The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Philosophy

Philosophy Religions, schools of thought, matters of importance and navel-gazing

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-29-2003, 01:27 AM   #1
H Caulfield
Non-Newbie Sort
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Grand Junction, CO, USA
Posts: 6
"Mind over Matter" proven at Princeton

Hey everyone.
My friend pointed me towards this neat site, and after looking around, I thought I'd share equally interesting anectodal information, an sort of test the water to see what you guys thought.

This summer I was invited to Princeton University by the dean of the school, Dr. Jahn, to participate in a "think tank" of sorts. In brevity, we were thinking about what to do now, since a lab there at Princeton, called the PEAR lab (for Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory, www.princeton.edu/~pear) had over it's 30 years of existance, proven unequivically and scientifically that the mind can ineed influence physical matter.

Let me explain. The PEAR lab has a true Random Number Generator, generates thousands of binary trials (output either 1 or 0), then sends the results to a computer, which shows it's distribution statistically. When you leave it to run, a perfect 50/50 bell curve results pretty quickly.

But, when a person (any person at all) is set in front of the Random Number Generator, and told simply to "sway the data to more 1's than 0's," or vice-versa, the results actually shift to the user's intention. This usually comes to calculated odds of 1 in around 1-billion odds of happening by chance, and these (credible lofty-minded Princeton scientisits), have been demonstrating this for nigh on 30 years now...developing their theories, etc.

So essentially they've shown that intention itself affects the outcome of physical systems. Conscioussness manifests physical reality. The PEAR lab has recieved press over the years, but not as much as you'd expect. Princeton's a damn conservative place, and their home there was always at risk. Anyway, the purpose of the think tank was to discuss what this could mean to people, to philosophy, theories of mind and reality, etc. I was hoping that some of you guys might chime in with your thoughts.

Take care,
Adam.
H Caulfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 03:05 AM   #2
hermex
Dry Nurse
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 23
I have been telling people about this research since I read about it several years ago. It amazes me that this seemingly credible, repeatable strangeness is not a bigger deal. It is astonishing to think that our minds can influence a random number generator. But it is also highly relevant to daily life.

You know how the printer always seems to go haywire when you are tottaly late and trying to run out the door. These experiments suggest that your stress might actually cause the printer to fail! I think I remember reading that the research was originally intended to find out why plane crashes come in clusters. It's really weird.

And it gets weirder still. There was an experiment where two randomly selected people were asked to try to sway the numbers of a single generator. They did the same thing with two people who said they were in love. The couples in love had a greater influence on the numbers than the random couples.

I think this is where some people just bail out, thinking, that is just too weird. This must be some kind of hoax. And when I try to imagine how it might be true, I start to sound like a bad Star Trek explanation.

"What IF, the quantum spin within the neural matrix creates a STANDING WAVE that resonates with the silicon substrate, well, just might be able to reverse the polarity and creating a tachyon shock wave that would propel the ship out of the wormhole!"
hermex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 04:02 AM   #3
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Lovers combine their aura's into an exponentially stronger force field. This combined force field is strong enough to cause physical phenomena like lights going on, doors unlocking, shades going up, webcams going on and life being created. Why shouldn't it influence electronic gismo's in the lab?
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 07:38 AM   #4
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
James Randi will give them ONE MILLION DOLLARS if they can actually prove it to scientific witnesses.

But they can't.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 10:05 AM   #5
Beestie
-◊|≡·∙■·∙≡|◊-
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Parts unknown.
Posts: 4,081
Back in the 70s, I read pretty much every book written by or about Edgar Cayce, government experiments with ESP and clairvoyance, Uri Gellar, Carlos Castenada, - the whole thing. What began as intense curiosity and a desire to "believe" evolved into a healthy skepticism of the entire field of mind over matter.

