X-Message-Number: 5834
From: eli+@GS160.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: CryoNet #5823 - #5832
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 14:01:21 EST

Andrew Purcell <> writes:
>I remember reading an article in "Wired" recently which was talking about an
>experiment in which human subjects were getting very small but statistically
>significant successes in influencing random number generators in computers.

This sounds like work done at PEAR, the Princeton Institute for
Engineering Anomalies Research (or something like that).  They used to
have a web page at <http://www.inpe.br/lac/people/pedrob/PEAR/home>,
but it seems to be dead at the moment.  It was pretty fluffy anyway.

There's been some work done at PEAR that sounds reasonably well
designed (not that I know the details), but results like this cast
doubt on the whole experimental setup.  They reportedly get similar
effect magnitudes with pseudo-random generators (deterministic, mind
you) as with physical RNGs.  That's pretty close to a dead giveaway
that the "effect" is an artifact of the data analysis.

The most interesting psi research I know of is the ganzfeld experiments
reported by several groups.  These, as well as the SRI/SAIC remote
viewing experiments, are referenced in
<http://www-stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts/air.htm>.  I'd be interested in
references to critiques of their methodology, if anyone's aware of any.

-- 
. Eli Brandt                                        usual disclaimers .
. eli+@cs.cmu.edu                                  PGP key on request .
. arrest me:                       violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462: "fuck".


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5834