Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Maaneli

Here's Radin's response to why they used the R measure instead of the Ibison-Jeffers contrast C:

The reason is that specifying a single point of contrast on the interference pattern itself means that you have good reason to believe that the effect will show up at that specific point. Without that knowledge, a more general approach is to measure the double-slit power of the entire interference pattern. I did look at the average trough and peak heights as well, and that does produce good results, but we get better results in the frequency domain.

Now, the question this brings up. How many different methods were looked at? When was a decision made on which one? Since he departed from the previous method of measuring intent - why was not something like this included in the paper. This is where questions of multiple analysis creep in.

I still think it would be a step to validate and find the factors that affect your measurement and apparatus before collecting data to make conclusions from. How much do small changes in temperature affect R? Is there a difference if someone is just a little closer to apparatus? ...

[Maaneli]

Originally Posted by Scott

Now, the question this brings up. How many different methods were looked at? When was a decision made on which one? Since he departed from the previous method of measuring intent - why was not something like this included in the paper. This is where questions of multiple analysis creep in.

I agree it would have been nice to include data about the contrast C along with R, so that he could compare the results with the former measure to those of Ibison-Jeffers.

Unless he used C, then decided to use R, there is no multiple analysis problem to correct for in his paper. The only place where it would make sense to do a Bonferroni correction would be if one wanted to meta-analyze Radin et al.'s 6 experiments with the Ibison-Jeffers experiments.

Originally Posted by Scott

I still think it would be a step to validate and find the factors that affect your measurement and apparatus before collecting data to make conclusions from. How much do small changes in temperature affect R? Is there a difference if someone is just a little closer to apparatus? ...

They tested for this stuff, Scott. Didn't you read the paper?

[Maaneli]

Originally Posted by Miguel

The measure employed is whether the intensity of the light in attention periods is diminished.

Yes, how do you figure that this is nonsensical?

Originally Posted by Miguel

The idea seems to be that the subjects are blocking some of the light. That's of course quite fine as far as PK tests go but it isn't exactly to do with QM.

Actually, in quantum optics, when which-path information about photons in an interferometer is acquired (e.g. by blocking one of the slits with a detector of some kind), the interference term in the norm-square of the photon wavefunction superposition state is suppressed. So there is a QM description of how blocking one of the slits causes suppression of interference. There is also a classical description of this, so the point is that the PK of the meditators *could* be operating on a quantum mechanical level. And in either case, the measure that Radin used (i.e. that the intensity of the light lowers when the pattern shifts from two-slit to one-slit) is a perfectly valid measure of the effect.

To determine which kind of effect (i.e. quantum or classical) it really is requires going to the single-photon regime (which Radin et al. are currently doing), or a more sophisticated setup with photon interference, e.g. the quantum eraser experiment, which I have proposed to Radin et al.

Originally Posted by Miguel

You could, of course, equally well say that framing the experiment in terms of QM rather than as just a PK test is nonsense. Either way...

Actually, what *you* say is nonsense for the reasons above. So I still don't see how any of this implies that the measure Radin used was "nonsensical".

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Maaneli

Yes, how do you figure that this is nonsensical?

It does not make sense because it does not allow conclusions of the sort Radin wants to draw.

Actually, in quantum optics, when which-path information about photons in an interferometer is acquired (e.g. by blocking one of the slits with a detector of some kind), the interference term in the norm-square of the photon wavefunction superposition state is suppressed. So there is a QM description of how blocking one of the slits causes suppression of interference. There is also a classical description of this, so the point is that the PK of the meditators *could* be operating on a quantum mechanical level. And in either case, the measure that Radin used (i.e. that the intensity of the light lowers when the pattern shifts from two-slit to one-slit) is a perfectly valid measure of the effect.

The interference pattern is completely irrelevant. Its presence or absence was not determined. Therefore, what you say here is also irrelevant.

You have a beam of light. The subjects are supposed to block it. That's what the entire experiment boils down to.
The use of an MM interferometer does nothing but introduce a lot of noise into the outcome. So the subjects could have, in principle, also have influenced any number of other factors instead of blocking the light.