Before I tackle the real question, some random thoughts about the subjects. Have they seated two subjects in front of the generator and instructed them to "will" contradictory results to see if the 50/50 bell curve returns? If not, why not. And, out of curiosity, how do they know if the subjects were lying or not about the outcome (ones over zeros) they willed for? I also wonder how have they "controlled" for the unfiltered thoughts of the scientists in the next room or across campus? Since they seem to be comfortable with the idea that physical distance is not a limiting factor, how do they account for the thoughts of those other than the subject? When asserting a dependency, it is pretty damn important to eliminate all factors other than the one being tested (the subject's thoughts). Also, have they tried interfering with the subject by, for example, putting him behind a lead wall to see if they can "break" the connection. Bottom line: the scientists cannot control what they are "measuring" since they don't know what it is. And an experiment that lacks any control over the variable being tested is, to say the least, not scientifically rigorous.

EVEN IF there is a physical component to thought that can be directed, the idea that it can be clarified and directed with such focus and precision so as to influence the behaviour of a diode/ electrical circuit in a consistently singular direction is nothing short of laughable. The subject is merely "desiring" a certain outcome. The subject has NO IDEA of what he or she is trying to accomplish in terms of the specific physical influence he or she is trying to exert to enforce their desire (for ones over zeros). And if desire is the key element (the more desire, the more dramatic the results), why not substitute pictures of Pamela Anderson and Jeanine Garafolo instead of ones and zeros and use drunk frat boys as subjects. I mean, how passionate can someone be about 1s over 0s.

That's the difference between "wishing" my car would roll itself up the hill and applying a very specific force (with my actual shoulder after planting my foot on the ground) in the opposite direction of gravity. Whatever physical component there might be to thought it is probably little more than equivalent to the magnetic field of a power line - an unfocused energy field. Might thought influence matter? Sure! Might it do so consistently? Sure! Might one take that force and, by applying it differently, create different outcomes (i.e., push the car downhill instead of uphill)? Surely not.

Bottom line: for me, if the scientists are alleging a physical component to thought by proving that it affects physical processes, then I think that obligates the scientists to measure the "force." If its physical its measurable. To completely sidestep this question and suggest that we should all be happy with the mere "inference" that there is a force is, not scientifically credible as a conclusion.

Thirdly, the statistics are troublesome. Drawing the conclusion that "something is happening" because a random process no longer appears random (even tho we have no control over the force or forces influencing the outcome) is weak. Much more preferable is actual physical evidence that there is a force. I need to see a fingerprint. Let's bounce a laser off the moon and see if anyone can "will" it off target. Some of the most sensitive devices in the world are gravity wave detectors. Let's see if someone can "will" a false positive. But these tests are not happening. As important as what "is" is what isn't - or, if my suspicions are accurate, what was and what was quashed for its audacity to contradict the conclusion that preceded the carefully culled evidence.

Conclusion: too many unanswered questions to take it seriously. And, furthermore, I'm skeptical of anyone who isn't (to a healthy and reasonable extent) skeptical of themselves in matters such as this.

And as a sidenote, their seminal work was published 16 years ago. Talk about resting on ones laurels.

Sorry to be so skeptical but outlandish claims deserve outlandish scrutiny.
__________________
Beestie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 10:59 AM   #6
Tobiasly
hot
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jeffersonville, IN (near Louisville)
Posts: 892
Quote:
Originally posted by Beestie
EVEN IF there is a physical component to thought that can be directed, the idea that it can be clarified and directed with such focus and precision so as to influence the behaviour of a diode/ electrical circuit in a consistently singular direction is nothing short of laughable.
I view astrology the same way. People say, "if a butterfly can flap its wings on one side of the planet, and affect weather on the other side, why is it so hard to believe that the motions of heavenly bodies influence our lives"?

