.

Computer software is used to interpret the TRNG method of randomization into tangible outputs, like targets.

But there is another problem here. The concept “random” like the concept “replicable” is a human abstraction. In reality, all world systems have an irreducible information context, and all real world experiments output a “result.” What we mean when we say that the output of an experiment is “no better than chance” or is “random” is that it falls beneath a certain subjective threshold of bias that we choose to find interesting. RNG-based psi experiments have the same replication problems that other kinds of psi experiments suffer from. Therefore, clearly systemic micro bias acts there just as it acts in the other kinds of experiment.

Ah, so randomness doesn't exist now. Okay.
 
Kai keeps claiming that there is an unavoidable element of human bias that is not controllable no matter how hard you try to control for it. He claims that in normal situations and normal to large effect sizes; this bias does not matter very much. It would be a drop in the bucket, so to speak. However, when it comes to things with small effect sizes, like psi and the Higgs Boson, there is that element of uncontrollable human bias that is indistinguishable from the effect. So, in essence, what you're seeing in the effect ( which we call psi ), is actually human bias at work.


This is mostly correct, except for the last sentence. I’m saying that psi effect at that scale cannot be distinguished from the ground of systemic micro bias. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there. It means we don't have a reliable tool for making the call, because we have an uncontrollable situation. And I’m saying that traditional science cannot be done at the scale of systemic micro bias.


Above quoted is some of the issues I have with Kai's assertion. First, and foremost, he claims that innate human bias is something that is not well touched on. If Kai had properly studied scientific literature, he would be well aware that such biases are actually controlled for quite well. This is why studies use placebos, blinding, AR ( auto-randomization ), and other such protocol. Kai says that these procedures do a small amount to the overwhelming about of human bias, but they fall short of eliminating it down to negligible amounts. This, is the second problem I have with Kai's argument, as quoted above.


It’s kind of the other way round to what you’ve stated here. First of all, the studies you are speaking of, and the allowances made for them, are situations occurring at regular scales. That is why you are able to allow for the bias (more or less) and why the bias is visible in the first place. Again the codified human behavior for horizontal arrays is an aspect of irreducible human bias when unglimpsed, but because the fact is at regular scale, you can particularize it from general effect and you can compensate for it. So it’s not that there is an “overwhelming amount” of SMB. On the contrary, its influence is the equivalent of Angstrom scale in most regular experiments. It only becomes a feature at all when your quested effect tends very close towards zero.


Kai, whether he knows it or not, is making a mathematical statement when he says that the effect size we see is the result of human bias. We'll let ES mean effect size, and HB mean human bias ( or codified behaviors ). Thus, we achieve the following equation:


ES-HB=0


Which means our two hypotheses are:


H(0) ES-HB=0

H(1) ES-HB != 0


This, in essence, means that if you know the proper amount of human bias, and the proper amount of effect size, then we can use that to verify whether or not Kai's hypothesis ( in this case the null hypothesis h(0) is Kai's ). However, Kai directly claims that this is not a mathematical issue, even though it clearly is using the definition of his words above. Kai chooses to say that HB ( human bias ) is a featureless, valueless entity. It cannot be studied, and it cannot be understood. This statement seems silly, as we're talking about it right now. Clearly it's been observed, so it can be studied.

But all you are saying here can be said in the much simpler way I said it before in one sentence: SMB is only a problem when the quested effect size is equivalent in magnitude. But there is no reliable way of teasing out the components of micro bias, because we do not know what they are and because we cannot get behind the ground of experiment.

However, for sake of keeping his argument on life support, Kai chooses to shove his hypothesis into unfalsifiability. There's no way to test whether or not Kai's hypothesis is true.


This is probably true to a degree. But frankly, this sounds like a “boo-hiss” kind of reaction to the fact that the world is problematic and unfair for us poor experimenters. If SMB exists, do you propose to hold me personally responsible for that? Like other tough aspects of reality, it’s just something we’ll have to deal with.

There remains a deeper issue though, and those are with the assumptions that Kai places on human bias. For instance, why would human bias lead to a positive effect. Why would human bias not work in the negative direction? For instance, the placebo effect ( one form of experimental bias ) can work in the opposite direction as well.

Many aspects of SMB will NOT lead to a positive effect. The very implication of “foe” research groups getting a null result for a psi experiment in which another group, perhaps an advocate group, obtained consistently positive results.
 
I want people to note here, however, that Kai hasn't really engaged with the objections.

This is mostly correct, except for the last sentence. I’m saying that psi effect at that scale cannot be distinguished from the ground of systemic micro bias. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there. It means we don't have a reliable tool for making the call, because we have an uncontrollable situation. And I’m saying that traditional science cannot be done at the scale of systemic micro bias.

Notice here, that Kai said specificially that the psi effects at the small scaled CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM systemic micro bias. However, this is very different than what he claimed before, which was:

No, I’ve always said that it’s of the SAME order of MAGNITITUDE as the effects discernible in psi experiments.

It’s kind of the other way round to what you’ve stated here. First of all, the studies you are speaking of, and the allowances made for them, are situations occurring at regular scales. That is why you are able to allow for the bias (more or less) and why the bias is visible in the first place. Again the codified human behavior for horizontal arrays is an aspect of irreducible human bias when unglimpsed, but because the fact is at regular scale, you can particularize it from general effect and you can compensate for it. So it’s not that there is an “overwhelming amount” of SMB. On the contrary, its influence is the equivalent of Angstrom scale in most regular experiments. It only becomes a feature at all when your quested effect tends very close towards zero.

Before I can touch on this, I will need to see the studies.

But all you are saying here can be said in the much simpler way I said it before in one sentence: SMB is only a problem when the quested effect size is equivalent in magnitude. But there is no reliable way of teasing out the components of micro bias, because we do not know what they are and because we cannot get behind the ground of experiment.

No, SMB ( if it is as large as a problem as you say it is ), is a problem with all effect sizes. It would chance science in itself, as the effects that we once considered ' large ' could now be medium, and the medium effect sizes could now be small. This is why you MUST attach a proper value.

This is probably true to a degree. But frankly, this sounds like a “boo-hiss” kind of reaction to the fact that the world is problematic and unfair for us poor experimenters. If SMB exists, do you propose to hold me personally responsible for that? Like other tough aspects of reality, it’s just something we’ll have to deal with.

Kai has admitted that his hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Time to pack up ladies and gents.

Many aspects of SMB will NOT lead to a positive effect. The very implication of “foe” research groups getting a null result for a psi experiment in which another group, perhaps an advocate group, obtained consistently positive results.[/quote]

Even when they use the same target pool, with the same AR processes? ( which they do )

Your SMB is starting to sound a lot like psi, TBH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Horizontal array. Consider the following experiment. "Random" procedure outputs one of five items in a horizontal array. Each recipient of the item is asked if they agree or disagree with the choice. Over a great many runs a bias is found for the second from the left. This looks like psi. But in fact, it's codified human behavior.

This wouldn't matter, if the images were truly randomized in their placement. (Iyace already covered how randomization is physically obtained in psi experiments. If you're going to argue against that you're arguing against physics, not human behavior.) Each block would have 1/5 chance of containing the correct picture on each draw, so it wouldn't matter if people keep picking the same block over and over again. It's like people who have a certain "bias" towards certain lottery numbers - they think if they run the same numbers over and over again it increase their chance of winning. It doesn't. It's the same odds every time.
 
This wouldn't matter, if the images were truly randomized in their placement. (Iyace already covered how randomization is physically obtained in psi experiments. If you're going to argue against that you're arguing against physics, not human behavior.) Each block would have 1/5 chance of containing the correct picture on each draw, so it wouldn't matter if people keep picking the same block over and over again. It's like people who have a certain "bias" towards certain lottery numbers - they think if they run the same numbers over and over again it increase their chance of winning. It doesn't. It's the same odds every time.
Exactly. That's what I'm trying to get at.
 
Furthermore, in reference to Kai's last post, most parapsychological work now IS done with TRNGs. Here is how a TRNG works:

TRNG said:

(TRNG, True Random Number Generator) is an apparatus that generates random numbers from a physical process, rather than a computer program. Such devices are often based on microscopic phenomena that generate low-level, statistically random "noise" signals, such as thermal noise, the photoelectric effect, and other quantum phenomena. These processes are, in theory, completely unpredictable, and the theory's assertions of unpredictability are subject to experimental test. A hardware random number generator typically consists of a transducer to convert some aspect of the physical phenomena to an electrical signal, an amplifier and other electronic circuitry to increase the amplitude of the random fluctuations to a macroscopic level, and some type of analog to digital converter to convert the output into a digital number, often a simple binary digit 0 or 1. By repeatedly sampling the randomly varying signal, a series of random numbers is obtained.

Click to expand...


Yes, I know they are unpredictable, but “unpredictable” is not the same concept as “random.” I cannot predict the date of the next Extinction Level Impact to the earth’s crust, but that doesn’t mean that the impact is random. The concept “random” is a human assumption applied to systems and is notable for having no real explanation to back it up. It’s more of a convention. Traditionally, atomic decay is the recipient of this human assumption. In fact though, even atomic decay has been found to deviate significantly from the assumption. See here:


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327190.100-nuclear-decay-puzzle.html


And this makes sense, because in reality all systems, including decaying samples of atomic nuclei, are in fact embedded in particular ecologies of context, including the contexts in which they appear in psi experimentation.


Also, if such processes were NOT completely random, free-choice experiments would yield significant results as well. A change in protocol, like mild sensory deprivation ( in the case of the Ganzfeld ), would not significantly skew results towards a higher effect. In fact, one would hypothesis that such a change in protocol would DIMINISH human bias, as our sensory inputs receive significantly less usable information to interpret subliminal human patterning. When hit rates for free-choice experiments ( without ganzfeld effects ) reveal a 25% hit rate ( as they historically do ), then Kai would need to explain why ' subtle human bias ' did not seem to display itself in that situation if it is, as he claims, unavoidable and always present. In fact, his use of subtle human bias seems to mimic his criticisms of psi; apparently it shows up when it wants without any sort of consistency.


There are innumerable reasons, only some of which are glimpsable, including the expectations of researchers, subliminal emotion of expectation communicated in personal interactions, and the other things that I mentioned in a previous post. I don’t understand the second half of your paragraph at all. An expectation of zero result is as much an expectation for those researchers who hold it as an expectation of positive result for those who hold that.




However, Kai makes the claim that:

Going deeper, on the assumption that something called “randomness” truly exists (and I do not necessarily assume that) nonrandomness enters into any protocol humans are involved in. Examples would be choice of target pools, choice of language and context to introduce subjects to the requirements of the experiment, subtle steerings in the interpretation of results, formal patterns in the human perception of targets, etc.

However, Kai also does not seem to understand that the choice of target pools is itself random. In fact, in many Ganzfeld experiments, not only is the selection of targets in the pool random, but the target pool itself is selected randomly from a much larger database. The rest of the list of biases are also well known in the literature, and controlled quite well through blinding, randomization ( again ), and spacial divorce.

Targets are brought into pools by human choices. Psi experiments involving flat or boring targets have traditionally not fared very well. People prefer target pools they can relate to. Unfortunately, of course, there is no way of doing this without bringing in formal human patterning to the choice of targets and target pools. And also, target and pools are only one item in SMB. As I pointed out above, there will be many, many, many others.
 
Back
Top