[ExI] few bits per second
ross.evans11 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 28 19:30:58 UTC 2010
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>wrote:
> On 6/28/2010 1:37 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> wouldn't you agree that the
>> PEAR record is actually quite disappointing as evidence of psi goes?
> The PEAR work wasn't just interested in looking for evidence of psi for the
> sake of it, over time it was more concerned with the process (and hence were
> prepared to accept low effect size). So even low effect size can be
> harnessed to investigate aspects such as whether number of bits per REG
> output unit influenced success rate,** gender correlates, etc.
An accommodation no doubt made because their efforts to find evidence of
psi phenomena were unsuccessful. It quickly reaches the point that outcomes
being claimed as evidence of anonlymous activity, are in fact well within
the realm of statistical normalcy.
> I mean, 2 events out of 100,000 is pretty low.
> Some of their results were better than that (the remote viewing efforts,
> for example--but those have been seriously criticized from within the
> parapsych community); I think their insistence on getting the mechanisms
> bulletproof against critics meant that the tasks were unbearably drab and
> repetitive. Other protocols that are more natural and engaging, such as
> Ganzfeld and Remote Viewing, have shown much higher deviations from chance
> expectation without compromising their robustness.
Or more accurately protocols in which viewers could give much more vague
answers, and avoid what is always the death of any attempt to demonstrate
remote viewing effects: specific questions that require specific answers.
I am about 99% sure I
>> have not seen credible evidence of any psi phenomena. I am about 85 -
>> 95% percent sure that physics as we know it does not provide a basis
>> for their existence... What
>> are your percentages here?
> 99% convinced. If it turns out that they're all lying or making some
> frightfully subtle procedural error, I'll change my mind, of course. And
> I've seen arguments by physicists who claim that psi looks to be consonant
> with the sorts of extensions that are needed to bridge the current gap
> between GR and QT.
You'll find no such claims being made by scientists publishing in
mainstream scientific journals.
> **see e.g.
> Damien Broderick
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat