In parapsychology, unlike psychology, there is no known way to determine whether any measured effect comes from the (so-called) subjects - S, or the (nominal) experimenter - E. In each generation parapsychology has been dominated by a mere handful of experimenters who report regular extra-chance results, while the great mass of experimenters encounter, at best, only sporadic success. This paper pursues the view that parapsychology's elite are themselves particularly endowed with psi ability: they attribute scoring to subjects, in line with the psychological tradition, while it actually comes from their own psi. The Geiger counter of the radioactive man ticks everywhere! It is suggested that the experiment using subjects is a ritual tailored to maximize experimenter-psi. Today the experiment with subjects seems to replace the Juju of former times. The E-centric view explains why parapsychological experiments can rarely be repeated by different experimenters. Skeptics maintain that many parapsychology results are due to the experimenter affecting his results in an improper way: the E-centric model agrees, but suggests that he does so with his mind rather than with his hands. What has been lacking until now are systematic methods to measure how much of a psi effect is due to subjects, and how much to the experimenter. The physics-based Observational Theories break this impasse. An outline is given of the author's take on these theories as Minimalistic Observational Theory (MOT). The parapsychological experiment is physically no more than a source of (informational) entropy which is acted on by psi. If the subject is the source of psi then he affects the result at the level of the trial. On the other hand, if the experimenter is the source of psi he (typically) affects the experiment as a single global unit. The consequences of this elementary dichotomy are remarkably wide-reaching and testable. Only two examples are noted here: for E-psi a small experiment is as good as a big one and the usual measure of effect size (based on the trial) is inappropriate; another is that the error mean squares in ANOVA will be depressed by E-psi. The effects predicted by the MOT allow partitioning of the effect into S and E components. Typically Psi effects are small and differences between models are smaller still; so a great deal of data is required. Recourse must be taken to meta-analysis as well as the modern ultra-large experiment.
In parapsychology, unlike psychology, there is no known way to determine whether any measured effect comes from the (so-called) subjects - S, or the (nominal) experimenter - E. In each generation parapsychology has been dominated by a mere handful of experimenters who report regular extra-chance results, while the great mass of experimenters encounter, at best, only sporadic success. This paper pursues the view that parapsychology's elite are themselves particularly endowed with psi ability: they attribute scoring to subjects, in line with the psychological tradition, while it actually comes from their own psi. The Geiger counter of the radioactive man ticks everywhere! It is suggested that the experiment using subjects is a ritual tailored to maximize experimenter-psi. Today the experiment with subjects seems to replace the Juju of former times. The E-centric view explains why parapsychological experiments can rarely be repeated by different experimenters. Skeptics maintain that many parapsychology results are due to the experimenter affecting his results in an improper way: the E-centric model agrees, but suggests that he does so with his mind rather than with his hands. What has been lacking until now are systematic methods to measure how much of a psi effect is due to subjects, and how much to the experimenter. The physics-based Observational Theories break this impasse. An outline is given of the author's take on these theories as Minimalistic Observational Theory (MOT). The parapsychological experiment is physically no more than a source of (informational) entropy which is acted on by psi. If the subject is the source of psi then he affects the result at the level of the trial. On the other hand, if the experimenter is the source of psi he (typically) affects the experiment as a single global unit. The consequences of this elementary dichotomy are remarkably wide-reaching and testable. Only two examples are noted here: for E-psi a small experiment is as good as a big one and the usual measure of effect size (based on the trial) is inappropriate; another is that the error mean squares in ANOVA will be depressed by E-psi. The effects predicted by the MOT allow partitioning of the effect into S and E components. Typically Psi effects are small and differences between models are smaller still; so a great deal of data is required. Recourse must be taken to meta-analysis as well as the modern ultra-large experiment.
