Comment by waterheater | Hacker News Reader

Comment by waterheater | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Ah, you are referring to the SRI experiments, though I'm not sure who "they" are. You should, however, be aware that the Proceedings of the IEEE (Volume: 64, Issue: 10, October 1976) contain a paper presenting the results of a remote-viewing experiment with n=36 and p=0.0000006 [1].

Many people who purport to "love science" set aside how much of one's understanding of the universe is axiomatic. Now, I've never directly experienced time dilation, and I have heard that GPS satellites have been created to take time dilation effects into account. I have, however, experienced and validated Newtonian dynamics (physics classes). In either case, both Newtonian dynamics and time dilation were presented to me as axiomatic; that is to say, I haven't performed a full, independent derivation of these two ideas of physics. However, I still accept that the general ideas are sound. If a model of physics supports the idea of remote viewing, so be it.

>Army and CIA, while are generally rational, are not necessarily great at critical thinking or science.

That's funny to say, seeing as it's well-established that military technology across all domains is significantly more advanced than the average person's technology. As a small example, neither one of us could make a stealth bomber capable of dropping nuclear ordinance anywhere in the world nor perform the required R&D to properly design one.

[1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1454638

> n=36 and p=0.0000006

That is how pseudoscientific studies often look like. Low n, fantastic p, yet no replicability when you should expect 100% replicability. Why? They always turn out to be badly conducted experiments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance#Scientific_recept...

The psychologists David Marks and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate Targ and Puthoff's remote viewing experiments that were carried out in the 1970s at the Stanford Research Institute. In a series of 35 studies, they were unable to replicate the results so investigated the procedure of the original experiments. Marks and Kammann discovered that the notes given to the judges in Targ and Puthoff's experiments contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. They concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates. Marks was able to achieve 100 per cent accuracy without visiting any of the sites himself but by using cues. James Randi has written controlled tests by several other researchers, eliminating several sources of cuing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests, produced negative results. Students were also able to solve Puthoff and Targ's locations from the clues that had inadvertently been included in the transcripts.

A paper from 1976 claims to have detected ESP in its participants. The paper appears to have only been cited twice since, both in 1979, one to explain the 1976 results as experimental bias, and the other to report failure to reproduce. I wouldn't throw out my walkie-talkie just yet.

>If a model of physics supports the idea of remote viewing, so be it.

Okay. What's that model? Are brains RF transceivers?

According to Google Scholar, the paper has been cited 19 times [1], which isn't groundbreaking but is an order of magnitude larger. Also, I imagine the fringe nature of scientific research into remote viewing keeps researcher numbers and therefore citation counts low.

Perhaps a better paper is "The Persistent Phenomena of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective" by Robert G. Jahn, who, at the time of publication, was Dean of Engineering at Princeton [2]. According to Google Scholar, this paper has 286 citations [3].

Or consider "On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena", also by Jahn, with 238 citations, according to Google Scholar. Or even Jahn's book "Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World", which, according to Google Scholar, has 736 citations.

> What's that model? Are brains RF transceivers?

I recommend you look at link 2, page 21, starting at the section "Theoretical Concepts." It overviews a number of plausible models, including one derived from quantum mechanics.

Yes, brains are RF transceivers. This is why transcranial magnetic stimulation is effective.

[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%20confirmatory%20remo...

[2] http://phere.global-mind.org/papers/pear/IEEE_PEAR.pdf

[3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=%22...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Jahn#Parapsychology_...

Experiments under Jahn's purview also explored remote viewing and other topics in parapsychology. In 1982, at the invitation of the editors of Proceedings of the IEEE, Jahn published a comprehensive review of psychic phenomena from an engineering perspective.[8] A subsequent critique of this review by psychologist Ray Hyman, which was also invited by the journal's editors, discussed Jahn's work in the context of a long history of flawed psychic research.[9] Psychologist James Alcock carried out an extensive review of Jahn's research and found there to be "serious methodological problems".[10] Statistical flaws in Jahn's work have been proposed by physicist Stanley Jeffers.[11] Jahn closed the PEAR lab in 2007.[12]

>Yes, brains are RF transceivers. This is why transcranial magnetic stimulation is effective.

