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.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

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.

Well done. Now the next step is to "toy" with the idea of separating yourself from your beliefs. Meaning, realizing the fact that "I am NOT my beliefs." If you strip yourself of all your beliefs, what is left? What is left is YOU. The real you, minus all the baggage.

Does that make you afraid to consider that? To realize that you exist, in your purest form, without any beliefs of any kind? Do you think that if you eliminated all of your beliefs, that you would "disappear"?

What if, just for fun, you pretended to be a believer in LoA for a period of time... Meaning, setup a scenario where you could believe in "that stuff", without it jeopardizing your life, job, relationships or anything like that so that there would be no permanent negative effects to the experiment and then experiment with it.

Almost like being an actor playing a part. Don't try to "prove" LoA wrong or right while playing the part of a LOA believer because LOA believers are beyond that. Just live and do what LoA believers do as if you assume it will work. Try it for like a week or a month or something... and then go back to your current beliefs. Once you experience both, see which one "fits" better with your true self. See what happens.

It's kind of a fun exercise. Even if you just do it for a day.

[Acting Like Godot]

Robert Jahn did not just suddenly do this experiment for fun. There were quite concrete reasons why he decided to do it.

IIRC, it all originally started with studies of another rocket scientist (NASA) who was concerned with the anecdotal observation that electronic equipment had a higher tendency to malfunction in the presence of certain human individuals.

This anecdotal observation turned out to be borne out by actual statistical studies - in other words, certain people, the study discovered, were indeed "electronic jinxes".

This was of concern to NASA because these high-risk individuals could pose a risk in view of NASA's sophisticated technology. For example, they generated a higher probability of technology malfunctioning, and thereby causing astronauts' lives to be jeopardised while they were in outer space.

NASA then began to study possible reasons why these high-risk individuals were the way they were. Eventually, the more obvious reasons (like, they naturally generated strong magnetism or electrical field from their bodies) were eliminated.

Jahn then began to study the idea that human intention itself could affect random processes generated by a computer. This led to his 25-year research at Princeton University at the aptly named Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab.

Those interested can read a little more here:

Mind over matter: Jahn delves into engineering anomalies - The Daily Princetonian

-------

At the risk of sounding mischievous, I briefly mention again this book, which I've often recommended to forummers:

Instant Magick, Christopher Penczak.

Somewhere in this book, there is a page where Christopher discusses a magickal spell which he uses to solve computer problems and other sorts of technological problems. He says that it sounds bizarre that magick could interact with modern technology in such a manner, but that the reader should suspend premature judgment and simply try the spell himself and see.

He also offers a theory why the spell works - however, since this is a book about magick, the theory is based on a magickal framework of the universe. Thus the theory is not entirely meaningful to people who do not accept the basic premises of magick. But essentially the idea comes down to the ability of human intention to directly affect random processes in computer equipment.

Christopher Penczak probably never heard of Robert Jahn, and Robert Jahn probably never heard of Christopher Penczak. They come from two apparently different realms - Chris Penczak is a witch & faith healer; Robert Jahn is a physicist, rocket scientist and acadmic. Strangely, in their own different ways, they've come to the same conclusion on human intention and computer equipment.

[Acting Like Godot]

Could human intention alone affect the processes of electronic equipment? The idea sounds bizarre.

The first obvious objection is that Man and Machine are separate. I am standing here, the computer is over there, I did not touch it, how could I have done anything to it?

As happens quite often, the error with the above reasoning begins with (1) the illusion of self, and (2) the illusion of reality. The person thinks that he is standing here, and the machine is over there.

But before you can say, "I am standing here", you should ask yourself "Who am I? What is I?". Self-identification with a physical bag of flesh, bones and blood is probably the wrong way to go, as I've just attempted to explain here, by reference to two experiments published in Science and reported in TIME.

