what IF someone won Randi's challenge

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by .NetRolller 3D

By the way, here is the possible way to beat the price using "weak" ESP:
Most ESP tests show only a slight (but consistent) deviation from the expected results (e.g. in a test where the nominal chance of a hit is 50%, someone consistently scores 52%). In the long run, such an effect is statistically significant, but it is by no means "impressive" by human measures. BUT, consider these:
1. Shannon's theorem states that "however contaminated with noise interference a communication channel may be, it is possible to communicate digital data (information) nearly error-free up to a given maximum rate through the channel."
2. The fact that a deviation does appear during tests, but it always remains at a low level suggests that (analog?) communication is taking place, but is heavily garbled by noise.
3. This would mean that ESP is a "noisy channel", and therefore has a nonzero Shannon limit.

So, instead of trying to apply ESP on "raw" tests (e.g. testing telepathy with Zener cards), and just comparing the results with the expected hits, why not make the objects (e.g. the Zener cards) code some digital data (the "message"), protected with a heavily redundant error-correction code (e.g. one that increases data size to 1500%, but only needs 10% of the transmitted, protected data to recover the original). As the "receiving" subject senses the cards, assuming that we are witnessing actual psychic ability, the received results will likely contain enough signal (that is, receptions produced by ESP, not by random chance, i.e. noise) to recover the original message.

This would make the test take longer, but it would produce tangible results. (A failure to find a coding scheme that is under the Shannon limit, i.e. a Shannon limit of 0 indicates fairly well that no psychic ability was detected, and the results were only a game of chance.)

Neat idea but:
It would not help with the MDC because: The effect size of "weak" ESP is so small that one would have to conduct a huge experiment. That is one with many, many participants, probably spread out over a long time period.
The JREF would be having problems getting a sufficient number of qualified and trusted volunteers to oversee the experiment. At the same time the claimant would probably have difficulty setting it up.
Trying to send a message would compound the problem.
Moreover sending a message would not be necessary to win the price. Demonstrating the effect would be enough.

A problem in the principle is that by attempting to transmit a message one would not be dealing with randomness anymore. Leakage of some form would become a greater issue.

Still it's really neat idea. It would allow to conclusively test whether these statistical anomalies really do constitute information transmission.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Even if there were tangible results, the skeptics would still refuse to believe it.

Well that's a pretty convenient excuse, isn't it? It doesn't even matter if you try, because no one will acknowledge your success?

Boo hoo. Look at us in the corner with THE TRUTH ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, being ignored by big bad science.

It might be a more productive strategy to operate under the assumption that when a person makes a public claim to be doing something, and is being held accountable to it -- not just by those who disagree with him on various grounds, but by his peers and friends, those whose respect he currently has -- than to assume that it's rigged, don't you think?

Because saying what you're saying is all a big obvious excuse for why you don't even try, and that isn't the stance a person with evidence on their side should be taking, I don't think.

[Psibeliever]

Well that's a pretty convenient excuse, isn't it? It doesn't even matter if you try, because no one will acknowledge your success?

See what I was telling you about cult movements and intolerance? I didn't say no one or everyone; I said skeptics, as in cult members of that religious order. Ray Hyman has said that, even if someone won the prize, it would prove nothing. And he is, of course, with CSI.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

See what I was telling you about cult movements and intolerance? I didn't say no one or everyone; I said skeptics, as in cult members of that religious order. Ray Hyman has said that, even if someone won the prize, it would prove nothing. And he is, of course, with CSI.

You're still harping on that, even though you admitted your stance on skeptics and cults was wrong?

And anyway, who cares if Ray Hyman said that (assuming he even did)? Is he administering the test? Is he the only skeptic in the world?

I'm skeptical of paranormal claims, but I think that if proof can be offered, that would be fantastic. Who wouldn't want to be able to read minds and see the future and move objects without having physical contact?


And anyway, that has nothing to do with my point, which is that you're looking for an excuse to explain away failures, rather than looking for ways to become a success.

[.NetRolller 3D]

Here is a full experiment:

Have 2 rooms, each with a computer; Room 1 is the control room, while Room 2 is the experiment room. Strict controls should be in place to make sure no data leaks from Room 1 to Room 2 in "ordinary" ways.

1. On the computer in Room 1, generate a random, 6-character string composed of numbers and lowercase letters (called the "word", though not necessarily a meaningful word). 6 characters mean that the probability of an "accidental" hit is 1 in 36^6 = 1 in 2176782336, way over Randi's limit of 100000, or even 1000000.
2. Calculate the SHA-512 of the word (SHA-512 is irreversible), and send the hash over to Room 2 in a closed envelope. This way, Room 2 is blind of the actual word.
3. Apply a highly resilient FEC algorithm to the word, then encode the result into something well-suited for ESP research (e.g. using Zener cards).
4. Have the person being tested "receive" the encoded word (for a telepathy experiment using Zener cards, this would be: have a "sender" in Room 1 "transmit" the cards/symbols (s)he sees, while the "receiver" in Room 2 notes down the cards/symbols he "receives" telepathically from the sender - the best is to do this card-by-card, notifying the "sender" each time the "receiver" completes reception of a card).
5. Using the computer in Room 2, decode the received signal (e.g. the Zener cards), and use the FEC in the signal to recover the word. At this point, if the signal includes enough actual data (i.e. is a result of ESP, and not just random garbage), the word should be recovered; otherwise FEC will yield the wrong word or nothing at all.
6. Calculate the SHA-512 of the received word, and compare it to the one in the envelope.
7. Send over the received word from Room 2 to Room 1, and compare the transmitted and received words there.

