Any other studies like the MIT one?

C

curious45

Registered Member
Whether or not these phenomena are real or not - seems to me, the "money shot" in paranormal study isnt dramatic, obvious telekinesis or something like that but very small effects, with large population numbers, that result in overall statistically significant results, like the MIT study on influencing random numbers.

Microkinesis, telepathy, influencing random numbers - if its possible, large populations with small but statistically significant effects seems to obvious way to go. If such studies could be performed, and then replicated multiple times, it would open the path to more specific studies, in attempt to understand whatever the mechanism or law is.

The main problem with studies by skeptics, is they expect gross, obvious and consistant results, often from individuals.

But this doesnt match what has been studied so far in this feild, which suggest that these effects are subtle, even on the individual event level, unreliable. If this phenomena exists, there is probably a host of unknown variables.

So if these phenomena exist, or not, the intelligent way to study them is as with any subtle phenomena - stack the numbers and study so that you can detect it outside a margin of error. That involves numbers of subjects, statistics and micro level influence (like micro-tk, low level telepathy, and random outcome infuencing).
The question is, does anyone know of any studies, past, present or future, that attempt to take this larger study methadology, like the MIT study?
 
I thought id link to this, which also uses statistics, small scale effects, and large numbers to produce its result:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

You may have heard of it before, its the place that measured the outside probability "spike" in random numbers on sept 11.

But no point in reading about any study without looking at the experimental design properly, and the statistical analysis method. So maybe if I am bored sometime ill look at that later.
 
Although that study sounds like it is linked to Princeton the University, the study is simply located near there and unrelated to the school.

Now there was a lot of success influencing random number generators, however despite the fact that this SHOULD be looked at as poof as it is very common, easy, and mostly replicable the skeptics argument is that it is just a statistical anomaly that will eventually work itself out. In other words Skeptics will not accept probabilities as any kind of proof. I have said that there should be a system where probabilities beyond a certain degree should aim science, however the scientific method excludes probabilities of this sort of thing.

There is a further study of this headed by Professor Brian Josephson called "The Collective Conscious Project" or some such thing. This is because they noticed correlations in study results and natural disasters. They have stepped beyond the boundaries of the original program.

I believe we can influence these generators based on Belief and expectation. In Schrodingers box, the outcome could be labelled as 50/50 however I surmise that the outcome is influence by expectation. This would allow us to influence our environment and even our past.

I would like to conduct experiments where random number generators that produced a single coinflip (A or B)(as opposed to many) be given to people at malls. I would instruct the people they had a 75% chance of getting answer A and 25% of getting answer B even though the results would be 50/50. I would like to see if expectation altered their results and would expect more A results than B results. This of course would be watered down by "Wigners and Wigners friends" (thought experiment by that name) and the results would be closer to 50/50 in the end. I do think we would see a positive result however.

So yes.. There are other studies using those random number generators.
 
kwhilborn said:
Although that study sounds like it is linked to Princeton the University, the study is simply located near there and unrelated to the school.

Now there was a lot of success influencing random number generators, however despite the fact that this SHOULD be looked at as poof as it is very common, easy, and mostly replicable the skeptics argument is that it is just a statistical anomaly that will eventually work itself out. In other words Skeptics will not accept probabilities as any kind of proof. I have said that there should be a system where probabilities beyond a certain degree should aim science, however the scientific method excludes probabilities of this sort of thing.

There is a further study of this headed by Professor Brian Josephson called "The Collective Conscious Project" or some such thing. This is because they noticed correlations in study results and natural disasters. They have stepped beyond the boundaries of the original program.

I believe we can influence these generators based on Belief and expectation. In Schrodingers box, the outcome could be labelled as 50/50 however I surmise that the outcome is influence by expectation. This would allow us to influence our environment and even our past.

I would like to conduct experiments where random number generators that produced a single coinflip (A or B)(as opposed to many) be given to people at malls. I would instruct the people they had a 75% chance of getting answer A and 25% of getting answer B even though the results would be 50/50. I would like to see if expectation altered their results and would expect more A results than B results. This of course would be watered down by "Wigners and Wigners friends" (thought experiment by that name) and the results would be closer to 50/50 in the end. I do think we would see a positive result however.

So yes.. There are other studies using those random number generators.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good experiment! A sort of random number placebo paranormal effect, in a strange way. Id like to see that study actually. I tend to think that expectation would be more powerful than concious direction, as it is with medicine. You'd want to blind it, so the people giving out the devices don't know either - Just so that everyone involved is clueless.

Well to me it seems wrong to not use statistics to infer _something_.

Statistics are used to infer things in psychology, genetics, physics, nutrition. We use statistics all the time in science.

Now admitedly correlation is not causation, but one cannot simply say that there is no causation, relationship or explaination. If something is well outside of probability that infers something, and that suggests that we require some form of explaination.

Certainly as these types of studies go on, eventually there will be a meta-study potentially showing that the odds don't even out (and would thusly be increasingly unlikely), even when all the results are put together.

At some threshold there has to be a point of very low probability, that is regarded as significant (well science already defines what that is quite clearly, but if you don't buy standard statistical analysis, you still have to set a personal threshold for what is definitely significant)
 
I would think govs, all main govs have departments dedicated to this subject. The usa military and russian militaries would of put alot of effort into trying to find out stuff. I think the best stuff probably was done by military secret projects and then they just killed the poor people that they used to keep them quiet.

I believe that countries like usa and uk have what is described as the montauk chair. Go and look up what i am talking about. I think it came from military projects like they said, but i am sure as anyone can be that such things do exist. I could go into more details of how i think they do this today and how it works, but you can go and watch the montauk vids by al bielek and preston nichols to see effectively how it works, and that was 30 years old techs.

Like i said above i think usa definitely have what is called a montauk chair, and they use these techs.

They ridicule the subject but thats because they want to keep it secret. Having something like a montauk chair in your possession, you would not want others believing it was possible. But i think usa most definitely has this and has done for decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top