[Maaneli]

Originally Posted by Miguel

It does not make sense because it does not allow conclusions of the sort Radin wants to draw.

Yes it does, for reasons I've already explained. Also, see below.

Originally Posted by Miguel

The interference pattern is completely irrelevant. Its presence or absence was not determined. Therefore, what you say here is also irrelevant.

A comment like that makes me wonder whether you actually read the paper (or maybe you read it, but it was over your head).

In any case, you're just wrong about the interference pattern being "completely irrelevant". Note this from the paper:

From these images, we see that physically blocking the beam in one arm of the interferometer caused two conspicuous changes: the wavy interference pattern transformed into a smooth pattern and the overall level of illumination intensity declined. The former occurred because interference was prevented, which occurs when blocking one slit in a two-slit apparatus, and the latter occurred because approximately half of the available photons were physically prevented from reaching the camera.

The point then is that the intensity of the pattern is causally related to which pattern type is observed on the detector (remember also that the power output of the laser is held fixed). Thus, reducing the number of photons reaching the detector by psychically blocking the target area on one of the interferometer arms (which the meditators were instructed to do) is expected to decrease the intensity of the pattern, and thereby shift the pattern closer to a single-slit pattern.

Finally, a general comment - If you don't fully understand the methods of a paper like this (especially since it's beyond your expertise), you should ask questions about it rather than forming half-baked opinions.

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Scott

Now, the question this brings up. How many different methods were looked at? When was a decision made on which one? Since he departed from the previous method of measuring intent - why was not something like this included in the paper. This is where questions of multiple analysis creep in.

The problem is less in the potential for using different measures, it's more in the general flexibility in how the analysis is performed. Linda has already pointed that out.
For example, do you include all trials or just a subset? According to the paper, all trials, both preplanned and exploratory are included. However, trials for demonstration are excluded and some where a power failure happened. That's very reasonable but a different selection could be equally justifiable. For some unstated reason experiment 5 drops 1 subject.

I still think it would be a step to validate and find the factors that affect your measurement and apparatus before collecting data to make conclusions from. How much do small changes in temperature affect R? Is there a difference if someone is just a little closer to apparatus? ...

That's an unreasonable expectation. What if you don't get any effect?
In that case you can conclude that there is no factor that systematically influences the apparatus and all your work on what might have influenced it is pointless.
But yes, they could have tried harder to determine the mechanism of the effect.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by Miguel

It is not clear to me why you consider my answer insufficient. Denouncing the use of a normal metric for a journal's performance as an "ad hom" is just out there.

How is that a "normal metric?" The quality of work being published should be the "normal metric". I've never checked anything against that particular standard to make sure a geology paper was on the up and up. Back when I TAd, there would always be at least one student in the first year "Dinosaurs" class who would try to argue the young earth stuff was correct. I wouldn't dismiss the articles they provided based on the "journal impact", I'd point out the problems with the arguments and methodologies being used. That's what scientists are supposed to do. If someone came up with an article that I couldn't refute, I suppose I would have had to re-think things a bit. As it turned out, that never happened.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by Miguel

It's how the importance and standing of a journal is usually judged.

Since when? Do they specify if any journals have a "bad reputation" or are you just making that part up?

Nature is an important journal, but that isn't the same as saying it's standards are better than Journal of Paleolimnology. That doesn't suggest that the Journal of Paleolimnology is disreputable either.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by Miguel

I'd expect someone to know what to expect of a journal in their field without looking up the impact factor.

And yet you disregard Mannelli's opinion of journals in his field.

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

Since when? Do they specify if any journals have a "bad reputation" or are you just making that part up?

Nature is an important journal, but that isn't the same as saying it's standards are better than Journal of Paleolimnology. That doesn't suggest that the Journal of Paleolimnology is disreputable either.

As I said, if you wish to discuss the relative merits of impact factors as a metric, how about opening a new thread.