Experiment in Intention Manifestation Live

[John Freestone]

Got a coin, paper and pen handy?

Here's a little thread to demonstrate IM in action.

Spend a little time sitting comfortably, intending to succeed in tossing ten heads in a row. Write the numbers 1 to 10 vertically on your paper. It's important to do this, not just assume you will count the heads and tails you toss (or the total tries) accurately. You can easily forget or accidentally cause bias that way, and you want your head clear for your powerful intention, not keeping track.

Begin tossing the coin, intending to get a head each time and letting the coin come to rest on its own on a flat surface. No cheating! Record the result against each number with an H or T, a tick or cross, 1 or 0, or any other way you choose.

Count the heads you got.

Record the results here with your 'vote' for the number of heads you scored, 0 - 10.

Best wishes for a successful experiment
John

[Acting Like Godot]

The experiment has already been done, under much more tightly controlled conditions, at one of the world's most renowned universities, Princeton.

The scientist who did it was Professor Robert Jahn, at that time the Dean of Princeton's Engineering and Applied Science faculty, and prior to that, one of NASA's top scientists.

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The statistical analysis has been challenged by some, but these are PEAR's conclusions

A quick summary of the PEAR researchers' current evaluations of their human-machine experiments:

1. Human minds can affect random physical processes, to a minor but statistically detectable degree.

2. The effect seems to disappear when deterministic (pseudo-random) sources are substituted.

3. The effect is idiosyncratic (different individuals produce different results).

4. The effect is erratic, showing long-term fluctuations which can be partly (but only partly) explained by changes in the operator pool.

5. The scaling in response to simple physical variables is not obvious: for example, speeding up sampling by a factor of 10 produced no detectable difference in the effect size per bit, but speeding up sampling by a factor of 10,000 inverted the sign of the effect and reduced the per-bit effect size by a factor of 30.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The experiment has already been done, under much more tightly controlled conditions.

Sure, and thanks for that link, but I thought it would be interesting for people here to repeat it, even under sloppy experimental conditions, as we can often learn a lot from approaching a question directly ourselves. Besides, it might be fun.

:-
(gobless)
John

[Acting Like Godot]

Oh, apologies. I had thought you might be interested in some genuine scientific thinking of a logical kind, by a rather eminent scientist. My error.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Got a coin, paper and pen handy?

Here's a little thread to demonstrate IM in action.

Spend a little time sitting comfortably, intending to succeed in tossing ten heads in a row. Write the numbers 1 to 10 vertically on your paper. It's important to do this, not just assume you will count the heads and tails you toss (or the total tries) accurately. You can easily forget or accidentally cause bias that way, and you want your head clear for your powerful intention, not keeping track.

Begin tossing the coin, intending to get a head each time and letting the coin come to rest on its own on a flat surface. No cheating! Record the result against each number with an H or T, a tick or cross, 1 or 0, or any other way you choose.

Count the heads you got.

Record the results here with your 'vote' for the number of heads you scored, 0 - 10.

Best wishes for a successful experiment
John

I might get in trouble if I tried this.

[wolfgang]

how will you know that the statistics, of more heads, will be distinquishable?

this experiment has no baseline...
do you need to ask people to toss 10 coins without intents too?

my coins landed on their edge 10 times

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

...we can often learn a lot from approaching a question directly ourselves. Besides, it might be fun.

Hey, John. I agree, we can learn a lot from approaching a question directly ourselves... that's why I have experimented with the usefulness I find in Law of Attraction, that is: deliberately thinking thoughts that feel good when I think them. I have had a lot of fun with my experiments in manifesting all kinds of things that inspire me, and I recognize that what inspires me won't necessarily inspire others.

Two things that absolutely do not inspire me or sound like fun:
-- tossing coins and noting the results
-- participating in someone else's experiments who is seeking negative result, in which I've already done my own and experienced positive result.

Best wishes with your experiment.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh, apologies. I had thought you might be interested in some genuine scientific thinking of a logical kind, by a rather eminent scientist. My error.