What these experiments suggest is that you are not really "here" in your body. Your perception that you are "here" in your body is merely a neurological process, a trick of the mind, one that can be quite easily manipulated (see experiment) such that you perceive yourself to be somewhere else.

The truth is you aren't "here" anymore than you're "there". Deepak Chopra explains elegantly in his book "Power, Grace and Freedom" that ultimately, consciousness cannot be located in any particular point in the space-time continuum, because if the universe is infinitely large, then all points are equally close or distant to each other.

In other words, "you" aren't "here"; and "you" aren't "there"; these perceptions are merely neurological processes, the illusion of reality which Buddha explains is created by your own mind. You are actually everywhere, all the time, because consciousness can't be defined in space and time.

Seen in this light, the idea that human intention can't affect computer equipment because of the "I am here, and the machine is there and I didn't touch it" reasoning, begins to look rather flimsy.

Because your consciousness is everywhere all the time, it has to also be exactly where the computer is. We would make this statement with even greater confidence, if your consciousness were to deliberately turn to the computer, and make the computer its focus - for example, by concentrating on it.

This in itself may not produce any easily observable effects (unless you're like the psychic Nina Kulagina, of whom Russian scientists have offered abundant video footage while she performed telekinesis by mentally manipulating all sorts of objects - no doubt she would be a barrel of fun in a coin-tossing experiment) but this is not the same as saying that it has not produced any effects at it.

The next thing to consider is what would happen if you, while maintaining the focus of your consciousness on the computer, began to do unusual things with your consciousness. One might even explain magick in those sorts of terms - for magick very much revolves around the doing of unusual things with your consciousness.

On a separate note, the scientific idea that just by observing an event or thing, you will cause a change to occur which would not have occurred if you had not made such observation, is known in science, aptly enough, as the observer effect.

[John Freestone]

Yikes, there's been so much in this and another thread I'm following it's going to be difficult to catch up. I'll take me a while to check out some of those links.

Originally Posted by impaul99

Well done. Now the next step is to "toy" with the idea of separating yourself from your beliefs. Meaning, realizing the fact that "I am NOT my beliefs." If you strip yourself of all your beliefs, what is left? What is left is YOU. The real you, minus all the baggage.

I know you probably don't mean it this way, but I felt a little patronised at this point. The realisation that I am not my beliefs is one that is now so distant I can't remember how many decades ago it occurred to me, and quite different, I believe, from what I was describing above. I was toying with the idea that unbelief might not be possible. Think of something you would normally say you don't believe in (if there is anything ) - let's say, that if you dug deep holes in the earth you'd get to a place where dragons lived. Is it that you don't believe that? Or is it that you believe you'd just keep hitting rock and magma? I'm still not sure, but anyway...

Does that make you afraid to consider that? To realize that you exist, in your purest form, without any beliefs of any kind? Do you think that if you eliminated all of your beliefs, that you would "disappear"?

I am approaching my 47th birthday. I first experienced what meditators sometimes call no mind when I was a teenager, the consciousness that has no object, pure awareness (that is one conception of the experience, but that's another story). It was surprising - yes, rather disturbing, and very exciting - but I have continued meditation, yoga and other practical philosophies. It put me off for some time, but I got back into it and am now something of an old hand. I have taught meditation to individual clients and classes in my therapy business.

What if, just for fun, you pretended to be a believer in LoA for a period of time... Meaning, setup a scenario where you could believe in "that stuff", without it jeopardizing your life, job, relationships or anything like that so that there would be no permanent negative effects to the experiment and then experiment with it.

Almost like being an actor playing a part. Don't try to "prove" LoA wrong or right while playing the part of a LOA believer because LOA believers are beyond that. Just live and do what LoA believers do as if you assume it will work. Try it for like a week or a month or something... and then go back to your current beliefs. Once you experience both, see which one "fits" better with your true self. See what happens.

I've spent a good amount of time living as if the world were at my command and I had absolute freedom. I really took these alternative views on board when I was about 20 and first read Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach. I have 'pretended', as you put it, for over quarter of a century, off and on.