I agree that an object light years away can affect us here on earth, but to presume that people are capable of neatly dividing those effects into twelve arbitrary groups and summarizing my day's activities into a vague, two-sentence blurb is preposterous.
Tobiasly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 11:37 AM   #7
Elspode
When Do I Get Virtual Unreality?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raytown, Missouri
Posts: 12,719
The research with the random number generators has been expanded in recent years in order to test whether large scale cultural phenomena cause similar deviation from the random norms. Devices have been located in major cities (certainly across the US, but around the world, too...I think).

9-11-01 caused the largest deviation yet recorded in the course of that experiement. This is exciting research, and a terrific comfort to pragmatic philosophical aesthetes like me.
__________________
"To those of you who are wearing ties, I think my dad would appreciate it if you took them off." - Robert Moog
Elspode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 11:46 AM   #8
H Caulfield
Non-Newbie Sort
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Grand Junction, CO, USA
Posts: 6
Hey everyone,

Hmm, some interesting things said in reply to my Princeton posting. To start, I'm glad to see a healthy dose of skeptisism; that much should be taken for granted. Of course, it's often the case (ala Mr. Randi) that "skeptisism" is taken so far as to ignore staggering scientific evidence, usually in the areas of study that aren't purely traditional or trodden. This is bad, because it too is bad science. When I first heard of the PEAR experiments, I had the same thoughts of measuring mind forces, etc...and it took a while of familiarizing myself with the research to agree that something was going on (and note that that was all...I just agree that something "anomalous" is going on). Also, it helped to keep in mind that this was research being conducted by the dean of Princeton, a person who taught along side Einstein and Feynman, and is no small-time intellectual heavy-hitter, with ability far surpassing my own. I'll add that I also read about the Uri Gellar stuff, and found that to be not very scientific, and was pretty devoid of exploratory thought and experimentation. So I had no trouble just dropping most of the circa 1970's paraspychological "research."

So now I think it's most obvious that there's something to this conscioussness/physical world thing that goes beyond the influence brought about indirectly through, say, our hands and feet.

By the way, rest assured that every concievable experiment to test this effect has been carried out in only the most stringent manner--the only acceptable way. 50/50 bell curve is pretty strait forward: let it run for 20 minutes and generate 100,000 trials, see that it comes out to the expected standard distribution, then bring someone in, tell them to shift it to more 1's or more 0's...or...to shift the curve to the left or to the right....or...etc... It's true that they don't know what they are doing, but it doesn't seem to matter, the affect is producable by them anyway. That's all they're looking at.

After 30 years of doing these tests, and publishing new material every year, they've quite humbly concluded, in terms of a usual scientific study, that there is something to this...and it can and has been reproduced at will, with odds against chance that are astronomical. And here's all the evidence. Of course...those rightfully skeptical are invited to look over the results and statistics for themselves....hundreds of people have.

As far as thought being a measurable force....well, maybe it is a physical force like magnetism or light, but I don't know of any way to start looking for it...other than, say....devising some type of experiment where you can try to see that it might exist before trying to measure it..well...just like PEAR has been doing!

Real or not, I think there's something more important than the PEAR experiments that can be instructive to all of us. That's that we don't understand everything, and science can only be in it's incipient stages in it's knowledge of some things. If something is anomalous, it deserves skeptical scientific experimentation, not "amazing Randi-like" blind debunking. Good science must be respected, but it can never be respected if a resoundly demonstrated phenomenon is just ignored out of hand.

Besides, it's amazing work. It's cool! Anyway, please respond back with whatever, though discourse on what their findings could mean would probably be the most interesting. Thanks for your consideration!
Adam
H Caulfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 12:21 PM   #9
hot_pastrami
I am meaty
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,119
The Scientific Method goes something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Create a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by independent experiments or further observations, and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between the theory and the experiment.

So from the information seen here, it looks like these folks have followed the Scientific Method thusly:

In step one, they observed that a person bent on altering the results of a particular random system can indeed bring about measurable change. Nifty.

Step two... must not be important. They don't guess why it happens, they just observe that it does. Whee!

Step three... they predict that further experiments will... yield the same results, using the same equipment, under the same basic conditions. Why not?

Step four... yup. it still happens.

Step five... ?

True, there's information out there which would fill in some of these gaps, but it looks very much like a number of highly intelligent people forming hypotheses and furrowing their brows a lot. Beestie brought up some valid concerns... where is the science? If further experiments have been conducted, I'd find the results fascinating. I actually believe that "mind over matter" can and does occur, but I'd be loathe to call this evidence anything more than circumstantial.

The following questions spring to mind:

1. Does the test work every time , or does it sometimes fail? If so, how often does it fail? What conditions (if any) are different when it fails?

2. Have the researchers directed a person to try to influence the random number generator's 1-0 preference without telling them which way to go? "Ok Sally, try to turn the generator's preference towards ones OR zeros, don't tell us which. We'll then check the results, and guess which one you were using, and have you verify our guess." If such tests have occurred, what were the outcomes?

3. Have they had people concentrate on NOT allowing the numbers to veer towards ones or zeros? If so, what were the results?

Either there is a sea of experimental data out there that would make further conjecture on this topic much easier, or there are huge holes in the scientific process at work here. At best, they've proven that this particular random number generator is affected by human thought.

If I wasn't at work, I'd probably go on an information hunt, but my break's almost over.
__________________
Hot Pastrami!
hot_pastrami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 12:23 PM   #10
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
Obviously the tests have to be rigorous enough to rule out simple probability. Since they would publish the methodology before the test, one would have nothing to lose by agreeing to the challenge.

If the test is too rigorous, other people will point that out. It would be easy to get a statistician or mathematician to determine how rigorous the test has to be in order to be accurate. Any advanced stats class would take it as a five-minute assignment. It would be easy to spark enough debate that a truly accurate test could be determined.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 12:59 PM   #11
H Caulfield
Non-Newbie Sort
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Grand Junction, CO, USA
Posts: 6
Hey guys,
Some good stuff brought up. To Hot Pastrami, I'm just going from what I remember, but I'll try to answer that. Keep in mind that I'm not by any means trying to communicate their methodology's particulars...scientific method and all of that; I'd be here for days and days! Rest assured that they're quite familiar with how the scientific method works, and how it's used. Anyway, here's my best answers from memory to your questions:

"1. Does the test work every time , or does it sometimes fail? If so, how often does it fail? What conditions (if any) are different when it fails?"

As far as I know, always a statistically significant deviation in the outcome. Usually it goes the way either the scientist or influencer says their going to try to make it go, before the experiment, though sometimes they'll be more of the other instead....not what they were trying to do, but still some affect in the face of incredibly high odds.

"2. Have the researchers directed a person to try to influence the random number generator's 1-0 preference without telling them which way to go? "Ok Sally, try to turn the generator's preference towards ones OR zeros, don't tell us which. We'll then check the results, and guess which one you were using, and have you verify our guess." If such tests have occurred, what were the outcomes?"

Yep. Either the scientist will tell them which way to shoot for, or the influencer (called an operator), will decide beforehand and let them know.

"3. Have they had people concentrate on NOT allowing the numbers to veer towards ones or zeros? If so, what were the results?"

More often than not, there's not much of an influence...but still, there's some, which again comes at great odds. This is the rub: it's generally agreed that conscious intent does affect physical systems...but no one knows how it works! It's too new. Since they don't know how it works, no one can really "decide" how their going to affect outcomes...there's just a demonstrated deviation in the data when the mind meets it. Odd, huh?

In posting this, I didn't mean to touch off a debate about it's validity, but I suppose the nature of it would make debate expected. No problem. You should make up your own minds, but only after doing some research yourself, and not that based off of my fallable descriptions made between classes in the library! I'd suggest the numerous scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals you can search for, or a book published by the lab called "Margins of Reality."