You mean Robert Jahn. Well, it depends what you're inclined to believe... On the page you refered us to, we find "A number of academics have called the PEAR data into question stating that the PEAR methodologies were flawed and questioning their interpretation of the collected data"

Following those links, we find, among other things: “It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton,” said Robert L. Park, a University of Maryland physicist who is the author of “Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud.” “Science has a substantial amount of credibility, but this is the kind of thing that squanders it.” (see A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close Its Doors - New York Times )

Another site, the sceptics' dictionary, discusses the science behind the alleged micro-psychokinesis, and certainly persuades me that the experiments failed to show any taking place. ( The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) ) There are useful pages here about how we hypnotise ourselves into believing such things.

The author comments, "The PEAR lab shut down in February 2007 to a yawning scientific community."

It's a pity we got to discussing failed psychic experiments in this thread, as it's obviously going to influence the tossers and reduce the number of heads we get.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

my coins landed on their edge 10 times

You need to get out of that rut wolfgang

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Got a coin, paper and pen handy?

Here's a little thread to demonstrate IM in action.

Spend a little time sitting comfortably, intending to succeed in tossing ten heads in a row. Write the numbers 1 to 10 vertically on your paper. It's important to do this, not just assume you will count the heads and tails you toss (or the total tries) accurately. You can easily forget or accidentally cause bias that way, and you want your head clear for your powerful intention, not keeping track.

Begin tossing the coin, intending to get a head each time and letting the coin come to rest on its own on a flat surface. No cheating! Record the result against each number with an H or T, a tick or cross, 1 or 0, or any other way you choose.

Count the heads you got.

Record the results here with your 'vote' for the number of heads you scored, 0 - 10.

Best wishes for a successful experiment
John

I got 8 out of 10 heads.

The first 4 were heads, then I had the thought "Isn't it supposed to be 50/50?" I tried to take some extra time and visualize heads again, but I got 2 Tails in a row and then after that I just didn't care anymore and got 4 more heads in a row.

What's the point of this?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I got 8 out of 10 heads.

The first 4 were heads, then I had the thought "Isn't it supposed to be 50/50?" I tried to take some extra time and visualize heads again, but I got 2 Tails in a row and then after that I just didn't care anymore and got 4 more heads in a row.

What's the point of this?

Well, each player might decide what the point of it is themselves. In broad terms, of course, it's an experiment in intention manifestation, or psychokinesis. If we follow the instructions and are able to influence the toss of a coin, then we should get more heads than tails.

However, in taking part and thinking about it, we might recognise a few other things. It has already been pointed out that it's not very rigorous scientifically, so one response is to discount it as pointless.

If the results after some reasonable amount of people had taken part showed a massive number of heads, it might be thought of as a good indicator that IM might be working among this community (and after all, where else is there such an experienced community of intentional manifesters than here?). It looks like it's already going in that direction.

Clearly, however, a critic could discount whatever result comes in. The community could be deliberately lying about their ten tosses a significant number of times for some reason - no-one's overseeing them - or they could fool themselves somehow perhaps.

One thing I learned in therapy training was how much I learn by taking part in exercises, and how surprising the learning can be. I, who am pretty doubtful about psychokinesis, certainly on this level of events, took part anyway and really tried to get a head each time, but I got tail after tail after tail. It was so surprising (again, knowing that chance said it should be 50-50 over time) that when I finally got a head on the last throw, I toyed with the idea that unconsciously, being a sceptic, I was wishing for tails. I set the experiment up negatively (intending it to fail to show a significant result), so I was unconsciously negative. Maybe IM works, but I didn't take account of my unconscious mind. I even entertained the thought "I should put this down as a 9 to reflect the power of my unconscious mind to get 9 straight tails!"...

But that's weird. Do I have an unconscious manifesting power? Is it like some people tell me here - I don't get IM and it doesnt work for me because I'm sceptical and sabotage it? Some extend this to explain why the evidence for psi is so poor: the experimenters are causing it to fail by their thoughts manifesting that result! That might be a logical possiblity; I'm not sure.

Or is it just that my brain's ability to make patterns out of events is so relentless - it is biologically programmed to refuse to accept randomness (and powerlessness) - and finds new rules to apply, even to the point of turning everything upside down and making a solitary head signify 9? Well, there are plenty of experiments to demonstrate our propensity to delude ourselves in that way. Our brains work largely by recognising patterns in the environment and will readily invent them when there aren't any there. While it may be impossible to catch ourselves doing unconscious IM (like if sceptics were making psi experiments fail by mind-power without knowing it), demonstrating our unconscious self-delusion is a piece of cake. (It is hard to explain why even pro-psi scientists don't get hard scientific data proving its existence: generally the results lead to long bickering about ridiculously tiny margins of error/small but significant results.)

