Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Philosophical Detection: An Unkown Human Faculty?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A labmate of mine gave me a link to a Princeton program that was established in 1979 out of the School of Engineering and Applied Science "to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice," i.e. to study phenomena like telekinesis. That a venerable institute for engineering, science, and mathematics engaged in such a program made me stop short of ignoring their work out of hand.

The nature of their study can be explained as follows.

Suppose you conduct an experiment such that there can be only one out of two possible results, 'p' or 'q', each of which is equally likely to occur, say, like flipping a coin. Suppose also that you run this experiment a large 'N' number of times and get X number of ps (or N-X number of qs). Based on this experiment, one might say that the chance of getting a p in general is X divided by N (or the chance of getting a q in general is 1-X/N). Now, the result of this kind of experiment--the kind consisting of conducting a series of success/failure events where the chance of success or failure is equally likely in each individual event--is studied in probability theory, and the distribution of probability (the distribution of the probability of observing X successful trials out of N) is known exactly. This distribution is called the "binomial distribution" and is a popular basis for testing if an event in nature follows any statistically significant pattern.

Now, since we understand the binomial distribution thoroughly, we can write software that can simulate a binomial-like event with a 95% or higher confidence level. One kind of software like this is one that spits out a random number from 1 thru 100. If the software is written correctly, and the number of events one runs is large enough, then the chances of getting any number in that range should follow a binomial distribution quite accurately (within our level of confidence).

Suppose now that we sit a person in front of a computer running this software such that the screen flashes random numbers continuously until it has flashed a predetermined (large) set of numbers. Suppose also that, before the experiment, we tell the person to "wish" or "hope" that the numbers that flash range from 50 thru 100 instead of from 1 thru 100. Since there is no tangible connection between the human and the computer, one would expect the results to remain unchanged, right?

Well, that's where Princeton's study comes in. They claim to see a repeatable shift in the mean (the statistically expected value) of the distribution in these experiments on the order of 0.0001. They also claim that this shift in the mean of the distribution is significant enough to point to the existence of a telekinetic faculty.

Suppose this repeatable statistical shift is not just scatter or is not within expected levels of statistical variation (i.e. a definite change in data). Questions:

  1. Irrespective of the motive for making such a claim (that humans have a broad, telekinetic-like faculty), does postulating the existence of such a faculty violate any laws of nature (say, the law of identity)? If so, how?
  2. Consider the motive behind making such a claim. Personally, I've never seen anything through day-to-day sense-perception to suggest the existence of such a faculty, and I'm willing to bet that neither have these Princeton fellows. Suppose these guys never did see anything to suggest the existence of such a faculty and they just were inspired by fictional stories or their own whims. If this is the case, is embarking on a scientific inquiry in search of this kind of faculty irrational? If so, why?
  3. Suppose the repeating anomalous data is sound (untainted). Can one conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt (supposing this computer and software were calibrated and tested extensively before and after the trials to ensure functionality), that this data points to the existence of a telekinetic-like faculty? If not, why not (presuming, for the moment, that the existence of such a faculty does not violate any laws of nature)?

Additional questions:

  • 4. Consider the fact that the identity of a living entity is rooted in its need to survive, e.g., while man has developed consciousness because he's too weak to survive by brute force, other animals have been built with speed and/or strength; these traits developed through time through a need for survival. Now, what need for survival would a telekinetic-like faculty serve? Would a caveman fighting a wild bear have needed such a thing? Is there any kind of survival need that such a faculty would fulfill?
  • 5. Suppose there doesn't exist a tangible survival need this occult faculty and thus the only "evidence" is likely to be eye-witness accounts. Would a career based on the pursuit of such a faculty be worthwhile?

Modified to refer to the phenomena in question in a broader light than telekinesis, which is the ability to move things with the mind. The example with the computer software is much more far-reaching than just moving things with the mind. The program at Princenton studies the broad topic of non-mechanical human/machine interactions.

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]Irrespective of the motive for making such a claim (that humans have a telekinetic faculty), does postulating the existence of such a faculty violate any laws of nature (say, the law of identity)?  If so, how?
Absolutely not. The question as to whether telekinesis exists would be a scientific one, not philosophical. Certain explanations for telekinesis could be ruled out as philosophically invalid, but the not the phenomenon itself.

The basis for dismissing telekinesis and similar mental powers is the lack of supporting evidence, not a priori rationalism.

[*]Consider the motive behind making such a claim.  Personally, I've never seen anything through day-to-day sense-perception to suggest the existence of such a faculty, and I'm willing to bet that neither have these Princeton fellows.  Suppose these guys never did see anything to suggest the existence of a telekinetic faculty and they just were inspired by fictional stories or their own whims.  If this is the case, is embarking on a scientific inquiry in search of a telekinetic faculty irrational?  If so, why?
A lot of people have claimed to have (or to have witnessed) psychic powers, and this alone makes it worth investigating. The same applies to things like hypnosis and acupuncture - if there's a chance it could work, theres no harm in doing experiments to find out. It would be silly to avoid investigating things that sounded implausible, and consistently applying this attitude would almost certainly result in stagnation.

What WOULD be irrational would be to keep looking after no evidence had been found despite repeated attempts. In this case, I would start to think that the desire of the scientists to find something new had overridden their objectivity.

[*]Suppose the repeating anomalous data is sound (untainted).  Can one conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt (supposing this computer and software were calibrated and tested extensively before and after the trials to ensure functionality), that this data points to the existence of a telekinetic faculty?
It would be one hypothesis - you cant really conclude anything "beyond reasonable doubt" based on a single experiment. There's so many things that can go wrong in experiments like these, and there have been numerous cases of researchers being fooled by clever fakers. IF they found a positive result and IF their methodology was sound and IF other teams of researchers duplicated the experiments and found similar results, then the claims to have discovered something analogous to 'telekinesis' could be taken seriously. The next step would be to find out how it worked - it wouldnt be 'magic', so perhaps investigating brain waves would be the logical place to start.

The analogy to hypotism is a good one. Most people were sceptical about that when results were first published, since it sounded like occult magic. But it would have been wrong to dismiss it on philosophical grounds, or because it seemed strange.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting question, Felipe.

I know your focus is not so much the validity of the experiment, but the question: "what if it were true?" Nevertheless, just to "enter it into the record", this article (link) has a critique of the Princeton research.

Back to your question: "what if it were true?"

What if consciousness could change external reality merely through the act of being conscious? Suppose, I want food and clothes and can simply "think them into existence". Suppose merely thinking the right thoughts could get sundry atoms to rearrange themselves into food and clothes. Would that require a fundamental change in my current philosophy?

Like many unrealistic examples, the answer has to be tentative, since the implications of the base assumption are hard to follow.

That said: if consciousness could exhert such power effortlessly, I think that would necessitate a fundamental philosophical change. One would surely have to question the meaning and relevance of rationality and productiveness in such a world. On the other hand, if consiousness needed to do a lot of work, except that it was not the type of physical work we have in reality, that might impact philosophy less. If this was specific types of work for which one would need to study and train and practice, then it would be closer to "our" reality.

The Princeton experiments do not postulate anything so outlandish, but they appear to build the take-off ramp to a slippery-slope that leads to the above. However, suppose we assume that such a slippery-slope does not exist? Suppose the power of consciousness is just as described by the experimenters: a power to influence reality "at the margin", which almost always fails, but sometimes succeeeds. (Leaving aside whether humans can ever learn to control and direct this "power".)

For now, I leave that question for discussion with one additional question. I'll add one more question: is it possible to assume such a delimited faculty without getting on a slippery slope that fundamentally alters one's view of the relationship between consciousness and existence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if consciousness could change external reality merely through the act of being conscious?
But we already know this is true. There are several examples of people being able to operate primitive switches using their mind. I dont know all the details, but I assume it uses brainwaves of some kind (a perfectly valid scientific concept). I can look out some research if you like.

Not to mention volition. Isnt my raising of my arm an example of consciousness changing external reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...is it possible to assume such a delimited faculty without getting on a slippery slope that fundamentally alters one's view of the relationship between consciousness and existence?

I tend to think that in as much as this faculty remains a mystery, the mystics and lunatics will jump on the primacy of consciousness racket. No postulated aspect of man's identity can contradict the fact that reality exists apart from ourselves, regardless of discovering a new way in which humans can interact with reality.

That being said, I don't think admitting the possibility of such a faculty existing necessarily contradicts the axioms so long as we approach this faculty as some new form of man/world interaction that can eventually be scientifically understood.

To answer your question concisely, we only find ourselves on a slippery slope if we admit the possibility of the mind changing the identity of things, like saying the mind can make a cat into an apple, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with turning a cat into an apple if it turns out that this is a possibility. What's wrong is trying to say that something can be both a cat and an apple at the same time and in the same respect. :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree about the lack of impact on axioms. However, I do think that if such control by consciousness were to be effortless (or even "nearly effortless"), it would require a change in ethics. We'd be in the position of the "indestructible robot" with regard to values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything a human can do is first learned. Some things are learned more easily than others. The difficulty in learning to use such a faculty doesn't change its nature if its nature is just some new form of human/world interaction. Ethics would thus not change: the good would still be what is in man's rational self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several examples of people being able to operate primitive switches using their mind.

The people using the mind switch aren't affecting anything telekinetically, or in any way that should raise any eyebrows. The headgear simply monitors brainwave activity and is then programed to do certain things depending on what type of brainwave activity is going on. Actually being able to extend your brainwaves and have them perform a specific action on a complicated electronic device would be in a whole other ballpark.

If they produced some sort of static on the monitor it might be conceivable that it is possible to somehow excercise your brainwaves to the point where they can effect other electronic based devices in that way, but even that would be in a different ballpark than somehow modifying a computers function in a very specific way without any sort of electrical interference or side effects would be exponentially more difficult. The subjects were also chosen at random (I would hope...) which elliminates the possibility of any sort of brainwave training being widespread across the sample (unless I'm missing out on some sort of trend here).

There is a foundation that offers a million dollar prize to anyone that can demonstrate a supernatural or paranormal ability, of which telekinetics would most definitely fit, and no one has been able to claim the prize.

That said, it has been shown that the presence of an observer can effect certain quantum mechanical properties, and the whole concept of entanglement honestly looks a lot like what someone might call telepathy. We live in a truly strange and wonderful universe, and we definitely don't know how everything works. So in short, if they can provide more evidence I wouldn't rule out their claim immediately.

As to the philosophy angle, I'm not sure exactly how it would be handled. Has Objectivism even integrated the strangeness of quantum mechanics into its view of reality? I'm pretty sure Rand ignored the quantum mechanical revolution, but has anyone else delved into the subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of threads discussing Quantum Mechanics here, have a look.

The quick reply to your post is that while the mathematics are powerful in predicting quantities left to us from classical physics, the interpretation of the mathematics are contrary to basic philosophical laws, such as a thing can't both be and not be simultaneously. The interpretation of QM is in contention at this point, though the most popular one is the most mindless. The one thing to keep in mind is that philosophy is the foundation of any science, and philosophy says that an entity can't be and at the same time not be, or it can't be two different things at once, etc. All the consequences of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation are ludicrous, to say the least. I also suspect that the PEAR studies were motivated by a wish to apply this interpretation on a macro-scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a world where one could use one's consciousness to get external matter to do as one wills and where one could do so effortlessly, what would "productiveness" consist of? Assuming that such a skill had to be learned (and therefore took rationality), what would be the role of rationality once one had mastered the skill of effortless control over matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...