Scientific facts are constituted as consensus about observable phenomena against the background of an accepted, or at least plausible, theory. Empirical data without a theoretical framework are at best curiosities and anomalies, at worst they are neglected. The problem of parapsychological research since its inception with the foundation of the Society of Psychical Research in 1882 was that no sound theoretical basis existed. On the contrary, the proponents of the SPR often indulged in a theoretical model that ran contrary to the perceived materialism of mainstream science, and many tried to use the data of parapsychological research to bolster the case of “mind over matter,” yet without producing a good model of how such effects could be conceptualized. In general, parapsychological (PSI) research has been rather devoid of theorizing and, if anything, assumed a tacit signaltheoretical, local-causal model of some sort of subtle energy that would be vindicated, once enough empirical data were amassed. History, and data, proved this stance wrong. We will present a theoretical approach that challenges this local-causal, signal-theoretical approach by proposing that parapsychological phenomena are instances of a larger class of phenomena that are examples of nonlocal correlations. These are predicted by Generalized Quantum Theory (GQT) and can be expected to occur, whenever global descriptions of a system are complementary to or incompatible with local descriptions of elements of such a system. We will analyze the standard paradigms of PSI-research along those lines and describe how they can be reconceptualized as instances of such generalized nonlocal correlations. A direct consequence of this conceptual framework is that misrepresentations of these phenomena as local causes, as is done in direct experimentation, is bound to fail long-term. Strategies to escape this problem are discussed. Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 605–631, 2014 0892-3310/14 606 Harald Walach, Walter von Lucadou, and Hartmann Romer
Psi: a neutral term denoting the unknown factors that underlie parapsychological phenomena. \nPsi effects/phenomena: observable outcomes attributed to the action of psi. \nPsi agent: a person thought to play an active role in the production of psi effects. \n \nOne major criticism of parapsychology is that it lacks accepted theoretical models, and that those it does have tend to make use of the more esoteric and speculative areas of physics. Part of the reason for the widespread scepticism and dearth of viable theories is, I think, due to the perceived properties of psi effects rather than properties that are necessarily real. Given our current knowledge, it is difficult if not impossible to model psi effects as the claimed properties rarely appear to be consistent with theory and observation in other areas of science. But are the claims often made for psi phenomena really justified? Here, I look at three of the more common claims made by parapsychologists and critically assess the assumptions that led to them. I will try to show how the different assumptions we make about psi effects can radically alter the physical requirements of any potential mechanisms and suggest alternative perspectives on some parapsychological phenomena.
PK experiments with prerecorded targets (Schmidt, 1976) are interesting because they suggest a variety of new test arrangements to study the basic PK mechanism. In addition, they permit the inclusion of independent observers who, with little time investment, can obtain first-hand evidence of any anomalous effects that may occur. Four such experiments with different independent observers, different subject populations, and minor variations have been performed previously (Schmidt & Braud, 1993; Schmidt, Morris, & Hardin, 1990; Schmidt, Morris, & Rudolph, 1986; Schmidt & Schlitz, 1988) with the first author as main experimenter and the other one or two authors acting as independent observers. The results of PK experiments with prerecorded random events appear most interesting and most puzzling because the subject's mental effort is made long after the random events to be affected have occurred. One tentative viewpoint (Schmidt, 1978; Walker, 1979) is that the subject's mental effort could act backward to the time when the random events were generated and recorded. This would imply a noncausal mechanism in the sense that the effect (the biasing of the random events) occurs before the cause (the mental effort). It might be this element of noncausality that makes psychic phenomena so intuitively implausible and at odds with the known principles of physics. Another viewpoint (Schmidt, 1982) is based on the quantum theoretical notion that there is no if there is no observer. Thus, the decisions of the random generator might become reality only when the subject observes the outcome during the test session. The subject's effort would not have to act into the past because the decision on the outcome would not yet be made until the subject received feedback during the PK test session. In this case, a preobservation of the recorded events should inhibit the subject's success, because the preobservation would make the random decisions real so that the subject's subsequent mental effort would come too late. For this reason it seemed particularly interesting to conduct an experiment in which half of the prerecorded random events had been preinspected so that one could compare the possible PK effects on the preobserved and not-observed events. One previous study (Schmidt, 1985) has indicated an inhibition of the PK effect by preobservation. In view of the central role of the question, however, further studies of the preobservation effect seem most important. In this and the four previous studies, the question of highest priority was whether a PK effect could be demonstrated under tightly controlled conditions. Because preobservation might inhibit the PK effect, we decided in advance to base the possible evidence for the existence of PK only on the results from the not-preobserved events. Although the independent observer was somewhat skeptical about the existence of PK, he was very interested in a possible preobservation effect because of its possible implications for quantum theory. Our subject pool consisted primarily of martial arts students as a matter of practical convenience. This population was relatively easily accessible and one that the experimenter had not yet explored. No attempt was made, however, to compare martial arts training and skill with PK performance systematically. METHOD The study was structured into 20 units such that a unit could be considered as a mini-experiment. Each unit was subdivided into 100 blocks of binary data. The sequence of binary data in each block determined two partial results, an even result and an odd result, arising from the even- or odd-numbered bits in the sequence. The partial results were defined so that by inverting the bits in the sequence (interchanging 1s and 0s) the signs of the partial results were inverted. In following the procedure for each unit, the experimenter used a true random generator to record the random bit-sequences for the 100 blocks on floppy disk. …
Abstract—The problem of devising a theory for paranormal phenomena (psi) may be separated into, first, the basic physical mechanism and second, the psychological aspects of how and when people are able to elicit psi. Observational theory addresses primarily the first aspect, the basic physical mechanism of psi. A problem is that the known types of physical interaction do not fit the existing data. The measurement problem in quantum mechanics can be used to hypothe-size an observer who adds information at the collapse of the wave function. For each random event one of the possible outcomes becomes realized as the event is being observed. The basic tenet of observational theory is: the statis-tics of single events become biased if the observer is motivated and prefers one of the possible outcomes over the other. Features of observational theory are: its predictive power, proven with re-gard to retroactive psychokinesis (PK); parsimony: the same mechanism ex-plains ESP as well as PK; fruitfulness, as there is a direct relationship with quantum mechanics; and openness to crucial experiments. The falsifiability criterion poses some problems: these are discussed in relation to Lakatos’ methodology of research programmes. Observational theory is a solution to the problem of the mediation of psi, thus providing a framework for the psychological problem of the manifesta-tion of psi. Henceforth, the observation of the outcome should be regarded as formal part of parapsychological experiments. There is reason for cautious, patient optimism about the acceptance of observational theory.