If it's true that we're largely making up a lot of patterns that aren't there, then it explains why I see faces in my curtains and all sorts of objects in the clouds, and why some people believe that there is a face on the surface of Mars that was built by aliens. It is why we think we can hear voices when we listen to radio static or a blank tape with the volume turned up. It is why we feel haunted by ghosts when there is nothing there at all, and why "readers" can easily convince a client that they're revealing important truths to them.

When you tried really hard again, got two tails in a row and then couldn't care after that, I guess it could signify that you're giving up believing you can influence coins. Also, though, your increased number of heads when you weren't trying could signify that IM works better for you when you're relaxed and not straining your intention too hard. What do you think?

[Arboretor]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Another site, the sceptics' dictionary, discusses the science behind the alleged micro-psychokinesis, and certainly persuades me that the experiments failed to show any taking place. ( The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) )

This skeptic's dictionary is indeed interesting.

They say:

And Jahn et al. failed to replicate the PEAR results in experiments done in Germany
(See http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/...rs/portREG.pdf).

I downloaded the paper cited here, only this one, because it was readily available and because it was written by a german university (I am german).

In the "Summary comments" the authors say (p.538):

"As far as the replication results themselves are concerned, we are left with
an empirical paradox. Whereas the prior PEAR experiments clearly displayed
anomalous secular trends in REG output distribution means in correlation with
operator intention, the three-laboratory replications, which employed essentially
similar equipment and protocols, failed by an order of magnitude to
replicate the primary correlations. Yet, these replication studies presented instead
a substantial pattern of structural anomalies related to various secondary
parameters, to a degree well beyond chance expectation and totally absent
from the calibration data. To borrow a fluid mechanical metaphor, it is as if the
influence of operator intention now was manifesting itself as a structural “turbulence”
in the output data of the replication, rather than in a more orderly displacement
of the data streams as was found in the prior PEAR studies."

and on page p.546:

"The change from systematic, intention-correlated deviations to a comparably anomalous, albeit less orderly pattern
of structural distortions testifies to our incomplete understanding of the
basic phenomena, and warns that future empirical and conceptual efforts must
proceed at a more sophisticated level."

So they did indeed not replicate the PEAR results in the sense that they did not find the same anomalies, but
they did find other structural distortions ("comparably anomalous").

Interpreting this result as a refutation of the original study is, well, perhaps a bit misleading.


It also interesting to read what they have to say about replication and falsification of such experiments in general (p. 543):

"The concept of objective replication or falsification is crucial to the exact
sciences. Yet examples abound where varying degrees of compromise with
rigorous replicability have been tolerated out of pragmatic necessity. For example,
the essential indeterminancy of quantum events forced physicists to acknowledge
that for some experimental configurations, no degree of control
over the apparatus will allow the exact prediction of a single observation. Instead,
exact prediction and measurement are reserved for ensembles and distributions,
rather than for individual events, i.e., the definition of “replication”
has been subtly changed to accommodate the intrinsic indeterminancy. Similar
modifications are routinely applied in the study of dynamical chaos and complex
systems, e.g., in fluid mechanical turbulence, granular media, fracture
and fatigue processes, etc. Indeed, in any systems sufficiently complex that
the validity of statistical limit theorems must be questioned, the concept of
empirical replication may need to be modified. In our case, the potential indeterminancy
of various physical outcomes is overlaid with a plethora of potentially
relevant biological and psychological variables associated with the
human operators and experimenters that may exceed our ability to specify,
measure, or detect, let alone to control. To expect that these hypercomplex
systems will submit to classical expectations of causality, determinism, and
replicability may be overly presumptive."

This paper actually gives me some more confidence that there might be something out there which merits closer investigation.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Arboretor

<snip>
So they did indeed not replicate the PEAR results in the sense that they did not find the same anomalies, but
they did find other structural distortions ("comparably anomalous").

Interpreting this result as a refutation of the original study is, well, perhaps a bit misleading.

Yes, it does seem misleading not to mention that. I do accept that all parties tend to see the bits they want to see, and either deliberately or accidentally (or non-linearly ) cook the books!

