Consciousness effect on RNG is criticized for lack of appropriate evidences to show the influence of consciousness. For Example, Susan Blackmore, in her article entitled “What can the paranormal teach us about consciousness?”, has stated: “In PK experiments the claim that consciousness is involved is again made explicit, as in the title “The effects of consciousness on physical systems” (Radin and Nelson 1989). Yet, as far as I can see, there is no justification for this. In these experiments a subject typically sits in front of a computer screen and tries to influence the output of a random number generator (RNG), whose output is reflected in the display. Alternatively they might listen to randomly generated tones with the intention of making more of the tones high, or low, as requested, or they might try to affect the fall of randomly scattered balls or various other systems. The direction of aim is usually randomized and appropriate control trials are often run. It is claimed that, in extremely large numbers of trials, subjects are able to influence the output of the RNG. Is this an effect of consciousness on a physical system?
I don't see why. The experiments demonstrate a correlation between the output of the RNG and the direction of aim specified to the subject by the experimenter. This is certainly mysterious, but the leap from this correlation to a causal explanation involving “the effect of consciousness” is so far unjustified. The controls done show that the subject is necessary but in no way identify what it is about the subject’s presence that creates the effect. It might be their unconscious intentions or expectations; it might be some change in behavior elicited by the instructions given; it might be some hitherto unknown energy given off when subjects are asked to aim high or aim low. It might be some mysterious resonance between the RNG and the subject’s pineal gland.
As far as I know, no appropriate tests have been made to find out. For example, does the subject need to be conscious of the direction of aim at the time? Comments in the published papers suggest that some subjects actually do better when not thinking about the task, or when reading a magazine or being distracted in some other way, suggesting that conscious intent might even be counterproductive.
Perhaps this is not what is meant by consciousness here, but if not, then what is meant? Perhaps it is enough for the person to be conscious (i.e., awake), or perhaps the very presence of a person implies the presence of consciousness. In any case, to identify that the effect is actually due to consciousness, relevant experiments will have to be done. They might compare conditions in which subjects did or did not consciously know the target direction. Subjects might be asked on some trials to think consciously about the target and on others be distracted, or they might be put into different states of consciousness (or even unconsciousness) to see whether this affected the outcome. Such experiments might begin to substantiate the claim that consciousness is involved. Until then, it remains speculation.”
Although these critics were skeptic about influence of consciousness in the experiences, they accepted the anomalies in results of RNGs. Suzan Blackmore confirm that this is mysterious, but she cannot accept the causality relationship between consciousness and RNG data.
On the Wikipedia about PEAR has been written: “These tiny deviations from chance have failed to convince mainstream scientists who feel that the effect is inconsistent and that relatively few negative studies would cancel it out.[5] Physicist Robert L. Park said of PEAR, "It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton".[1] Park maintains that if a coin is flipped enough times, even a slight imperfection can produce more than 50% heads, and that the "tiny statistical edges" PEAR reported are the result of statistical flaws.[9]
It is said that, PEAR anomalies results is for Statistical flaws. Michael Steele has answered to these kind of critics. Toss a coin 10 times. The odds are there will be five heads and five tails. But say it lands on heads six times out of the 10. It's unlikely, but hardly surprising. Now toss it 100 times. If you get 60 heads, that means "we would have to have that unlikely thing happen 10 times," said Michael Steele, a statistician at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, who is not connected to the PEAR lab. "That's more unlikely." Now toss the coin 1,000 times, then 10,000 times. "If you get 6,000 heads out of 10,000, it would be an astronomical effect," Dunne said. "This can't be attributed to chance." Jahn said experiments in the PEAR lab have shown that the mind can affect about 1 in every 10,000 random events. That's too small an effect to make anyone a killing in the gambling casinos, he said.
The following video is about GCP(Global Consciousness Project). Dr. Dean Radin, one of the PEAR researchers, talks about his works.
(قسمت ششم)
قسمت دوم: معرفی مقاله
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر