[comp.ai.neural-nets] Telepathy/NOT neural nets

bruce@menkar.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce Mount 572-8408) (03/15/90)

Mike Plonski writes:

>I don't know exactly what you mean by "telepathy", but I hope that we
>are talking real science here and not science fiction.  I assume what 
>you mean is more related to bio-feedback types of systems.

I am not familiar with the Japanese research mentioned in previous
postings.  However, Dr. Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne have written
a facinating *HARD* *SCIENCE* book on various ESP findings.  The book is:

   "Margins of Reality, The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World"
                                by
               Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne
               Published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987


Dr. Jahn is a Professor of Aerospace Sciences and Dean Emeritus of the
school of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Princeton University.  Brenda
Dunne is manager of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab.

Jahn and Dunne are strongly anti-sensationalist, even pedantic.  Their
book describes extremely well controled scientific experiments that they
have performed repeatedly in their labs.  Although the book starts with
a popular historical review of ESP research, it quickly gets very technical
and detailed about the (facinating) specifics of their research.
Even so, most scientifically minded readers should be able to follow the
book.

I have no connection with Dr. Jahn or Ms. Dunne.  I have met Dr. Jahn,
however, when he came and spoke here at NASA Goddard.  He is a very
thoughtfull, well spoken, scientist who's overall message is "We've found
some REALLY interesting things, and we hope other scientists will try
to repeat our experiments to prove or disprove our findings" (my para-
phrase).  

Further, so as not to sensationalize his findings, he agreed to speak at 
NASA with the stipulation that the press NOT be allowed to attend.

Good reading to all,

--Bruce
  bruce@atria.gsfc.nasa.gov

=================================================
| Bruce Mount                 "Brevity is best" |
| bruce@atria.gsfc.nasa.gov                     |
=================================================

m043210@muvms3.bitnet (B MOORE) (03/21/90)

In article <2984@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>, bruce@menkar.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce Mount 572-8408) writes:
> Mike Plonski writes:
> 
>>I don't know exactly what you mean by "telepathy", but I hope that we
>>are talking real science here and not science fiction.  I assume what 
>>you mean is more related to bio-feedback types of systems.
> 
> I am not familiar with the Japanese research mentioned in previous
> postings.  However, Dr. Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne have written
> a facinating *HARD* *SCIENCE* book on various ESP findings.  The book is:
> 
>    "Margins of Reality, The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World"
>                                 by
>                Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne
>                Published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987
> 
> 
> Dr. Jahn is a Professor of Aerospace Sciences and Dean Emeritus of the
> school of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Princeton University.  Brenda
> Dunne is manager of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab.

> [Fifteen or so lines deleted]
 
> Good reading to all,
> 
> --Bruce
>   bruce@atria.gsfc.nasa.gov
> 
> =================================================
> | Bruce Mount                 "Brevity is best" |
> | bruce@atria.gsfc.nasa.gov                     |
> =================================================
With the caveat that I have *not* read these gentlemen's work, nor have I
met them, I do have the following reservation about the information presented.

Neither of the persons mentioned appear, from the information presented, to
be trained in research methods in the behavioral sciences.  Frequently, when
workers from a different field set out to do what is essentially behavioral
science, they fail to employ proper control techniques, or to use proper
experimental procedures.  For example, it is necessary to control for things
such as demand characteristics, subject and/or experimenter knowledge of
tratment condition, inadvertent cuing of the subject and other such sources
of confounding.  In ESP research, positive results are often observed to
vanish when proper control procedures are employed.  Of course, this applies
to behavioral research in general.  While I do not know whether or not this
is the case here, until I had some information about the way in which the
data was obtained, I would be extremely wary of accepting the results at 
face value.