It also interesting to read what they have to say about replication and falsification of such experiments in general (p. 543):
<snip>
This paper actually gives me some more confidence that there might be something out there which merits closer investigation.

Maybe. I think the whole subject is fascinating. I have to admit that I have a very poor grasp of many of the concepts involved in experiments of this kind. Hardly any of us, probably, would understand the finer details of the physics or the maths enough to form educated opinions. I need someone to translate most of it, and that doesn't help when we're also interested in making up our own minds and not just believing what other people tell us!

I gather you understand these things much better than me, and I'd be grateful if you point out any errors that you spot.

I think I get a sense of some of the problems. As I understand it, when you get down to measuring small effects (as some have suggested exist when people try to influence the random events generated by a machine with their mind), there arise questions about what exactly a random event is. Computers generally deal in pseudo-random events, for a start, which (strictly speaking) is another way of saying they're not random at all. While it may be very difficult to tell what number might come next out of a computer-generated number sequence, deep down there is a logic to the sequence. So when we're dealing with critical measurements, little things like that become very big philosophical problems that can't be discounted.

Translating it into the problem of tossing a coin makes it easier to understand. If I demonstrated a flair for tossing heads to the point of astonishing everyone, we could not conclude that I had a psychic power that was influencing the final position of the coin after it leaves my hand. Feasibly, there is a direct physical cause of the result, the exact velocity and angular momentum at which I spin the coin, and it is perfectly possible that I have developed the necessary muscle control rather than mind control.

In some of these particle physics experiments, they are getting to much more fundamental problems. One, of course, is the question of statistical or experimental significance, which, to my mind, has no purely mathematical resolution. That is to say, significance is intrinsically a human concept. There is (or may be) nothing equal to it in nature. The fact that people are suggesting that psi works on micro-levels means that already they have rejected the normal measurements of significance and are essentially saying we need to look closer and longer to see patterns that are 'deeper' so to speak.

This would be like a 'believer' saying, after a thousand people have posted here and we got a result that satisfied the sceptics, we just need another million people to take part and you'll see, it'll show a significant result...or vice versa, sceptics rejecting significance with a thousand and requiring more people.

There is another fundamental philosophical problem that I think is raised by the paper you quote: at the end of the day, if the proposition is true, that human minds can influence material reality at a distance, doesn't that scupper all scientific probing into the question? Or, to put this another way, whatever the results are, someone can suggest that the human minds that created the experiment might have influenced those results in some way.

There's a new idea creeps in, almost like the universe might have a mind of its own, might even be playing tricks. As far as we know, psi phenomena might not be letting us discover their reality in the lab. And in this paper - something odd happened that we weren't seeking to investigate directly (allegedly).

It does come to something, though, when experimenters fail in reproducing results, gather coincidental data, and begin to postulate that this coincidental data and their failure are significant. For one thing, their explanation requires a departure from the principles of scientific research themselves. For another, the words "clutching at straws" come to mind.

The more I learn about it, the more I feel inclined to believe that we're just getting more and more sophisticated in our sleights of hand, pushing statistical significance to the point where no-one can actually be sure what it was we're supposed to be looking at anymore. I tend to think that if psi is so shy that we're devising the most unbelievably sensitive experiments to try to measure it and still arguing about whether we can see shapes flitting about in the shadows or whether we've imagined them, we are probably imagining them.

But there's the crux of it - the proposition allows for there being no difference between seeing and imagining. Science gets off the bus at that stop.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Computers generally deal in pseudo-random events, for a start, which (strictly speaking) is another way of saying they're not random at all. While it may be very difficult to tell what number might come next out of a computer-generated number sequence, deep down there is a logic to the sequence.

To avoid pseudo-random patterns, you can use the random generator at random.org to flip coins (the randomness comes from atmospheric noise).

RANDOM.ORG - Coin Flipper

[Arboretor]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I think I get a sense of some of the problems. As I understand it, when you get down to measuring small effects (as some have suggested exist when people try to influence the random events generated by a machine with their mind), there arise questions about what exactly a random event is. Computers generally deal in pseudo-random events, for a start, which (strictly speaking) is another way of saying they're not random at all. While it may be very difficult to tell what number might come next out of a computer-generated number sequence, deep down there is a logic to the sequence. So when we're dealing with critical measurements, little things like that become very big philosophical problems that can't be discounted.

