[extropy-chat] Re: Damien grants psi evidence

[Damien Broderick]

At 09:25 PM 12/17/2004 +0000, BillK wrote:

>The problem with 'remote viewing' is that it is subjective.

The problem with `memory' is that it is subjective. My god, no wonder I 
can't remember anything these days!

>It is
>mostly based on a single judge saying how similar a rough sketch is to
>the chosen subject.

Generally this isn't true. Are you making these objections up as you go along?

Most sophisticated RV trials, of the kind used in the military and CIA 
programs, employ rankings from several judges (who are *always* blind to 
the particular target array used in the trial), and the `remote viewer' 
produces a number of sketches and verbal descriptions. Sometimes these are 
subsequently binarized (inside/outside, light/dark, etc).

>The judge does not take into account how much
>*more* similar the sketch might be to many other subjects not under
>consideration.

The PEAR protocol developed an empirical listing of how frequently each 
choice had been made in the past, compared with the contents of the 
possible options, and so on. But so what, even in those cases where this is 
true? Data is doubtless lost by brute ranking, but at least this can't 
*add* ambiguity and complexity.

>It is a bit like a 'cold-reader' fishing for hits among
>his audience. ' I have a young man here - Joe, John, James, etc.

So what, even if that were true? It's done blind. There's no-one who knows 
the damned target who is also in a position to be fished (well, except 
paranormally).

>Utts commented in her 1995 paper:
>"8. There is compelling evidence that precognition, in which the
>target is selected after the subject has given the description, is
>also successful."
>
>So, either she now has time travel as well

Well, gee, yes. That's why it's called precognition, and has been for more 
than half a century. That's one reason why the purported process is dubbed 
`paranormal'. That's the main reason I find it worth exploring; if 
awareness is indeed four-dimensional (as many psi results imply; see Radin 
and Bierman on instrumented `presentiment' spikes prior to Ss' exposure to 
disturbing targets), there are interesting technologies in the offing.

>In 1995 she was also very keen on the Ganzfeld experiments which
>appeared to show results above chance level. However a re-analysis in
>1999 casts doubt on the previous reported successes.
>
>New Analyses Raise Doubts About Replicability of ESP Findings
><http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html>

The referenced paper, Milton and Wiseman, "Does Psi Exist? Lack of 
Replication of an Anomalous Process at Information Transfer," Psychological 
Bulletin 125(4): 387-391), has been subject to criticism in its turn. See, 
e.g., http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_66/ai_84547069

>for any particular test case, esp (if it exists) is pretty
>well useless.
>Nothing there for the scientific method to get its teeth into.

That is a big problem, but that's why stochastic analysis was invented. It 
will take even more cleverness and persistence to work around psi lability 
and intermittence.

Or it might all turn out to be bullshit. But the proof of that will have to 
be a lot more informed than your apparently off-the-cuff comments, Bill.

Damien Broderick