Psychokinesis in deterministic systems

There was some discussion in a couple of other threads about the use of pseudorandom numbers in psychokinesis experiments. It's often said that PK experiments need to be done with true random numbers generated by a quantum process, because pseudorandom numbers are deterministic and therefore can't be affected by PK. The counter-argument is that the mind may be able to modify the behaviour of the device producing even pseudorandom numbers, so that the numbers are altered.

My instinctive response was to say that altering the behaviour of a theoretically deterministic system in that way would have to be classed as macropsychokinesis - along with moving visible physical objects - rather than micropsychokinesis - which is how experiments with random number generators are usually described. My instinct was also that macroPK would be in some sense "harder" than microPK.

But that set me wondering about the distinction between the two, and about what the assumption about hardness was really based on.

Of course, J. B. Rhine did PK experiments with dice. And the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab (PEAR), as well as doing many experiments with random number generators, also used a "Random Mechanical Cascade" (RMC) protocol, in which people tried to influence the behaviour of small balls falling through an array of pins. There's an interesting article on the apparatus here:
http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/34/burnett.php

The RMC should be a classical, deterministic system as far as I can see, albeit one that may be extremely sensitive to small disturbances. But apparently people found it no harder to affect the behaviour of that system than they did to affect that of true random number generators. In York Dobyns's survey of the work done at PEAR (published in Broderick and Goertzel, "Evidence for Psi") he gives figures for the effect sizes in different studies, expressed per million bits. For what he describes as "basic REG experiments" (i.e. random number generators) the overall effect size was 0.179, and for the RMC it was 0.182.

That raises the questions of whether there's really any fundamental distinction between microPK and macroPK, and whether quantum indeterminacy really plays an essential role in the phenomenon.

Thanks for raising this subject Chris, it is worth further exploration.

Firsly, I'll comment only at the anecdotal level, I'm not talking hard experimental data here.

Years ago I had an early home computer (made by Texas Instruments), which was notably 'flaky'. That is, at one level it was rock-solid - I never ever got it to crash via programmer error. However it was unstable and would frequently lock-up or crash at apparently random moments. I noted two correlations.

One was, there was a fridge in the house, and when the motor switched on or off, it generated a large electrical spike. This was readily audible on an AM radio. It also, presumably by injecting a spike into the mains power supply often caused said home computer to crash. I even took to unplugging the fridge temporarily while I worked on the computer, which helped.

The second correlation. I used to concentrate intensely on what I was doing, sometimes spending hours on some program code I was developing, oblivious to my surroundings, or to the need for food or drink. I sometimes became extremely tense and stressed - even though I was actually enjoying the process - and it did seem that when I was especially stressed, the machine was more likely to crash. Interestingly, that is a similar correlation to the one reported by John Kruth of the Rhine Research Center, though he was discussing network errors.

However, I will also comment that I don't notice the same flaky instability in more recent computers, for me at least, affecting modern computer operation by mental interaction doesn't seem to take place. Incidentally, having worked professionally in IT for years, one of the first and valuable lessons I learned was how beneficial and indeed necessary it was to take regular breaks - not because it caused machine malfunction, but merely to maintain health.

On a related topic, some NDE survivors report affecting electrical or electronic equipment, for example a wrist-watch will stop working when worn, but works ok when removed, and various devices tend to malfunction. If I recall correctly, Penny Sartori has mentioned this, though I'm not sure whether she gave specific examples. This might suggest that for some people, the ability may be more pronounced.

That's all I have right now, mainly anecdotal, though Kruth's work I assume is more rigorous.

I would like to make three points. My first point is that parapsychologists have been conducting their studies to publish statistically significant deviations from chance without really convincing many people in the mainstream. It is almost impossible for laypeople to read a research report full of statistical notation and still understand the significance of the study. The team might pass muster with their peers, but it is neither collaboration or convincing.

As a layperson and practitioner, I look for the decisive presence of phenomena. That is why, for instance, we classify Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) as Class A, B and C. Class C is not decisively present and should be ignored. At that same time, in some cases, the much rarer Class A, which are decisively present, have the potential of being a better lab rat than an REG.

My second point is to agree that some supposedly random sources are deceptive. Many devices invented for EVP depend on a computer-generated random source or detection of supposedly random fluctuations in environmental magnetism or electricity to select buffer addresses to produce the paranormal utterances. All that I have examined tend to favor some buffer addresses over others. A good engineer willing to bother with proof of concept testing could fix the problem, but not if the device depends on an unbiased conversion of deviations in randomness to select buffer addresses.

My third point is that it is not the randomness that I think is important in such studies as the Global Consciousness Project. It is the effect attention has on the randomness. I have a Psyleron REG that was developed based on the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research study. As you can see in the display, inside the envelope formed by the red ellipses represent the normal random output of the REG. Decreased randomness takes the output outside of the "normal" envelope. 

Studies have shown that random processes become less random when in the proximity of meditating people. It is not a matter of focused intention. The meditating people need not be aware of the study. The cause and effect relationship remains a question but EVP may offer hints.

The working theory for transform EVP is that a small psychokinetic influence is amplified by way of stochastic resonance when mixed with a larger broad-spectrum signal. The magic in this theory is how the conceptual psychokinetic influence is able to affect an objective process; however, that question applies to all physical examples of psychokinesis.

The of presence broad-spectrum noise appears to be a common factor in many forms of paranormal phenomena ostensibly involving a trans-etheric influence. The reason this is significant is that it seems to compare to how an REG detects a meditating person. 

In EVP, we have found that, while the voices appear to be formed out of available noise, steady-state noise has not been useful unless it is frequently punctuated with noise spikes. It appears the noise spikes helps begin the transform process.

We model reality as conceptual etheric space from which objective physical; space is imagined. We do not think the psychokinetic influence is strong or weak. It is focused or scattered attention. The creative process is seen as attention on an imagined outcome produces an intended order. If you consider First Sight Theory, psi functioning is seen as a mental characteristic in which a person's mostly unconscious mind switches more or less often from one point of focus to another.

A steady-state physical signal (any process) is conceptually very structured; the more determinant the next sample, the more resistant it is to concept-oriented influence. The naturally occurring steady-state noise in an inexpensive audio recorder is too stable to be easily influenced, but the addition of spikes increases the uncertainty, making the signal more easily transformed.

From the dualist perspective, the degree of randomness is not particularly important if something like "Decisive Determinism" is required, rather than a statistically meaningful measurement. It does appear that a random process can be influenced by mind, but the degree of randomness may not be a factor as it seems evident through EVP that mind will influence nonrandom signals if they are not too conceptually stable.

Sorry for the long response. I expect this is a little too much woo for you, but I would like you to understand a little of our perspective.