B. Moore
Dept. of Psychology
Marshall Univ.

bruce@menkar.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce Mount 572-8408) (03/22/90)

In article <14938@muvms3.bitnet> m043210@muvms3.bitnet (B MOORE) writes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Stuff deleted]
>> Mike Plonski writes:
>> 
>>>I don't know exactly what you mean by "telepathy", but I hope that we
>>>are talking real science here and not science fiction....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[I replied]
[stuff deleted]
>> However, Dr. Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne have written
>> a facinating *HARD* *SCIENCE* book on various ESP findings.  The book is:
>> 
>>    "Margins of Reality, The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World"
>>                                 by
>>                Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne
>>                Published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987
>> 
>> [more stuff deleted]
> 
>> Good reading to all,
>> 
>> --Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[B. Moore replied]
>With the caveat that I have *not* read these gentlemen's [sic] work, nor 
>have I met them, I do have the following reservation about the information
>presented.
>
>[stuff deleted]    Frequently, when
>workers from a different field set out to do what is essentially behavioral
>science, they fail to employ proper control techniques, or to use proper
>experimental procedures.  For example, it is necessary to control for things
>such as demand characteristics, subject and/or experimenter knowledge of
>tratment condition, inadvertent cuing of the subject and other such sources
>of confounding.
[stuff deleted]

>B. Moore
>Dept. of Psychology
>Marshall Univ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Me again]
[NO stuff deleted :)]

I will attempt to summarize several hundred pages of explaination and
technical detail within a single page.  However, the book goes into
excruciating detail and should be read in full.

Jahn and Dunne's research is mostly on low-level phychokinesis (PK).  Their
subjects are *NOT* trying to use ESP to "communicate" with other humans.  
Rather, their subjects try to influence the *AUTOMATIC* workings of various 
electronic machines by using PK.  This is to eliminate any "cuing" of the
receiver, since the receiver is a machine.  In a colloquial sense, their
subjects try to play video games without touching the controls.

The experiments are started by (essentially) a press of a button and then
run completely under machine control.  The machines (computers hooked to 
various electronic and in one case mechanical devices) run through the entire
trial automatically, and tabulate the results automatically.  The subject
is not in physical contact with the machine.

In one experiment, the computer uses the radioactive decay to generate
a random stream of binary bits (randomness will be discussed later).
The machine counts the number of "ones" (or "heads", if you prefer) that
occur over the trial, usually 10,000 bits.  Normally, by chance, the count 
should be ~5000.  The current count is always shown on an LED display.  The
subject is asked to try to make the count be higher or lower than 5000.
The final count is recorded automatically in a data base.

The trial is run over several minutes at a rate that would be too fast
for a human to actively concentrate on each bit.  Numerous subjects
demonstrated an ability to influence the count at beyond-chance levels.

Their research shows *LOW-LEVEL* PK.  There is no spoon bending here; no 
one kicked the count up to 6000.  Rather, there were just *VERY SMALL* 
deviations from chance, say 5010, but deviations that remained consistant 
over hundreds of thousands of bits.

*ALL* of their subjects are basically random people plucked "off the
street" (mostly students).  There are no subjects that claim paranormal 
powers.

There are several other experiments that show similar results.

Since Dr. Jahn's field is Electrical Engineering he is very familiar
with known effects that could influence electronic equipment.  All his
experiments share the following properties:

     1.  The experiment is run, and results tabulated, automatically.

     2.  A control trial (without human intention to influence the
         machine) is run just prior to each human-influence-attempted
         trial.  The control runs are automatically tabulated, as well,
         and plotted side by side with the human-intention results.

     3.  The control trials consistantly fall within normal expectations
         of chance, far better than most "random" number generators.

     4.  After thousands of trials, the human-intention trials 
         collectively fall outside the expectations of chance.

     5.  There appears no way to "cue" the machine as to what numbers
         is should produce, barring outright fraud.  Jahn and Dunne's 
         book attempts to describe the experiments in enough detail that 
         other scientists can replicate his results, so as to eliminate 
         fraud as a possible factor.  Further, they actively encourage
         other scientists to replicate their results.

Anyone that has a serious, scientific, interest in PK research should
read the entire book.

Now, back to neural nets....

--Bruce

=================================================
| Bruce Mount                 "Brevity is best" |
| bruce@atria.gsfc.nasa.gov                     |
=================================================