Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!oliveb!prs
From: prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
Newsgroups: net.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Fraud-proof PK experiment done (Also interesting to QM/Free Will debate)
Message-ID: <15@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 21:00:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.15
Posted: Thu Sep 25 21:00:46 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Sep-86 20:17:52 EDT
References: <428@inuxm.UUCP> <771@oakhill.UUCP> <1124@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens)
Distribution: net
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 62
Xref: mnetor net.physics:2995 talk.philosophy.misc:77

In article <1124@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>If there is such a thing as psychokinesis, it seems to me the way to test it
>is by having reputed psychics apply their invisible force to a force
>measurement device, for instance a regular scale.

Yes.  REG's are not measuring PK, they are measuring *something else* if
they give valid results.  Whether they *do* give valid results, I don't
really know, I have only extremely subjective evidense of my own, and I
have not seen anyone else's that I can extoll as adequate "proof".

>much more straightforward task than, say, affecting the roll of a pair of
>dice, which are tumbling and bouncing in a very confusing way, or biasing a
>random number generator, which is presumably a microscopic silicon device
>whose functioning requires special training for understanding.  The only
>advantage to probabilistic tests seems to be the opportunity to play with
>the statistics until they come out the way you desire.

For some researchers, this may be true.  But there is another reason for
such research: if de-randomizing (my lable for something known under a
variety of folklore names) exists, it cannot be measured with a balence
beam.  It's study does indeed require "probabilistic" measurement.  (I'm
not trying to establish that the phenomena exist, only that thier study
makes some kind of sense).  Of course, you may prefer to assume that this 
concept has so little validity that you reject anyone else considering it.

>Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
>{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
>hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)

>Does anyone really read these things?

I do.  And I care about keeping an open and inquiring mind about
observations and experience that seem true but don't fit the approved 
scientific (or religious, or new age, or political) theoretical "laws".
Could be the "laws" need minor amendments, or it could be that the
observation is biased.  Or both.

Such as dowsing, which appears a bit more well demonstrated than PK or
derandomization, but which is surrounded in much misunderstanding by
practicioners and critics alike.  It *works*, (my father has done it
himself in one of his old jobs, and hired a professional to choose the
site for a well on our farm;  good results)  but its mechanism has
little to do with the "rays" and such described by theorists.  Like
pendulums, it is only a way for the practicioner to bring information
into consciousness that is available -- by ESP or otherwise -- in
his/her subconscious.  Whether some of that info gets there by psi
is an interesting question;  I am sure this can be tested.

Please don't bother to say this doesn't belong here in net.physics;
I am addressing appropriateness in experimental design, which includes
asking appropriate questions about the phenomenom being tested.  

It is only to be expected, I suppose, that people apply theatrical magic
concepts to psi, and then disprove them.  Such study is a waste of
time, but for a different reason than the "skeptics" assume.  But
then, much other study is a waste of time, but in the diversity of
attempts, some great discoveries happen.  I suppose it could happen yet
in psi... stay tuned!

						- Phil
Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca