Error Correcting Codes

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by "jacob"

Anyway, I got a response from Dean Radin regarding .NetRoller's idea of using error correction in ESP experiments. Here's the reply:

Originally Posted by jacob

Yes, I emailed him again and asked for references. Here's Dean's reply:

I think this deserves more attention than it got in the original thread.

[Ersby]

I’m certainly interested in this, and since Lexscien’s free access policy is limited, it may be worth sharing out the papers between us so we can get hold of them all.

Having said that, looking around at what is online, a few of these are majority vote experiments, and not what netroller described in his post about error correcting codes. Or am I being stupid and actually the two are the same thing?

Brier, R. and Tyminski, R. (1970b) Psi application: Part II. The majority-vote technique – Analyses and observations. Journal of Parapsychology, 34, 26-36.

Puthoff, H. May, E.C. & Thomson, M. J. (1986). Calculator-assisted psi amplification II: Use of the sequential-sampling technique as a variable-length majority-vote code. In D. Weiner & D. Radin (Eds.), Research in parapsychology 1985. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, pp. 73-77

Radin, D. I. (1990-1991). Statistically enhancing psi effects with sequential analysis: A replication and extension. European Journal of Parapsychology, 8, 98 - 111.

This is a section from J.E.Kennedy’s article on the subject.

Several researchers have suggested that internal patterns in majority-vote studies may indicate the efficient operation of psi (Cox, 1974; Kennedy, 1979; Radin, 1990-1991). The concept of efficient psi operation implies that psi is goal oriented because efficiency is only meaningful when evaluated relative to achieving a goal. Remarkably consistent internal patterns have occurred in several majority-vote studies that were carried out with the specific goal or expectation that majority-votes would enhance the accuracy of psi.
Six studies found significant results on the majority-vote outcomes, but nonsignificant results for the raw data comprising the majority-votes (see Table 1, derived from Kennedy, 1978; 1979). This pattern is completely unexpected under the usual assumptions for majority votes. The z score for the raw data normally should be larger than the z score for the majority-votes because information about the magnitude of the the majorities is lost during the data reduction.[2] In calculating the z score, the higher scoring rate on the majority-vote outcomes normally is offset by the reduced number of outcomes or sample size.

Methods for Investigating Goal-Oriented Psi

[jacob]

Having said that, looking around at what is online, a few of these are majority vote experiments, and not what netroller described in his post about error correcting codes. Or am I being stupid and actually the two are the same thing?

As I understand it, majority vote is one of the simplest ways of error correction. Since you can decide on the majority of decision out of 5, for example, then 2 errors in 5 transmission would be "good enough" to get the correct data. This is especially easy with binary data, such as used in digital communication.

Of course, there are much more advanced algorithms than majority voting that can fix an error in one bit of data of some length without transmitting all the data 3 or 5 times. But these are actually better for the cases where transmission is less error-prone. Anyway, these algorithms ususally have parameters which can be tweaked to get the desired amount of errors that you can fix. Obviously, the more robust you want it to be, the more "redundant" data you should send. Simple majority voting is perhaps the most redundant but also the easiest to implement.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Having said that, looking around at what is online, a few of these are majority vote experiments, and not what netroller described in his post about error correcting codes.

According to wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error-correcting_code

Democratic voting is a form of FEC. The method of encoding is not important, what it does is convert the experiment from one of communicating random bits to an experiment where the order of the bits is the message. If you use majority vote then you have to get the order right or the voting is pointless.

With this type of experiment, a negative result can disprove psi is occuring, and a positive result can rule out randomization errors. But a positive result doesn't rule out other types of errors that might be claimed to affect the traditional type of experiment: sensory leakage, cheating or "something else".

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Having said that, looking around at what is online, a few of these are majority vote experiments, and not what netroller described in his post about error correcting codes. Or am I being stupid and actually the two are the same thing?

What the others said.
However, in some cases it seems to be merely related. IE in the Brier and Tyminski papers there is an attempt made to predict casino outcomes not at transmitting bits.

