Mind-Lamp

Discussion in 'Consciousness & Science' started by Hurmanetar, Apr 6, 2016.

  1. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,338
    Home Page:
    Has anyone ever used this Mind-Lamp by Psyleron Inc. in collaboration with PEAR labs? Did it "work"? I'm intrigued and want to buy it for an office decoration / experiment, but don't want to spend the money at the moment. It has a REG in it and the color of the lamp is supposed to change based on the REG output characteristics.

    http://www.mind-lamp.com/





    I heard about it on the THC podcast interview with Alain Nu who said that the lamp tended to change to the favorite color of whoever was in the room (green for him, orange for his kid, and purple for his wife, or red when he and his wife fought).

    Should be a good bio-feedback device for an experimental mentalist.

    Also, perhaps those who seem to be magnets for synchronicity would be interested in Psyleron's Synch-text or the Psyleron Alerter? Anyone tried it?

    http://www.synctxt.com/
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2016
    Ian Gordon, Typoz and Trancestate like this.
  2. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    3,870
    Here is a site that will generate quantum random numbers for you:

    https://qrng.anu.edu.au/

    This would enable anyone to make a little program that would work like the lamp, I think.

    I have a related question.

    Has anyone managed to demonstrate any difference (e.g. in ψ experiments) between high quality pseudorandom numbers and quantum derived 'true' random numbers?

    David
     
    Hurmanetar likes this.
  3. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,408
    I would think this depends on context. Pseudo-random numbers are simply the result of some deterministic operation. For example attempting to influence the output of such a generator would be futile. However, attempting to predict the output might still have some validity. At the very least it could imply savant-like calculating abilities.
     
    Bucky and Hurmanetar like this.
  4. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,338
    Home Page:
    So I guess David's question boils down to: can a sufficiently opaque deterministic process show evidence of being influenced the same way true random processes seem to be?
     
  5. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,408
    Not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. I already ruled out influencing. The same series of mathematical operations on the same numbers will always give the same result. Adding opacity doesn't change that.
     
  6. politicaljunkie

    politicaljunkie New

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Messages:
    291
    I'd save your money, H. The guy behind this is developing an app for both android and iOS that will come out in the summer, it turns your phone into an RNG and its free AFAICT.
     
  7. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,338
    Home Page:
    I guess I was thinking that a deterministic process could still be involved with a synchronicity which could mimic influence? I don't know.
     
  8. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,338
    Home Page:
    Pretty cool... Yeah I'm not spending $180 or whatever it is. Maybe if it were a little more attractive looking...
     
  9. Trancestate

    Trancestate Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    400
    A number of studies appear to directly contradict the assertion that it's impossible for the mind to influence the production of pseudorandom numbers. A possible alternative explanation for the success of such studies is that test subjects unconsciously use precognition to choose a seed number (when clicking or pressing a button to start a session) that would yield favorable results. Despite this "loophole", I think most of the researchers running the studies have leaned in favor of a retrocausal explanation. This is especially so when it comes to experiments in which pre-produced strings of pseudorandom numbers are later used in machine or computer PK studies.

    A few papers to consider:

    A Replication of the Slight Effect of Human Thought on a Pseudorandom Number Generator - Azlan Iqbal (2013)

    Excerpt:
    The fact that such an effect also registers given an algorithmic or pseudo-RNG is perhaps even more difficult to explain. Human thought or consciousness, it would seem, and for lack of a better ‘natural’ explanation, is able to exert an intentional and even directional force on the outputs of such systems. Even though very slight, such a force could result in a ‘butterfly’ or‘domino’ effect in computer systems which incorporate RNGs – pseudo or otherwise – and this might explain certain presently inexplicable computer system glitches, malfunctions and failures.


    Experiments Investigating the Influence of Intention on Random and Pseudorandom Events* - Dean Radin & Jessica Utts (1989)

    Excerpt:
    However, the deterministic nature of pseudorandom number generation makes interpretation of successful experiments somewhat more complex. Because an algorithm completely determines the results of a run once the starting seed has been selected, it would seem that any mental effort applied during a seed mode run would have to be focused "backwards" in time in order to influence the selection of a favorable seed. Although the existence of such a backwards effect defies common sense, mathematical models have been proposed that support such a focusing concept and predict the effect to operate backwards in time as efficiently as in present time (Schmidt, 1975, 1976, 1978).

    Another way of interpreting positive results observed in the seed mode is to postulate that precognition is the mediating factor. Precognition would be used to select favorable, future moments in which to start a seed mode run. Under this interpretation, if a person could "see" the result of a future run before actually starting it, he or she would simply wait for a propitious time that would result in selection of a particular seed, which would in turn produce the desired result (e.g., more hits than misses). An analysis of existing RNG experiments provides some support for the precognition interpretation (May, Radin, Hubbard, Humphrey, & Utts, 1986).


    MENTAL INFLUENCE ON MACHINE-GENERATED RANDOM EVENTS: SIX EXPERIMENT - Dean Radin (1983)

    Excerpt:
    In the fourth experiment, the author performed 50 runs in the seed mode. The task was to produce as many CW steps as possible. Results in both experimental and control conditions were nonsignificant.

    In the fifth experiment, the author performed 200 runs in the seed mode; only this time, the task (to produce more CW or CCW steps) was randomly determined for each run after the seed number had been generated. Results of the experimental condition were highly significant (P < .0005); the control condition was nonsignificant.

    In the last experiment, the author performed 50 runs in the seed mode. The task was randomly determined as in Experiment 5 but was not revealed until after the run was complete. Results of the experimental condition were significant (P < .05, two-tailed), but with more misses than hits; the control condition was nonsignificant cant.



    PK TESTS WITH PRE-RECORDED AND PRE-INSPECTED SEED NUMBERS - Helmut Schmidt (1981)

    Excerpt:
    The experiment obtained significant PK effects in a situation where the complete history of a test run was determined by a prerecorded seed number. The possibility of PK in this setting is in agreement with abstract theoretical psi models. The PK mechanism in this case might be tentatively interpreted in the sense that the subject's PK effort made during the test session was focused backward in time towards the moment when the random selection of the seed number occurred. But such intuitive interpretations have to be handled with caution.

    Perhaps the most interesting question to be studied in this experiment was whether PK effects could still be found in cases where the seed number was inspected by a human observer before the subject made his PK effort.



    PK Effect on Pre-Recorded Targets - Helmut Schmidt (1976)

    Excerpt:
    Consider the following experiment: A random number generator is activated to produce a string of N binary numbers. These numbers are automatically recorded on magnetic tape, paper punch tape, or some other reliable recording medium. Nobody is present during this generation and recording, and nobody looks at the data until at some later time the recorded sequence of "heads" and "tails" is played back to a subject in a PK test situation. During the slow playback each recorded head or tail makes a red or green lamp light up while the subject tries mentally to enforce an increased lighting rate of the red lamp.

    One might think that in this situation the subject could not succeed because the decision as to how many heads and tails will appear has already been made before the test session. But one can also present arguments that PK might still operate, and that, furthermore, such PK tests with time displacement could give some interesting new insights into the physics and psychology of psi. Let us look at some of these arguments.

    More papers here:
    https://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/

    Doug
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel, Typoz and Hurmanetar like this.
  10. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,408
    Well, you may have something there, but it's broadening the scope. Syncronicity would typically tend to introduce one or more external events into the system, so those events themselves would be the source of non-determinism. That's just a quick comment, there's probably more to be said, but I don't want to diverge too far from the topic.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel and Hurmanetar like this.
  11. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,408
    Thanks Doug, some interesting stuff there. The whole area is certainly made complex by the fact that we don't have any sure idea of how PSI might work, and nor indeed do we have very clear ideas on how the physical universe works. Some of the ideas here seem to echo the quantum delayed-choice experiments which are also subject to much discussion.
     
  12. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    3,870
    Well I seem to remember that there have been some experiments in which effects were still observed with pseudo random number generators - possibly because the people involved still had some freedom to pick the moment to start the experiment, and the pseudo random number generator was initialised by the time.

    Edit: I have just noticed that Trancestate has covered this much more comprehensively!

    I emailed Dean Radin about it, and he has sent me a copy of a paper to read.

    David
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2016
    Sciborg_S_Patel and Hurmanetar like this.

Share This Page