What really interests me about all of this, however, is the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the mind is not the same thing as the brain. I think it is, and that "anomalous" functioning such as the above is only anomalous because it's new...it's no different than observing that light exists thousands of years before understanding that it's both a particle and a wave (weird, huh?), or that magnetic things attract each other, without yet knowing why. The research into consciousness, and philosophy, too, is probing these questions related to mind and brain, to the interfaces between them and reality. It's most facinating.

Consider how you managed to type a reply to this posting, the words comming from some where in your head, and your hands seemingly following without thinking about it. Your consciousness has formulated a reply in words, your hands responded, and made an affect upon the physical world. So, might consciousness be able to make an affect on the physical world through a mechanism other than your hands? Some research really suggests that the answer is yes--maybe the first empirical evidence validating what all those philosophers over the years have been saying.

What do you guys think: Is the mind something different than the brain?


Adam
H Caulfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 02:53 PM   #12
hot_pastrami
I am meaty
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Originally posted by H Caulfield
What do you guys think: Is the mind something different than the brain?
That's a more direct question.

To my mind (har har!), the distinction between the brain and the mind is simply that the mind is an abstraction of the brain, the perceived sum of the parts. This is analogous to comparing oil paints and a blank canvas to a finished piece of art. Are they the same? Yes and no. The ingredients are the same, but the "art" is the arrangement of those ingredients to produce an effect, and with it, more perceived value. Arrange the ingredients another way, and something entirely different and unique is produced.

There seems to be a distinct separation of mind and brain. Take, for instance, the fact that it is possible to go completely batty without any (known) physical change in the brain matter. A person can be forever altered in mind without their brain being physically altered. Does this demonstrate a separation, or is it just that the physical changes are too tiny and difficult to measure?

I guess the important question in regards to these experiments is, Is the non-physical "mind" capable of affecting the physical world? I think so... but in limited, indirect ways. For instance, when I become ill, I can will myself to feel better, and I do. As a result, illness is rarely a problem for me, because I choose to feel well. But one could counter that assertion by noting that it is the mind which caused me to "feel" ill in the first place. It's an impossible question to answer, because it is abstractions thrown in the pot with perceptions and opionions, with no solid facts to back anything.

In regards to the Princeton experiments, I actually don't think that this is a demonstration of the power of the mind. If it were, I could bend my mind on changing the binary data in my computer processor right here, right now, and cause fatal math errors. Here, let me try....

See? Noth
__________________
Hot Pastrami!
hot_pastrami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 09:58 PM   #13
hermex
Dry Nurse
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally posted by Beestie
EVEN IF there is a physical component to thought that can be directed, the idea that it can be clarified and directed with such focus and precision so as to influence the behaviour of a diode/ electrical circuit in a consistently singular direction is nothing short of laughable.
This is the bit (har har) that troubled me too when I read about the research. Even if I could go in and fiddle with the electrons coursing through the circuit, I would still not know how to get 0's as opposed to 1's. So there is no force that can explain it, at least not a force like magnetism or gravity.

So perhaps the weirdness is an artifact of another layer of reality, outside scientific laws (I probably lost many people with that one). Many very smart people have considered the possibility that reality is created out of our consciousness. This is how prayer could work, without god. This is how the placebo effect could work. Incidentally, are there any theories on how the placebo effect works? It seems like similar problem.

Take the stock market. It plunges because we imagine it plunging. Our fear makes it crash. We start to feel better about our prospects, it goes back up. How we imagine the economy is a huge influence on how the economy actually goes. Perhaps reality works in a similar way.

I think there is room for both physics and metaphysics. If you ask enough questions, you will get to a point where science runs out of answers. How can we ever understand where this all came from, before the beginning? God, quantum foam, scalar fields, it all gets equally preposterous at a certain point.
hermex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2003, 12:00 AM   #14
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
The brain is a car. The mind is a trip to the shore in the car.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2003, 05:15 PM   #15
hermex
Dry Nurse
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 23
I am very slowly reading an fantastic book on the subject called "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel C. Dennet.
hermex is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:41 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.