View Single Post
Old 17th June 2008, 09:10 PM   #3
Graduate Poster
leon_heller's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea, E.Sussex, UK.
Posts: 1,128
I have just heard from Psyleron:

"Hi Leon,

The short answer to your question is that "No," we have not done such a comparison; but this is largely because we operate under a working hypothesis that suggests that the effects are not noise-source dependent at the level you describe. Your question is common and makes sense from a traditional perspective, though, so it does warrant some explanation.

First, without going into too much detail, you may be want to look into the papers entitled "Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality" or "Change the Rules," which are both available at [can't post url] to get a sense of where the rest of this is coming from. In case that is too much reading, I will try to explain how our ideas about the topic differ from those which lead many people to suggest single photons, higher bit rates, parallel noise sources, different forms of shielding, and enhancements of that nature.

When most engineers and scientists who come from a traditional physics paradigm come upon our work, they tend to assume that we are postulating an effect whereby some element of the operator (e.g. "mind," brain, electromagnetic fields, etc.) interacts with some other object (e.g. a quantum noise source in an REG, photons, electrons, etc.) using a known or unknown force. Whether or not an effect itself exists may be an issue that is up in the air in this paradigm, but if there is one, the assumption that comes from this model is that it is a causal-mechanistic effect, and that one can enhance or tweak the effect by designing a physical system that best suits the underlying mechanism of the purported phenomena.

After many years of empirical findings and mixed experimental results, we (as well as researchers at PEAR and other organizations) have come to the conclusion that this is almost definitely not the case. Issues such as weak replicability, inconsistent effect sizes, and experimenter driven results seem to weigh against the idea that we are working with some kind of mechanistic physical force. Furthermore, in the data we find which does have an effect, we often find indications of consistent anomalous structure across experiments that use very different physical noise sources and processing methods.

For example, in experiment that uses different types of true random physical sources (thermal noise, quantum tunneling, or even cascading polystyrene balls) in very different contexts (controlling a robot, moving a graph on a screen, falling down a machine), we find what we refer to as "series position effects," correlations with operator subjective states, and other types of quantitative structure that do not emerge in the calibration data and would have no reason to exist across sources with different physics. In addition to this, "harsh" manipulations and processing of the true random bits prior to presenting it to the operator (provided the underlying probability distributions remain) seem to have no first order effect on our bottom line outcomes.

The net result of this is that we tend to think of the effect as having less to do with the exact physical nature of the systems in question, and more with the nature of some deeper element of the physical world itself. It is quite possible that the operators are not acting on the physical noise source itself in any conventional way, but are rather capable of somehow shaping the likelihood of realizing specific probabilistic outcomes in a way that defies conventional assumptions about reality.
This is a difficult for many people to consider; but philosophers of science, physicists, and philosophers, have, for a long time, acknowledged that there may exist phenomena that are not causal, mechanistic, and reducible and therefore may not even be able to be captured or explained using the prevailing scientific methodology. The phenomenon that we are seeing with the REG may very well be a case of such a type of effect, and our challenge is to try to come up with ways to better understand what is happening here.

More to the point … it would be very much to our benefit to find a physical process that can enhance the effect sizes or lead to more consistent results across a broader population. As such, if we found that single photon noise sources helped to enhance the effects, we would certainly be using them. Unfortunately, things just don't seem to be that simple!

I hope this helps to answer your question!


John Valentino
Chief Executive Officer,
Psyleron, Inc."

The strange thing is that they haven't even tried it!


Last edited by leon_heller; 17th June 2008 at 09:13 PM.
leon_heller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top