CIA-RDP96-00792R000700660001-8

-
22
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700660001-8k
23
Since due to equation (4) pragmatic information is the product of
novelty E and confirmation B, the same amount of pragmatic informa-
tion can be expressed either as much novelty and less confirmation
or vice versa. However, if the total amount of pragmatic informa-
tion is limited it follows immediately that events containing much
novelty E cannot occur very often, which would mean very much
confirmation B. For instance, if the "observers" in an RSPK case
would "expect" more confirmation B of the focus system for a spe-
cific "surprising" phenomenon x, such that the product E(x) * B(x)
would exceed the product I = A * R, the phenomenon may produce a
displacement in such a way that something unexpected hap-
pens for which E(x') * B(x') = A * R holds. From this we can see
that the model is even able to give a natural explanation of the re-
markable "elusiveness" of RSPK phenomena.
A MULTIVARIATE PK EXPERIMENT WITH UNIDIRECTIONAL
CORRELATED RNGS
Walter von Lucadou (University of Utrecht). Present Address:
Hildastrasse 64, D-7800 Freiburg i. Br., West Germany
The experiment should be conceived as a conceptual replica-
tion of an experimental program which was performed by the author
and collaborators during 1979 and 1985 at the Freiburg University
(ZP, 1986, 170-206). A further aim of the experiment is to test
several theoretical predictions of the model of pragmatic information
(MPI) (see pp. 18-22). The main issue of the experiment is to
find (significant) nonlocal correlations between independent sets of .
psychological and physical variables. Such correlations can also be
regarded as a PK effect.
-
Experimental Design
The experiment is a statistical PK experiment with a parallel
design: About 300 self-selected subjects each performed 8 runs,
with each run containing 996 trials of a binary random sequence
produced by two different but correlated random sources (RNG1
and RNG2). The display is an optical and acoustical one.
During the eight runs per session, RNG1 and RNG2 are ex-
changed systematically in a doubleblind way. Every second run is
a nonfeedback run with the same RNG conditions as the previous
one.
Both RNGs produce binary Markoff chains (0,1) with an er-
gotic expectation value of P = 1/2, a variance of s = v(n/12) and
an eigenvalue of gamma = - 1/3 (RIP 1982, 165-168). RNG1 uses
the thermal noise pulses of a p-n transition in such a way that
every pulse contributes to the production of the Markoff chain.
With RNG2 only those pulses of RNG1 contribute that surmount a
certain level of pulse amplitude. This level and the generation
rate (counting time) of the RNG can be chosen arbitrarily. The
level was set to 150 units and the counting time to 40 units in most
runs. This implies that a run needs about two minutes. With
these parameters the count rate of RNG1 is about 1600 counts/unit
and 1000 counts /unit for RNG2.
This procedure provides a unidirectional correlation between
RNG1 and RNG2 because RNG2 can only produce a count if RNG1
produces one surmounting the given level of amplitude. The prob-
ability for a count in RNG2 is therefore about 1000/1600. The
Markoff chains are used as the PK target. They represent the
momentary pulse rate of the random source (p-n transition). A
"1" means that the momentary pulse rate is increasing while a "0"
indicates it is decreasing. Thus, a comparison of the two RNGs
allows us to find out whether PK changes either the rate of the
random pulses or its amplitude or even both (see Hypothesis 3).
The Markoff chains produced by RNG1 and RNG2, respec-
tively, are not directly connected to the display. A special pseudo-
random sequence (difference set: 83, 41, 20) with a defined auto-
correlation function decides the direction of the display, thus de-
fining a "display function" D. This display function is the same
for all runs including the nonfeedback runs.
The psychological variables are measured by the "Amsterdamse
Biographische Vragenlijst" (ABV) and two versions of the VROPSOM.
The ABV and VROPSOM-M are filled out by the subject before the
experiment and VROPSOM-O after the experiment. The ABV is dis-
played item by item on the computer screen and the subject gives
the answer by pushing a button. Before starting each run the
subject has to give a confidence score on his or her "PK abilities."
The Markoff chains of both RNGs of all runs and the answers
on the ABV questionnaire are binarily coded and stored on diskette.
After every session day a safety copy of the diskette is made. The
experimenter is kept blind to the results until the end of the whole
study. Moreover, he is not present in the room with the subject
during the experimental session. The subjects get trial-by-trial
feedback on the display (colored computer screen with sound) and
an additional verbal feedback on the computer screen after each
feedback run. The subject is not informed about the nonfeedback
runs that take place in the pause between the feedback runs.
The whole session takes about 45 minutes. A standardized
instruction is given by the experimenter.
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700660001-8
:
:
:
1
.
1