There was another intense period of spiritualism, for want of a better name, in my 30s when I trained as a counsellor (in a particularly 'alternative' college). We practiced with some of the esoteric arts, "demonstrating" psychic phenomena, making the heart our central concern rather than the head, doing spiritual healings, etc., etc.

I have been deeply influenced by Buddhism and Vedanta in my life, and consider Ram Dass one of my favourite spiritual teachers, but wrong on a number of points.

I have been there, done that, (damn - never got the teeshirt). I have arrived at different beliefs about all of that stuff from you. Your suggestion above indicates that this 'pretending' doesn't have the purpose of proving or disproving the LoA, right? What is its purpose, then?

The question is whether we find a truer understanding by refusing to think, or transcending thought (in the sense of not being utterly bound by it and identifying with it) but still using reason and testing our beliefs.

It's kind of a fun exercise. Even if you just do it for a day.

Yes. A fun exercise. Is it more though? I think you should consider why you're suggesting I do this pretending, if not to prove it to myself. Please let me know what you come up with. I have a sense that it is just an invitation to slide into makebelieve. And if you're thinking of asking if I find that idea frightening, you betcha. I figure either God gave me a rational, discriminating brain to use it, or I got one because it was useful in human evolution.

[John Freestone]

You seem to be of the opinion that Jahn's experiments are successful. It is possible that they are, possible that they are not. I think it highly unlikely, but I have admitted I don't come anywhere near to understanding the physics or maths involved, and I would be very surprised if you did. What may also be interesting is why we believe our different beliefs, however. It would be fitting for an advanced IM-er like yourself to believe something because you want it to be true (actually, I can't see the difference, and still wonder why you concern yourself with science at all, or, despite telling me that you can't be bothered to argue with the likes of me, you still do).

The Princetonian article mentions how controvertial the results are. I find it funny that Jahn is quoted near the end as saying 'The only way to convince others of PEAR's insight is for people to come in and try the experiments themselves'. That's an interesing take on scientific protocol. Presumably it only works when no-one else is looking, and can't be written down in such a way that anyone else can understand it. Damn useful discovery then. Only works when you're not relying on it.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Somewhere in this book, there is a page where Christopher discusses a magickal spell which he uses to solve computer problems and other sorts of technological problems. He says that it sounds bizarre that magick could interact with modern technology in such a manner, but that the reader should suspend premature judgment and simply try the spell himself and see.

The problem with this is that people susceptible to superstitious beliefs don't suspend premature judgement, they suspend refutation, they believe indefinitely against all odds.

There are a great many psychological processes that can lead us to reach erroneous conclusions. They have been studied in laboratories. They have been demonstrated to a degree of confidence that is usually called "conclusive", and have the backing of theory that a young child can understand. Unfortunately, they are almost ubiquitously overlooked in our ordinary lives, which is why we have so many superstitious beliefs.

The most powerful process is continually suspending refutation. This is when you get a tail, shrug - "not this time, oh well, try again" - then when you toss a head, get all excited and inflate the expectation that you probably are psychic. I'll find a more comprehensive list of these processes if I find time. They really should be posted on this site.

He also offers a theory why the spell works - however, since this is a book about magick, the theory is based on a magickal framework of the universe. Thus the theory is not entirely meaningful to people who do not accept the basic premises of magick. But essentially the idea comes down to the ability of human intention to directly affect random processes in computer equipment.

You remind me here that somehow two ideas got linked rather more closely than perhaps they should - 1. magically fixing your computer (a really useful skill if it were possible), and 2. the ability to affect random processes (in computer equipment). First of all, as has been pointed out, computer randomising had to be discounted, since there's nothing random about it, and atomic decay used instead.