[Miguel]

PSI APPLICATION: PART I.
A PRELIMINARY ATTEMPT
By ROBERT M. BRIER and WALTER V. TYMINSKI

ABSTRACT: Though there is as yet no known reliable way of making a practical application of psi, it is feasible to attempt to develop methodological devices toward that end. The research below reports the use of gambling techniques as a basis for a statistical method of increasing scoring rate by utilizing repeated guesses (at the same precognition targets) combined with a pseudorandom sampling technique. Basically, the procedure was this: the subject wrote down ;ten 25-trial runs of precognition calls to be matched against 50 spins of a roulette wheel to be made at a specified future time. Five of the subject's "call" runs were reduced to one majority-vote run of 25 trials, and this run was matched against the first 25 roulette spins when they were made. If there was an extrachance number of hits, it was assumed that the subject's remaining 5 "call" runs would be good predictors also. They, too, were therefore reduced to a 25-trial majority-vote run, which was used as the basis for predicting the second 25 spins of the roulette wheel. Four pilot series were carried out. Series 1 and 2 combined gave positive results (p s .01). In Series 3 and 4, the predictive part of the data gave chance scores, which indicated that conditions were unfavorable for ESP on the actual "play" trials. The latter did turn out to be at the chance level. In a short confirmation series (one run of 20 guesses), the same procedure was used to predict throws of dice at a dice table. The results were positive (p as .05). In a second confirmatory series hands of cards at the baccarat table were predicted. Again, the results were positive and marginally significant (p < .05). For the entire experiment there was significant internal evidence of ESP.

PSI APPLICATION: PART II. THE MAJORITY-
VOTE TECHNIQUE—ANALYSES AND
OBSERVATIONS {1}
By ROBERT M. BRIER and WALTER V. TYMINSKI

ABSTRACT: Two questions were raised in the just-preceding paper: (1) How successful was the majority-vote method in raising the percentage of correct predictions over the run-by-run method of scoring the data? Analysis showed that the majority-vote procedure raised the percentage of correct predictions in six out of the seven runs that were suitable for this purpose. The number of runs was too small for evaluation of the significance. (2) Did clear-cut majorities (those in which the vote was based on 5 out of 5 guesses) predict more accurately than slim majorities (those in which the vote was based on 3 or 4 out of 5 guesses)? Analysis showed that a majority of 3 out of 5 gave greater accuracy of prediction (for both psi-hitting and psi-missing) than 5 out of 5. The difference in favor of the former was great enough to yield a p < .02. The latter effect was consistent at the level of p < .01. A trend (p =* .05) toward the same favoring of the 3-out-of-5 majority was found also in that part of the calls which was used as a sample to indicate the magnitude and direction of scoring before checking the predictions.—Ed.

Well... One can't help observe that the gambling industry has not been put out of business... Indeed one can't help noticing that this success has not been replicated at all.

I am not sure what these papers are supposed to say other than: Was tried in the 70ies. Didn't work.

[Ersby]

Re the Brier & Tyminski second paper, why did they split the data into 3 out of 5, 4 out of 5, and 5 out of 5? And was the score (Kennedy reports it as z=2.88) adjusted to take this into account?

I found a couple more papers. Ryzl's is spoken about in "Does Psi Exist and Can We Prove It? Belief and Disbelief in Parapsychological Research", Eckhard Etzold

Ryzl (1966) was successful in identifying “five three-digit numbers. . . without a single mistake.” Ryzl claimed indeed, that “to do this, it was necessary to make 19,350 single color-calls. . . The average speed on the whole was about 400 calls per hour so that the mere accumulation of the data took some 50 hours (with two persons participating).”

[Ersby]

A couple of others:

Enhancing Effects in Psi Experiments with Sequential Analysis: A Replication and Extension, by Dean Radin – the pdf doesn’t seem to be on the internet any more, but if you put the title into google, you can get it from a cached page from the Boundary Institute’s site.

Also "Prediction of Forced Choice ESP Performance" by James Carpenter is on his site

http://www.drjimcarpenter.com/about/...choice1983.pdf
http://www.drjimcarpenter.com/about/...iceIII_000.pdf

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Re the Brier & Tyminski second paper, why did they split the data into 3 out of 5, 4 out of 5, and 5 out of 5?

The second paper just goes fishing in the data of the first.

And was the score (Kennedy reports it as z=2.88) adjusted to take this into account?

Seems to be correct.

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Ersby

I found a couple more papers. Ryzl's is spoken about in "Does Psi Exist and Can We Prove It? Belief and Disbelief in Parapsychological Research", Eckhard Etzold

There appear to be 2 versions of that paper about. I didn't find the quote when googling for the paper (EG) but found this when googling for the quote.