Yes, computer "random" number generators are just algorithms, often very simple ones, that generate
a repeating sequence of numbers that only "appears" to be random, but are really completely deterministic.
It is different for generators that, e.g. rely on radioactive decay, which is really of random nature.


Statistics can never "prove" a relationship between events, it can only suggest that there is one.
Even if two events show a high correlation with each other, there might not be any connection between them, or perhaps
a connection that involves a third, hitherto unknown variable.
You still have the obligation to find the law behind correlating events. People often seem to forget that.

The quote form the paper above mentions the problems inherent in these experiments due to the complexity of all the
possible relationships of variables involved.
Another big problem in these intention experiments is, IMHO, the role of belief. It is a common view among LOA followers
that the belief of a person (probably even subconscious believes) determines success. How can it ever be possible
to measure the degree of belief of a person? Your experiment may very well fail just because you did not find a "true"
believer among your test objects.

Furthermore we a speaking about experiments here that involve mechanical random event generators. But if I am not
mistaken, all reports of successfull manifestations e.g. here in the forums involve some interaction with another conscious mind.
When e.g. ALG relates how he manifested a taxi picking him up in a remote part of a town, he is not talking about a taxi
popping up out of thin air before him. Presumably his intention interacted with the intentions of the driver and made him change his mind
about his chosen route. This seems extremely difficult and probably impossible to prove or disprove scientifically. And yet it is
well conceivable that it makes a world of difference if you deal with mindless matter or a conscious being.

So, personally I am not too worried if experiments do not consistently prove an effect of intentions.
It will, probably for a long time if not forever, remain a matter of personal belief or disbelief. But I am
aware that we have to believe so many very fundamental things we can never prove, that it makes little difference if I add another one to my
existing system of beliefs. I think I still have not become too gullible.

[John Freestone]

Thanks for all that, Arboretor. It's very informative. Most of what you say conforms to the lines I'm thinking along myself, but I'm tempted to say...

Originally Posted by Arboretor

It is different for generators that, e.g. rely on radioactive decay, which is really of random nature.

...or is it? This is kind of tongue in cheek, but also serious. Maybe radioactive decay only appears to be random from the measurements we've done so far, which would conform to your next point:

Statistics can never "prove" a relationship between events, it can only suggest that there is one.
Even if two events show a high correlation with each other, there might not be any connection between them, or perhaps
a connection that involves a third, hitherto unknown variable.
You still have the obligation to find the law behind correlating events. People often seem to forget that.

Don't they just!

So, personally I am not too worried if experiments do not consistently prove an effect of intentions.
It will, probably for a long time if not forever, remain a matter of personal belief or disbelief. But I am
aware that we have to believe so many very fundamental things we can never prove, that it makes little difference if I add another one to my
existing system of beliefs. I think I still have not become too gullible.

You don't seem to have become too gullible, but how gullible that is is a matter of belief! I tend to respond to the situation the other way up: if experiments produce really quite dubious data (admittedly my subjective judgement, also influenced by the scientific community's reaction), I don't bother to introduce another belief into my belief system, even if every single one of my beliefs can never be proven.

But maybe I'm not being quite correct in this analysis. I'm now wondering whether it's right to talk about not having a particular belief, not taking on a belief. Maybe this idea is in favour of the LoA-ers, but I'll say it anyway: do I not take on a belief, or believe its antithesis? Hmmm...

That question brings into doubt the idea that scepticism means doubting everything!

What I mean is that belief is a complex matter. Do I believe in magic? - well, not right now, but I have and I might again. Often I think that what I mean by my personal belief system is actually a kind of statistical analysis itself - of what I have imagined and re-imagined over time. When I say I'm agnostic, really I mean I've believed in God at times, believed that God doesn't exist at times, and not found sufficient consistency in what I think to say I'm a believer or unbeliever (and an 'unbeliever' is really a believer in a Godless universe, not someone who has an absence of all cosmological assumptions). Maybe non-belief is actually no different from unconsciousness. I guess that's what SR says.

So, I have to revise things I've said before. Sorry ALG et al, I was wrong. I'm not a person not taking on the SR belief system. I'm a person who believes, on balance, something different. It was perhaps disingenuous of me to suggest that I have a lack of belief, the sceptic's moral high ground, a non-gullibility, when it is really just a different belief system.