Secondly, and most crucially, the claim by Jahn that a small but repeatable effect was measured refers to such an unimaginably small effect that - even if it were real - you could probably fix more computers the regular way than exist on earth before one got fixed by magic. I don't know that, I just get the sense that these are the kinds of micro-effects we're talking about. Certainly they are many orders of magnitude below what is normally considered significant in science. As I suggested before, it seems to me rather like someone saying, "If we just had another billion people toss coins wishing for heads, we'd get results different from 50-50".

Thirdly, the proportion of scientists who consider Jahn wrong to those in agreement with him is probably similar odds to computer guy vs magic spell, so if the fact that he was a rocket scientist is supposed to convince, it's feeble. The psychology of self-delusion, you might say, is not rocket science, or he might spot it.

Christopher Penczak probably never heard of Robert Jahn, and Robert Jahn probably never heard of Christopher Penczak. They come from two apparently different realms - Chris Penczak is a witch & faith healer; Robert Jahn is a physicist, rocket scientist and acadmic. Strangely, in their own different ways, they've come to the same conclusion on human intention and computer equipment.

I'd bet if we searched for them we'd find that I have never heard the names of millions of people who share my opinion about magic. What does it matter if two people who don't know each other came to the same conclusion? It doesn't make them right.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Could human intention alone affect the processes of electronic equipment? The idea sounds bizarre.

It doesn't matter how bizarre it sounds, if scientific research supported it. So far it does not. If there were any substantial evidence for it, the non-local mind theory you describe would indeed be a useful place to begin to look for mechanisms.

The experiments you refer to show that we can trick ourselves into thinking we are somewhere else. Subjects even flinched when the area they thought they occupied was 'hit' with a hammer. This gives the feeling of an out-of-body experience, and you use this as evidence for non-locality of mind, I suppose. It seems, however, that there is nothing supernatural about the effect, and it is hardly different from being similarly 'fooled' by watching a film, and flinching when, in your observer position, something scary happens. What would support your idea would be if these subjects could then give information about objects only visible from their imaginary position. I doubt whether that is possible. I know there are reports of people having memories of operations in which they were supposedly dead, before you post them, and I still doubt very much that we can see round corners, move objects by mind power, fix computers by magic spell or astral plane. One of the reports you quote says: But the extent to which the experiments succeeded "depends what you mean by the full-blown out-of-body experience," says Ehrsson. "Of course you know that it's not real, that it's all due to the goggles. But you can't just think it away." That's not magick. It's illusion.

This in itself may not produce any easily observable effects...

That's right

... (unless you're like the psychic Nina Kulagina, of whom Russian scientists have offered abundant video footage while she performed telekinesis by mentally manipulating all sorts of objects - no doubt she would be a barrel of fun in a coin-tossing experiment) but this is not the same as saying that it has not produced any effects at it.

...yes it is.

I'm astonished you posted this as evidence. What you describe as video footage is actually black and white film of activities paid for by the KGB during the cold war. As the wikipedia site you yourself linked to says:

"Many skeptical individuals and organizations, such as the James Randi Educational Foundation and the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims on the Paranormal(CICAP) express strong skepticism regarding the truth of these claims. It is noted that the long preparation times and uncontrolled environments (such as hotel rooms) in which the experiments took place left much potential for trickery.[1] Skeptics have argued that many of Kulagina's feats could easily be performed by one practiced in sleight of hand, through means such as cleverly concealed or disguised threads, small pieces of magnetic metal, or mirrors.[2] They further point to the fact that no sleight of hand experts appear to have ever been present during experiments, and that the Cold War-era Soviet Union had an obvious motive for falsifying or exaggerating results in the potential propaganda value in appearing to win a "Psi Race" analogous to the concurrent Space Race or arms race."

Motive, method, opportunity. The methods are so well known that I found another vid on youtube where magicians were laughing their heads off watching the Russian film, because they do the same on a regular basis.

On a separate note, the scientific idea that just by observing an event or thing, you will cause a change to occur which would not have occurred if you had not made such observation, is known in science, aptly enough, as the observer effect.

