Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!mephisto!udel!haven!umbc3!menkar!bruce From: bruce@menkar.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce Mount 572-8408) Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets Subject: Re: Telepathy/NOT neural nets Summary: Dr. Jahn's research is valid Message-ID: <3009@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> Date: 22 Mar 90 03:13:30 GMT References: <68407@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <5445@okstate.UUCP> <2984@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <14938@muvms3.bitnet> Sender: newspost@umbc3.UMBC.EDU Reply-To: bruce@atria.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce Mount) Followup-To: comp.ai.neural-nets Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Lines: 122 In article <14938@muvms3.bitnet> m043210@muvms3.bitnet (B MOORE) writes: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Stuff deleted] >> Mike Plonski writes: >> >>>I don't know exactly what you mean by "telepathy", but I hope that we >>>are talking real science here and not science fiction.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [I replied] [stuff deleted] >> However, Dr. Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne have written >> a facinating *HARD* *SCIENCE* book on various ESP findings. The book is: >> >> "Margins of Reality, The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World" >> by >> Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne >> Published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987 >> >> [more stuff deleted] > >> Good reading to all, >> >> --Bruce -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [B. Moore replied] >With the caveat that I have *not* read these gentlemen's [sic] work, nor >have I met them, I do have the following reservation about the information >presented. > >[stuff deleted] Frequently, when >workers from a different field set out to do what is essentially behavioral >science, they fail to employ proper control techniques, or to use proper >experimental procedures. For example, it is necessary to control for things >such as demand characteristics, subject and/or experimenter knowledge of >tratment condition, inadvertent cuing of the subject and other such sources >of confounding. [stuff deleted] >B. Moore >Dept. of Psychology >Marshall Univ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Me again] [NO stuff deleted :)] I will attempt to summarize several hundred pages of explaination and technical detail within a single page. However, the book goes into excruciating detail and should be read in full. Jahn and Dunne's research is mostly on low-level phychokinesis (PK). Their subjects are *NOT* trying to use ESP to "communicate" with other humans. Rather, their subjects try to influence the *AUTOMATIC* workings of various electronic machines by using PK. This is to eliminate any "cuing" of the receiver, since the receiver is a machine. In a colloquial sense, their subjects try to play video games without touching the controls. The experiments are started by (essentially) a press of a button and then run completely under machine control. The machines (computers hooked to various electronic and in one case mechanical devices) run through the entire trial automatically, and tabulate the results automatically. The subject is not in physical contact with the machine. In one experiment, the computer uses the radioactive decay to generate a random stream of binary bits (randomness will be discussed later). The machine counts the number of "ones" (or "heads", if you prefer) that occur over the trial, usually 10,000 bits. Normally, by chance, the count should be ~5000. The current count is always shown on an LED display. The subject is asked to try to make the count be higher or lower than 5000. The final count is recorded automatically in a data base. The trial is run over several minutes at a rate that would be too fast for a human to actively concentrate on each bit. Numerous subjects demonstrated an ability to influence the count at beyond-chance levels. Their research shows *LOW-LEVEL* PK. There is no spoon bending here; no one kicked the count up to 6000. Rather, there were just *VERY SMALL* deviations from chance, say 5010, but deviations that remained consistant over hundreds of thousands of bits. *ALL* of their subjects are basically random people plucked "off the street" (mostly students). There are no subjects that claim paranormal powers. There are several other experiments that show similar results. Since Dr. Jahn's field is Electrical Engineering he is very familiar with known effects that could influence electronic equipment. All his experiments share the following properties: 1. The experiment is run, and results tabulated, automatically. 2. A control trial (without human intention to influence the machine) is run just prior to each human-influence-attempted trial. The control runs are automatically tabulated, as well, and plotted side by side with the human-intention results. 3. The control trials consistantly fall within normal expectations of chance, far better than most "random" number generators. 4. After thousands of trials, the human-intention trials collectively fall outside the expectations of chance. 5. There appears no way to "cue" the machine as to what numbers is should produce, barring outright fraud. Jahn and Dunne's book attempts to describe the experiments in enough detail that other scientists can replicate his results, so as to eliminate fraud as a possible factor. Further, they actively encourage other scientists to replicate their results. Anyone that has a serious, scientific, interest in PK research should read the entire book. Now, back to neural nets.... --Bruce ================================================= | Bruce Mount "Brevity is best" | | bruce@atria.gsfc.nasa.gov | =================================================