Correct decoding of the word is a direct proof of ESP, as the Shannon theorem doesn't apply if no channel exists, which is precisely what skeptics claim.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by .NetRolller 3D

Here is a full experiment:

Have 2 rooms, each with a computer; Room 1 is the control room, while Room 2 is the experiment room. Strict controls should be in place to make sure no data leaks from Room 1 to Room 2 in "ordinary" ways.

1. On the computer in Room 1, generate a random, 6-character string composed of numbers and lowercase letters (called the "word", though not necessarily a meaningful word). 6 characters mean that the probability of an "accidental" hit is 1 in 36^6 = 1 in 2176782336, way over Randi's limit of 100000, or even 1000000.
2. Calculate the SHA-512 of the word (SHA-512 is irreversible), and send the hash over to Room 2 in a closed envelope. This way, Room 2 is blind of the actual word.
3. Apply a highly resilient FEC algorithm to the word, then encode the result into something well-suited for ESP research (e.g. using Zener cards).
4. Have the person being tested "receive" the encoded word (for a telepathy experiment using Zener cards, this would be: have a "sender" in Room 1 "transmit" the cards/symbols (s)he sees, while the "receiver" in Room 2 notes down the cards/symbols he "receives" telepathically from the sender - the best is to do this card-by-card, notifying the "sender" each time the "receiver" completes reception of a card).
5. Using the computer in Room 2, decode the received signal (e.g. the Zener cards), and use the FEC in the signal to recover the word. At this point, if the signal includes enough actual data (i.e. is a result of ESP, and not just random garbage), the word should be recovered; otherwise FEC will yield the wrong word or nothing at all.
6. Calculate the SHA-512 of the received word, and compare it to the one in the envelope.
7. Send over the received word from Room 2 to Room 1, and compare the transmitted and received words there.

Correct decoding of the word is a direct proof of ESP, as the Shannon theorem doesn't apply if no channel exists, which is precisely what skeptics claim.

That's an interesting idea. I don't know exactly how you tell if something is well-suited to ESP research, but that's not what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that I agree that if there was no data leak, this would be very compelling.

However, I think the question here is: how could you fake it? Can you think of a way? Even if it's elaborate, involves deception, human error, social engineering, can you get the answer ahead of time, or during, through "commonplace" means? I don't know what they are, but if you can think of a way you can, then such a test would need be tightened.

Reading this I am reminded of hackers, and something very important about that software hackers hack is that the original programmers tend to be more focused on getting it to work, rather than making it secure. And while you can come up with a bunch of admittedly cool scenarios that could show evidence of PSI, if there's a way to "hack" the test, then that someone hampers the potential effectiveness of it.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by .NetRolller 3D

Correct decoding of the word is a direct proof of ESP, as the Shannon theorem doesn't apply if no channel exists, which is precisely what skeptics claim.

I don't know which skeptics in particular you are referring to but often the skeptics don't say there is no channel, they say the channel is not psi.

The difference between your experiment and a typical zener card experiment is that typically the cards are in random order but in your experiment they are ordered. All the coding and decoding is simply a way of eliminating the possibility that the results are due to the precipient being able to guess the right card due to various types of randomization problems.

A simpler method would be to use a large number of cards properly randomized.

In that case, I don't see how it is theoretically possible to get a negative result after decoding in your experiment and a positive result using a large number of randomized zener cards. If you get a positive result with a statistically significant effect with randomized cards then there will be enough signal to distinguish from noise in your experiment. That's the basis for thinking a positive result might be possible in your experiment.

The same factor, redundancy (a large number of cards), that gives a statistically significant but small effect size in a typical experiment will, in your experiment, allow the correct signal to be extracted from the noise using an error correcting code.

Eventhough I don't agree there is a sound theoretical basis for doing the experiment, I do think it would be interesting to do it - sometimes that's how you learn a theory is wrong.

But, if you do get a positive result in your experiment you will still be open to the same types of criticisms that are tossed around by skeptics who haven't investigated the experimental protocols: cheating, sensory leakage, and the elusive "something else which must exist but I don't know what it is".

[Psibeliever]

Dean Radin has said that they tightened up the protocols again and again, but that never satisfied the religious skeptics. Hell, even the $20 million CIA experiment wasn't good enough.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Dean Radin has said that they tightened up the protocols again and again, but that never satisfied the religious skeptics. Hell, even the $20 million CIA experiment wasn't good enough.

It's never going to be good enough for ANYBODY, so why bother trying?



Seriously, Psibeliever, Dean Radin tightening up protocols isn't terribly comforting, considering his intellectual and academic rigor; he ain't exactly a well respected scientist.

Also, I see you're enjoying that old CIA canard again; sure, the government spent $20 million on experiments, probably to see if it would be useful, but if it HAD turned out to be useful (which seems to be your contention), why aren't they still spending money on it?

[Psibeliever]

It's never going to be good enough for ANYBODY, so why bother trying?

I didn't say it won't convince anybody; I said it won't convince religious skeptics.

Seriously, Psibeliever, Dean Radin tightening up protocols isn't terribly comforting, considering his intellectual and academic rigor; he ain't exactly a well respected scientist.

Dean Radin has a bachelors and masters degree in electrical engineering and a doctorate in educational psychology; he has worked at Bell Labs and GTE, and also held appointments at prestigious universities.

Also, I see you're enjoying that old CIA canard again; sure, the government spent $20 million on experiments, probably to see if it would be useful, but if it HAD turned out to be useful (which seems to be your contention), why aren't they still spending money on it?

Who says they're not? The results were significant, and they said they didn't want to investigate further. What does that tell you?