Quite true, but so far it hasn't moved any matchboxes across tables.

[pianoperformer]

John, your argument is rather cogent. I must ask though what your ultimate conclusion was, then, from believing in LOA when you did. I assume it didn't work for you from what you've said.

I'm not sure what I believe, really. I don't like when people try to point to scientific experiments though that can clearly be questioned as purely scientific in method. Right now, it is either one goes against scientific proof and believes what one chooses to believe, perhaps saying that science is limited in what it can prove, or that one sides with science and therefore believes it is not possible. But it's impossible to twist science to prove such theories at this point.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I've spent a good amount of time living as if the world were at my command and I had absolute freedom. I really took these alternative views on board when I was about 20 and first read Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach. I have 'pretended', as you put it, for over quarter of a century, off and on.

And by the end of Illusions, Richard is so disgusted that he pitches The Messiah's Handbook into a field (or so he says in his most recent book -- I don't think he ever actually says this in Illusions) and leaves.

He has said perhaps he should have added at the end of Bridge Across Forever, "Everything in this book may be wrong."

Nevertheless, now we have The Messiah's Handbook in full. Why is that? I wonder.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I've spent a good amount of time living as if the world were at my command and I had absolute freedom. I really took these alternative views on board when I was about 20 and first read Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach. I have 'pretended', as you put it, for over quarter of a century, off and on.

From your experience then does it seem like it has to be one or the other? That it's either reality is given to us and we don't have any influence from our mind on it or reality is completely and utterly a creation of ours from our mind? (Where mind is our total being of consciousness, what ever that is)

Or is it some sort of blend?
Or the "truth" can be it's all our creation but we don't realize it too often with our normal state of individual consciousness?

There was another intense period of spiritualism, for want of a better name, in my 30s when I trained as a counsellor (in a particularly 'alternative' college). We practiced with some of the esoteric arts, "demonstrating" psychic phenomena, making the heart our central concern rather than the head, doing spiritual healings, etc., etc.

I would love to hear more of this heart based approach. I think our minds are out of control and not very good and listening to how life can be easier and peaceful.

The question is whether we find a truer understanding by refusing to think, or transcending thought (in the sense of not being utterly bound by it and identifying with it) but still using reason and testing our beliefs.

Yes. A fun exercise. Is it more though? I think you should consider why you're suggesting I do this pretending, if not to prove it to myself. Please let me know what you come up with. I have a sense that it is just an invitation to slide into makebelieve. And if you're thinking of asking if I find that idea frightening, you betcha. I figure either God gave me a rational, discriminating brain to use it, or I got one because it was useful in human evolution.

This seems like the mind approach, yes? That the brain gets to veto things that the heart "knows" that might not make sense to what the brain as figured out so far.

It comes to mind the quote "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." That maybe some discriminating of the brain is actually a self created limitation instead of seeing what the real situation is. Or as a question: how does one be sure the brain's mental activity is open and able to be rational without fixating on some belief that was just a decision based on only thinking? Or is thinking the be all and end all of getting to know what is the case in these matters? (lol at myself for this nonsensical post)

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

John, your argument is rather cogent. I must ask though what your ultimate conclusion was, then, from believing in LOA when you did. I assume it didn't work for you from what you've said.

It's one of those things that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know with any degree of confidence. Like most other people, I've tried influencing reality by the power of the mind, from casual moments of curiosity to more sustained effort. I've also had many of the same thoughts about synchronicity that people post here. I just learned fairly recently how powerful the psychological drives are that can cause us to believe in mysterious forces, magic and our own psychic powers, and how coincidences are often perceived by the ordinary mind as meaningful when they are just coincidences. The number of ways we fit failures into what we consider successes is innumerable. I've heard people argue things like "Ok, I was thinking of a banana, and what I saw was a boat, but how banana-shaped is a boat?". We manufacture significance so much it's amazing.