A psychokinetic (PK) effect--a mental influence on the outcome of chance processes--was first reported by Louisa and J. B. Rhine (Rhine & Rhine, 1943) from experiments with dice. Through the introduction of electronic random number generators based on quantum randomness (Schmidt, 1971), the experiments became more easily accessible and even more challenging to physicists. Today, a large number of successful PK experiments with random number generators have been reported (Radin & Nelson, 1989). It has not yet been possible, however, to stabilize and strengthen the statistically weak effects so that they can be easily demonstrated on demand. The discovery of PK effects on prerecorded random events (Schmidt, 1976) did not make the gathering of data less arduous, but it permitted the inclusion of independent observers who, with little investment of time and effort, could obtain first-hand evidence for any PK effects that might occur. All five experiments to be discussed here included such independent observers. PK Tests with Prerecorded Events and Independent Observers In a typical PK experiment, a random number generator produces a binary random sequence that the subject tries to bias in a certain manner. Let us take, for example, the case where the random generator produces in each test run a sequence of 100 binary events displayed as a sequence of 100 red (for a 0-bit) and green (for a 1-bit) light flashes, while the subject is instructed to mentally enforce the appearance of more red than green flashes. The sequence of red and green signals is stored on floppy disk, and a score that is measured by the difference between the numbers of red and green signals is displayed and recorded at the end of the run. The arrangement for an experiment with prerecorded random events is similar, but there is a time delay between the generation of the random events and their display to the subject. First, the random signals for a large number of test runs are generated and recorded on floppy disk. Days or months later, the stored signals are translated by the computer into a corresponding sequence of red and green light flashes while the subject tries to mentally enforce the appearance of more red than green signals. Experiments have shown that selected subjects can succeed in this arrangement (Schmidt, 1976, 1987), provided that the prerecorded events have not been inspected by anybody before the subject makes the PK effort. To let an independent observer participate in the experiment, we prerecord the bit sequences for all test runs planned for the experiment, and we let a computer make a printout of the scores for all the test runs. Being careful that nobody can observe the scores, we send a sealed copy of the printout to the independent observer. Leaving the printout sealed, the independent observer randomly specifies for each test run whether the subject's PK effort should be aimed at a high score (excess of red signals in the example) or a low score (excess of green signals). In the subsequent PK test sessions, the subject follows for each test run the independent observer's assignments, aiming for an excess of red or green signals, respectively. At the end of the experiment, the independent observer opens the sealed printouts. If the subject's effort was successful, the independent observer can confirm this first-hand by a tendency of the scores to point in the directions (positive or negative) that he had randomly specified. Because the independent observer had randomly assigned the directions, he or she can be certain that no such systematic tendency should occur (in the absence of the claimed anomaly). Using an appropriate statistical method, the independent observer can assess the significance of such a tendency without having to consider the reliability of the experimenter and his procedures. Test Arrangement with Distant Subjects The five experiments under discussion followed this general outline with minor variations. …
Conceptual spaces can be barriers to understanding. Our classical understanding is hard to escape, with its precepts even being imposed on QM “behaviours”. Interpretation is also an artifact of methodology; a problem already noted in parapsychology. In physics, consciousness—some sort of awareness centre —is thought to have anomalous physical effects in the world, but there is no consensus on the claim, thus making consciousness as ambiguous as psi. A broader understanding of the causes and relations inherent in the world, at all levels, requires pluralistic and holistic thinking; this is the approach taken in synchronicity theory. If the psi function is essentially synchronistic and aided by consciousness, then consciousness has a grander role yet to be discovered. Jung states that synchronicity occurs when archetypes are constellated (activated); they act as bridges, so that synchronicity is an experience in consciousness where we witness the unity of mind and matter.