Verified PK exists? I think we are deluding ourselves.

Sean's videos are interesting, but the wheel could be spinning for many causes. Heat is one of the causes, to do the test reliably he doesn't need to start with his hands in contact with the glass.

Another one is that the wheel is really unstable. Sometimes, it could just spin on it's own.

Dean Radin asked him to try spin it in a vacuum, and he couldn't do it. So he is probably making air move inside the glass. How and why it moves I really don't know, I'm no scientist. Maybe PK isn't about moving the object (too strong) but the particles around it?

I'm fairly certain that in Sean's videos, there exists occasions where he has started without his hands on the glass. Though I could be remembering differently. 


I don't understand how something could just spin on it's own, with regards to a traditional materialistic explanation. Could you expand on that? Even though I may not be able to offer a counterpoint from an educated point of view.


I'll tell you about my experience however. I set up an 'experiment' of my own where I got a glass, paperclip stuck onto a rubber/eraser with the top bent so that a piece of paper could rest on it and to be sure that it would not move from external 'forces', we tried banging on the table, blowing onto the glass, shaking the table etc, and the piece of paper never moved a bit. So we attempted to make the piece of paper move and were having no luck, until I announced that I was leaving the room for my bed and I actually said something along the lines of, "Good night piece of paper", when it suddenly span round with some force, on it's own axis, about 2/3 revolutions. Our hands were not near the desk it was sitting on or on the glass itself. For me, that was an astounding experience and it happened around the time I was having numerous interactions with synchronicity and manifesting things into my life. But I completely understand any scepticism as I've also found that the more I'm learning about the physical world with regards to education that I need for my job, the less I've experienced. But also equivalent, is that when I'm not in those environments, I happen to experience more of the "supernatural". For what it's worth, there is my anecdotal evidence.  


With regards to Dean Radin's point about the vacuum, I had heard of that and I think through one of Sean's videos actually. But I've not kept up to date with what he has been doing, so I'm not sure if he has made any progress. I remember Sean saying that his explanation of why the tinfoil now moves is maybe because he is moving the air particles around inside the glass, and in a vacuum, this is not possible. Which is similar to what you mentioned, I guess. 

But if consciousness IS fundamental, then all bets are off, in my opinion.

Most of the experimental work on PK in the last 40 years or so has been on so-called micro-PK, using random number generators. I assume you're not interested in that.

At the PEAR lab, as well as work with random number generators they did some PK experiments in which people tried to influence the movement of 9000 polystyrene balls falling through an array of nylon pegs (known as a Random Mechanical Cascade). They reported an overall Z value of about 4.2 for those experiments, which is extremely significant in statistical terms. However, it required well over 1000 hours of experiments to achieve that level.

I'm not sure about the others, but I think that's the only PK that the PEAR lab "claimed" to have tested.

More on the Random Mechanical Cascade:
http://pearlab.icrl.org/pdfs/1988-operat...es-rmc.pdf

The RMC in its new home after the closure of the PEAR Lab:

The RMC may look like a rather comical relic from the era of "Lost In Space," but I think the question of PK effects - albeit weak - in deterministic mechanical systems rather than quantum devices has important implications for the theory of psi. Because it's often assumed that PK works by the experimental subject somehow modifying the probabilities of quantum events.
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-p...ic-systems

In the chapter on PEAR in Broderick's and Goertzel's "Evidence for Psi" (2015), York Dobyns claims that the behaviour of the RMC may actually reflect quantum effects. He says:
"From a theoretical perspective, despite the macroscopic balls the ultimate source of RMC randomness was (as in REG*) microscopic and arguably quantum mechanical. A round ball bouncing off a round peg produces a large amplification of even microscopic differences between two possible trajectories. The amplification produced by the multiple encounters made bhy a typical ball is such that the initial difference, upon dropping out of the top aperture, between two trajectories landing in adjacent bins, is smaller than the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in the ball's lateral momentum."

If that's true, I don't think it's obviously true. I'd like to see the reasoning behind the claim.

It would also be interesting to know whether there have been any sceptical attempts to explain the results in conventional terms.

(* Random event generators - essentially what most people call random number generators.)

I'm fairly certain that in Sean's videos, there exists occasions where he has started without his hands on the glass. Though I could be remembering differently. 


I don't understand how something could just spin on it's own, with regards to a traditional materialistic explanation. Could you expand on that.

Really no idea?

Really no idea?

I am being sincere; I do not know how something could spin on it's own, when taking into account a materialistic point of view. 

So, do you have a explanation?

I am being sincere; I do not know how something could spin on it's own, when taking into account a materialistic point of view. 

So, do you have a explanation?

Here's how Sean does the moving. Here's a demonstration from YT's Action Lab showing how to make a helium filled balloon heavy enough so it does not sink or rise on it's own.
https://youtu.be/hU9WhjdXbDg watch how he controls the movement.

Here's how Sean does the moving. Here's a demonstration from YT's Action Lab showing how to make a helium filled balloon heavy enough do it does not sink or rise on it's own.
https://youtu.be/hU9WhjdXbDg watch how he controls the movement.

Sounds reasonable, but how did he do the tricks at IONS?

My idea is that the wheel is so light and unstable that it would move on it's own looking for balance. One should take his wheel and place it under videocamera investigation for a whole day, see if it moves.

Here's how Sean does the moving. Here's a demonstration from YT's Action Lab showing how to make a helium filled balloon heavy enough so it does not sink or rise on it's own.
https://youtu.be/hU9WhjdXbDg watch how he controls the movement.

Thanks for the video. 

It is interesting and I do consider that the possibility that this is what is happening in Sean's case. I found this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFoW30geP80, where Sean explains that the movement seen in his PK videos is much too gentle to be caused by Static. What is your thoughts on that?

Although I have no interest to prove or disprove PK to anyone (I'll leave that up to the scientists and others so inclined to do so), I tend to agree with Sean in this matter (ha). Overall I also have experienced many strange things in my life that, although may or may not have anything to do with the actual mechanism behind PK, lead me to believe ( 65% or so of the time anyway, I do tend to flip!) that consciousness is Primary in the so called pyramid levels of reality, and may indeed have a part to play in the PK 'phenomenon'. Yes, this is probably not acceptable to those with a 'hard-core' sceptical mindset/disposition, (or probably to yourself, Steve001) but I don't mind. 

Thanks for the video. 

It is interesting and I do consider that the possibility that this is what is happening in Sean's case. I found this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFoW30geP80, where Sean explains that the movement seen in his PK videos is much too gentle to be caused by Static. What is your thoughts on that?

It seems a very odd argument - that his demonstration of static is a more powerful effect than his "PK" produces.

It would be more convincing if he could demonstrate that "PK" worked for an object inside a Faraday cage.