First, TMS operates at frequencies of 1-10 Hz, so that's well below RF. Second, an RF transceiver is a device capable of sending and receiving a signal over RF, not just anything that emits RF or that is physically affected by RF. Otherwise a glass of water is an RF receiver, because when I put it in the microwave it heats up.

> First, TMS operates at frequencies of 1-10 Hz, so that's well below RF.

So? ELF communication systems have operated in that frequency range for decades [1]. Also, by "RF", I'm not referring specifically to ITU radio bands. I'm saying that the brain in general responds to radio waves in general, which is inclusive of the whole portion of the electromagnetic spectrum below 300 GHz. Perhaps a better characterization of the brain is "electromagnetic radiation (EMR) transceiver."

> Second, an RF transceiver is a device capable of sending and receiving a signal over RF, not just anything that emits RF or that is physically affected by RF. Otherwise a glass of water is an RF receiver, because when I put it in the microwave it heats up.

The very fact that functional brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have been created demonstrates the brain is indeed a transceiver. According to a DARPA news release concerning a BCI: "By enabling two-way communication between brain and machine—outgoing signals for movement and inbound signals for sensation—the technology could ultimately support new ways for people to engage with each other and with the world" [2]. These signals are electromagnetic in nature. Given that non-invasive TMS EMR is received by the brain in specific and targeted ways [4], and given that non-invasive skull caps receive electromagnetic transmissions from the brain (though I recognize you may object to such a characterization) [3], brains are certainly able to receive and send "radio waves."

A glass of water by itself is obviously not an RF receiver.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency

[2] https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2016-10-13

[3] https://brainvision.com/products/braincap-mr/

[4] https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv107

> The very fact that functional brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have been created demonstrates the brain is indeed a transceiver.

That is not a sound argument. I think you can see why anyone would disagree.

> As a small example, neither one of us could make a stealth bomber capable of dropping nuclear ordinance anywhere in the world nor perform the required R&D to properly design one.

I never said they weren't good at tech and engineering. Anyway, the army and CIA make none of those. They just contract it out to Northrop or such, no? I haven't accused defense contractors of paranormal pseudoscience.

> Anyway, the army and CIA make none of those. They just contract it out to Northrop or such, no? I haven't accused defense contractors of paranormal pseudoscience.

As of 2017, the military actively conducted research in the domain of Anomalous Mental Cognition [1]. The modern terminology is different and more technical, but the goal remains the same: to identify and understand precognitive and extrasensory abilities.

Also, SRI International was a defense contractor, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. A defense contractor may well be charged by the military to make a device for Anomalous Mental Cognition.

[1] https://time.com/4721715/phenomena-annie-jacobsen/

Fine. I accept that the Army contracts everything out.

In which case, my point is that you were ascribing scientific credibility to the Army because they make stealth bombers and I was arguing that the engineering expertise is a.) not pertinent, b.) not within the institution.

I don't consider Annie Jacobson to be an unbiased source.

Here are some glaring criticisms of her past books in terms of her competence.

Leading space historian Michael J. Neufeld, gave a negative review of the book: “Jacobsen concentrates on the scandals, which inevitably leads to an imbalance in presentation. Little is said about the substantive contributions of von Braun.”

Space historian Dwayne Day, for instance, called Area 51 a "poorly-sourced, error-filled book" in which the author makes an argument that "defies common sense" and is reliant on one anonymous source. Jeffrey T. Richelson and Robert S. Norris, critiquing Jacobsen's factual errors on the blog Washington Decoded, stated that "[t]here are so many mistakes that it is hard to know where to begin ... Area 51 is a case study of how not to research and write about top-secret activities." Historian Richard Rhodes, writing in The Washington Post, also criticized the book's sensationalistic reporting of "old news" and its "error-ridden" reporting. He wrote: "All of [her main source's] claims appear in one or another of the various publicly available Roswell/UFO/Area 51 books and documents churned out by believers, charlatans and scholars over the past 60 years. In attributing the stories she reports to an unnamed engineer and Manhattan Project veteran while seemingly failing to conduct even minimal research into the man's sources, Jacobsen shows herself at a minimum extraordinarily gullible or journalistically incompetent." The book was sharply criticized for extensive errors in an essay by a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists and a senior fellow at the National Security Archive.

I will accept it when mainstream psychologists and neuroscientists acknowledge it as something that exists. Not one or two of them, but most of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com