I'm not sure what I believe, really. I don't like when people try to point to scientific experiments though that can clearly be questioned as purely scientific in method. Right now, it is either one goes against scientific proof and believes what one chooses to believe, perhaps saying that science is limited in what it can prove, or that one sides with science and therefore believes it is not possible. But it's impossible to twist science to prove such theories at this point.

I'd agree with the bulk of that, especially "I'm not sure what I believe"!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

And by the end of Illusions, Richard is so disgusted that he pitches The Messiah's Handbook into a field (or so he says in his most recent book -- I don't think he ever actually says this in Illusions) and leaves.

He has said perhaps he should have added at the end of Bridge Across Forever, "Everything in this book may be wrong."

Nevertheless, now we have The Messiah's Handbook in full. Why is that? I wonder.

I didn't read anything else but illusions and jonathan livingston seagul. Why has he written The Messiah's Handbook now? Who knows. Maybe he still says all of it may be wrong (it says that at the end of the fictional Messiah's Handbook within the Illusions story, I think). It seems like the obvious step after making your name as a new age guru with a piece of fiction involving a fictional holy book (after a fairytale about a seagul), you'd move on to writing the actual holy book. Tons of people would have written to him proclaiming him their messiah, no doubt, and begging him to write it properly.

If I were cynical about it I could say it was his best move financially. I'm slightly less cynical than that, and I think there are great pressures on the ego. I often wonder how many writing careers start with some speculation and then the writer never dares admit he's changed his mind.

The lessons, though, are there. 1. None of it may be true - blue feathers, messiahs, handbooks, levitating spanners... 2. A lot of people ignored that page.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I didn't read anything else but illusions and jonathan livingston seagul. Why has he written The Messiah's Handbook now? Who knows. Maybe he still says all of it may be wrong (it says that at the end of the fictional Messiah's Handbook within the Illusions story, I think). It seems like the obvious step after making your name as a new age guru with a piece of fiction involving a fictional holy book (after a fairytale about a seagul), you'd move on to writing the actual holy book. Tons of people would have written to him proclaiming him their messiah, no doubt, and begging him to write it properly.

If I were cynical about it I could say it was his best move financially. I'm slightly less cynical than that, and I think there are great pressures on the ego. I often wonder how many writing careers start with some speculation and then the writer never dares admit he's changed his mind.

The lessons, though, are there. 1. None of it may be true - blue feathers, messiahs, handbooks, levitating spanners... 2. A lot of people ignored that page.

He does say it again: "Everything in this book may be wrong," this time at the beginning.

It's in Bridge Across Forever where he says he pitched The Messiah's Handbook into a field.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

From your experience then does it seem like it has to be one or the other? That it's either reality is given to us and we don't have any influence from our mind on it or reality is completely and utterly a creation of ours from our mind? (Where mind is our total being of consciousness, what ever that is)

Or is it some sort of blend?
Or the "truth" can be it's all our creation but we don't realize it too often with our normal state of individual consciousness?

Difficult questions. I'll repeat that I don't know what reality is. Then I'll say that I think generally human beings don't know what reality is, and yet everywhere people are proclaiming it. There seems to be an extremely powerful inclination to create philosophical schemes, which I think is due to some deep existential fear. Basically, we can't handle not being in control, and knowledge is power, so we fill in any amount of blanks with any amount of fictions.

There again, I think that almost any philosophy has partial answers. I used to think science was all wrong because it has some flaws (serious ones, admittedly) and is trusted too implicitly by too many, but now I appreciate just how much it does describe and explain within its limits. I think that ideas about subjective reality are really important, but again are often taken to what I consider untenable extremes. I have read a little of the sociological descriptions of postmodernist ideas, which I think have other important bits of insight. They conform with SR in the sense that they recognise how what we call reality is actually formed of concepts, so language and dialogue is important. In that sense 'the world out there' that we describe with words, or identify as known objects even, doesn't exist, strictly speaking, as those concepts. However, to conclude that nothing is out there is a step too far for me. There is almost incontrovertibly something real, even if our words aren't it. I think the major religions have partial answers, usually disguised in layers of symbolism, but also are rife with makebelieve.