24
Papers
Protections Against Fraudulent Actions
Any possible fraudulent action of a subject on the computer
system would stop or even destroy the program, which cannot be
booted again without special knowledge. Such actions could easily
be detected. Any purposeful fraudulent actions of the subject on
the results are impossible because of the unknown coding of the
data.
Hypotheses
(1) It is assumed that persons with high scoring in extra-
version or masculinity and/or low scoring in neuroticism and de-
pressivity show a higher hit rate than those with antagonistic traits.
(2) It is assumed that under nonfeedback conditions only
random correlations can occur. It is expected that the feedback
condition (runs 1, 3, 5, 7) will show about twice as many signifi-
cant correlations than nonfeedback conditions (runs 2, 4, 6, 8).
(3) It is assumed that RNG2 shows higher correlations to
psychological variables than does RNG1.
r(RNG2) > r (RNG1)
(4) It is assumed that the display function D shows higher
correlations with the psychological variables than the "normal" hit
rate for both RNG1 and RNG2, but still r(RNG2) > r(RNG1).
r(D(RNG1) ) > r (RNG1)
r(D(RNG2) ) > r (RNG2)
r(D(RNG2) ) > r (D(RNG1) )
Methods
For the evaluation of the ABV and VROPSOM, standard scales
will be used if it should not turn out that their factor structure
differs too much from the standard structure. Any psychological
evaluation, however, will be done independently of the evaluation
of the physical variables and vice versa.
For the correlation of the psychological and the physical
variables, Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and rank vari-
ance analysis will be used, which is similar to the evaluation of the
Freiburg experiment.
The use of the display function still needs some further in-
vestigation, but it will be developed independently from the data
base of the experiment. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to use
25
Observational Theories and Silent Feedback
the sum of the autocorrelation function of the Markoff sequence
(RNG1 or RNG2) in question but only in the region where the
autocorrelation function of the display function (the difference set)
differs from the zero level.
504
aj = E 9; (i)
i=492
For the evaluation of the correlation coefficients, r, and the vari-
ance analysis of the psychological (independent) and the physical
(dependent) variables, the scores of runs 1, 3, 5, and 7, respec-
tively, will be added to runs 2, 4, 6, 8 for every subject.
An overall evaluation is planned for the total scores of all
subjects under feedback versus nonfeedback conditions, however,
for both RNGs separately.
Discussion
It should be noticed that no result will be expected if the
total variance of the psychological variables in relation to their
gauge distribution will be too small. This could happen if the
self-selection of the subject sample is too biased; for instance, if
only psychology students with a special attitude have contributed.
Re Hypothesis 1: It is not clear whether the questionnaires
used measure the same personality constructs as the FPI in the
Freiburg experiment did. These questionnaires, however, were
chosen because they seem to be rather similar at least in relation
to the meaning or content of the items. Thus, the content of the
correlations which might occur in the experiment should only be
validated in relation to a certain tendency which is indicated in
Hypothesis 1. This means that this hypothesis is a rather vague
one.
Re Hypothesis 2: The feedback hypothesis is the most im-
portant one. Only if a difference is observed between the feed-
back and the nonfeedback conditions should it be assumed that a
"PK effect" has occurred, unless a high number of significant cor-
relations between psychological and physical variables would indi-
cate the occurrence of a nonfeedback PK effect (for instance, by
a significant canonical analysis). Such a result would contradict
both OTs and MPI. However, it is not specified which variables
should show a difference. Otherwise, the other hypotheses could
not be refuted.
Re Hypothesis 3: If this hypothesis should be refuted, one
could conclude that the fluctuation model must be wrong. It as-
sumes that fluctuations that are already present are more sensitive
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700660001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700660001-8

26
Papers
to PK. This, however, would not necessarily refute the whole MPI
since this assumption is a very specific one. The conventional OTs
assume that RNG1 would exhibit a larger PK effect because the con-
ditional probability to obtain a pulse with a given amplitude is small-
er than the probability to obtain a pulse without further specifica-
tions. The MPI, however, assumes that the additional concept of
amplitude includes a further hierarchical description level (or level
of differentiation) of the system which may lead to further uncer-
tainty (or further degrees of freedom) which could contribute to
the PK correlation.
Re Hypothesis 4: A refutation of this hypothesis would cause
rather serious arguments against the MPI since the concept of prag-
matic information is a central one. Nevertheless, it may still be a
matter of discussion whether the used operationalization of the dis-
play function is sufficiently appropriate.
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700660001-8
:
THE REMOTE ACTION PROJECT*
AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF THE "REMOTE ACTION
PROJECT": A PSYCHOKINESIS TRAINING PROGRAM **
Lisa Faithorn, Robin Edison, Shepherd Jenks, Stephen Tyndall
(California Institute of Integral Studies, 765 Ashbury, San
Francisco, CA 94117), and Julian D. Isaacs ( John F.
Kennedy University) ++
Ethnographic research was undertaken by a team of anthro-
pologists from the California Institute of Integral Studies supervised
by Program Director Lisa Faithorn, on the "Remote Action (RA)
Project," an on-going psychokinesis training program directed by
Dr. Julian Isaacs at John F. Kennedy University.
The RA Project aims at substantiating the existence and
replicability of the Piezo Remote Action effect. Its primary goal is
to train individuals to voluntarily produce RA effects in a collabo-
rating parapsychology laboratory which is performing a proof-
oriented investigation of PK. Another goal is to demonstrate that
this form of psychokinesis is a trainable skill -- that people who
possess a latent PK ability can be taught to improve and better
control PK production.
Purpose
The purpose of the ethnographic study was to collect data on
the attitudes, beliefs, values, and strategies of participants in the
RA Project. It was theorized that data analysis would reveal funda-
mental, implicit views of reality held by experimenters and trainees,
determining their behavior with respect to the project and provid-
ing a basis from which to interpret their own experience with the
project. It was further postulated that the research team and their
*Chaired by Evan Harris Walker.
** This research was funded by a grant from the Parapsychology
Foundation, New York, NY.
ttPresented in absentia by Marilyn Schlitz.
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700660001-8