I just think things might possibly be very complex. If it were all so simple as my mind imagining everything, of course, that would make a certain kind of sense, assuming I can never catch myself doing it or there's nothing else whatsoever. I used to buy that, but have begun to see that it's more likely to be yet another simplistic guess that can't easily be disproved (and hence lives on easily) and gives the billions of us on the planet something to go "Hey, wow!" over. We love it. Gods and monsters. How many thousands of different religions are there, all with their ardent believers? At some point it just dawned on me that we're like kids making up our own fairytales, and yeah you can keep going "Hey, wow, that's cool and must be really meaningful and maybe that's the final answer to everything: we make it all up" ... or maybe you can get off the treadmill somehow, stop this frantic grasping at complete answers. We make up tons of shite. Period. Before we decide that the truth is "Anything at all is possible if we just believe it enough", which seems a hot topic with the pavlinas of this world, we should just pause and recognise that fact, that we make up endless rubbish, and whether complete mental omnipotence might just possibly be yet another delusion. How seductive is it? (rhetorical, btw)

People go "But I can feel it!". How many times have we told each other ghost stories in the dark and scared each other? Does that mean that there was something real to be scared of every time? Does telling ghost stories make ghosts come out of the closets? Feelings are not reliable. We get into the stress response, that's one big problem, which can lead to us feeling and thinking all sorts of things that reflection shows are unlikely to have been true (unless again you discount objective reality, in which case whatever you feel and think must be true).

I would love to hear more of this heart based approach. I think our minds are out of control and not very good and listening to how life can be easier and peaceful.

Yes, I agree that our thinking is generally too fast and habitual. But I think feelings are rather problematic. It would be pretty awful if we were machine-like, and I'm not saying we should get rid of them and be like Vulcans, but they are seriously problematic for our clear understanding. But what about love? Well, yeah, maybe feelings are really important. Or maybe the love we are really short of on the planet isn't a feeling, but active benificence to one another and the cosmos. When we're really bad to each other, you can bet that passion is at the root of it - religious, sexual, sensual, patriotic, political or whatever - things we ordinarily call love. If we didn't have such passions we would have little reason to engage in all manner of attrocities to keep hold of it. It's almost like there's a yin-yang going. We love those in the in-group, but that means there has to be an out-group, and when push comes to shove...

Buddha taught that the way to peace is to conquer passion.

This seems like the mind approach, yes? That the brain gets to veto things that the heart "knows" that might not make sense to what the brain as figured out so far.

It comes to mind the quote "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." That maybe some discriminating of the brain is actually a self created limitation instead of seeing what the real situation is. Or as a question: how does one be sure the brain's mental activity is open and able to be rational without fixating on some belief that was just a decision based on only thinking? Or is thinking the be all and end all of getting to know what is the case in these matters? (lol at myself for this nonsensical post)

I wonder if it's a personal thing, mostly a genetic thing, or influenced by our upbringing. Some people like to rely more on thinking and others more on intuition or feeling, and a lot of people don't care about philosophy beyond a moment's distraction in a bar.

I've had times in my life when I was really sold on feeling, on God, on a Non-Dual Divine Universe, or whatever, and others when I've been much more cognitive, and virtually atheist, a tentative materialist, as I am now. I've been through this rollercoaster so many times I think if there is a God, He must like to leave me alone for several months or years at a time, and if there isn't, it's ok.

All this is very addictive, I write too much, and it's time I took off to do some other stuff, so don't be offended if I don't respond again. I have enjoyed all your posts and learned from them. Thank you, everyone, and bye for now.

:-
(gobless!)

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

It's in Bridge Across Forever where he says he pitched The Messiah's Handbook into a field.

It's in "M's H" as well, the very last page, along with other passages originally used in "Illusions"...