Michael Cremo - Human Devolution - A Vedic Alternative To Darwin's Theory

not everyone was convinced. At a lecture on parapsychology at the Royal Institution, which I attended on february 5, 2000, psychologist Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire claimed that his own meta-analysis of the post 1987 ganzfeld studies gave a combined hit rate of 27 percent, which, according to him, does not exceed chance expectation. But he also admitted a subsequent study by one of his coworkers of the most recent studies, 1997–1999, yielded a hit rate of 37 percent. Altogether, it seems that there is a genuine paranormal effect in the ganzfeld experiments.

Modern Research into Psychokinetics

Having considered some of the recent scientific work in remote viewing and telepathy, let us now look at psychokinetics (pk), which according to my proposal involves the action of a subtle mind element on ordinary matter. In the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, prominent scientists reported singular macro-psychokinetic effects such as floating tables. Later researchers have concentrated on reproducible micro-psychokinetic effects.

dice tossing experiments, in which subjects attempt to mentally influence the results, are one example. In 1989, psychologist diane ferrari and dean Radin, then at Princeton, did a meta-analysis of all such experiments in English-language journals up to that time (Radin and ferrari 1991). They found 73 reports, from 52 different investigators, published between the years 1935 and 1987. These reports recorded the results of 2.6 million dice throws by 2,569 subjects in 148 experiments. The reports also recorded control studies, in which the subjects did not try to mentally influence the outcome of the dice throws. The hit rate for the control studies was 50.02 percent, about what would be expected by chance, while the hit rate for the experiments was 51.2 percent. Radin (1997, p. 134) noted: “This does not look like much, but statistically it results in odds against chance of more than a billion to one.”

Radin and ferrari tested their statistical results against various criticisms. Were most of the positive results concentrated in only a few of the many studies? After removing from the database the studies with the most positive results, the remaining studies still indicated a positive result with odds against chance of more than three million to one. Were positive results concentrated in a large number of studies done by a few researchers? Radin and ferrari found that when they removed from their database the researchers who had done the most studies, the remaining results were still positive, with odds against chance of a billion to one. Were the positive results caused by selective reporting? It would have taken 17,974 unpublished studies with negative results to eliminate the positive results. This would amount to 121 unpublished studies for every published study (Radin 1997, 134–135).

One problem recognized by early researchers was the tendency of high numbers, like six, to turn up more often than lower numbers. The face of a die with six on it is made by scooping out six small depressions. This face is therefore lighter than the opposite faces with lower numbers and is more likely to turn up when the dice are thrown. So if the throwers were trying to get sixes, they would be likely to get a result higher than chance, not because of any paranormal mental influence but because of the natural tendency of sixes to come up more than lower numbers. Researchers established experimental protocols to control for this by varying the target numbers in a way that was carefully balanced. Of the 148 studies in the total sample analyzed by Radin and ferrari, 69 were performed with this balanced protocol. They reported that for these studies “there was still highly significant evidence for mind-matter interactions, with odds against chance of greater than a trillion to one” (Radin

1997, p. 137).

In more recent times, random number generator (RnG) tests have replaced dice tossing tests. Random number generators incorporate an element that either emits particles from random radioactive decay or produces random electronic noise. Either of these will produce in the RnG circuitry random surges (spikes) in the signal. These spikes interrupt a special digital clock, which is emitting a stream of alternating ones and zeros (1010101010101 . . .), with the alternations occurring millions of times per second. The RnG circuitry is designed so that the apparatus records the state of the clock (one or zero) at the times the spikes interrupt the stream of alternating ones and zeros. If the spikes are coming randomly at a rate of ten thousand times per second, the RnG will therefore record a random sequence of ten thousand ones and zeros per second (for example, 10001101000111101010. . . .). The modern RnG machines are tamper-resistant and record data automatically. The percentage of ones from an RnG generating a random series of ones and zeros should, over a sufficiently large number of trials, be 50 percent. But when subjects are asked to will more ones than zeros, the percentage climbs to a level beyond what could be expected by chance.

Modern RnG studies began with the work of Helmut Schmidt, a physicist at Boeing Laboratories. Robert Jahn, dean of Princeton’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, initiated his own program of RnG studies, and these studies have continued up to the present at PEAR, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research. In 1987 dean Radin and Roger nelson, a Princeton psychologist, did a meta-analysis of all RnG experiments up to that time. Their report appeared in the prestigious mainstream science journal Foundations of Physics. Examining data from 597 experimental studies, carried out from 1959 to 1987, they found that the overall hit rate was about 51 percent. This might not sound like much, but the odds against this occurring by chance in the number of reported trials was over a trillion to one (Radin and nelson, 1989, p. 140). Was selective reporting responsible for the results? To eliminate the evidence for a psychical effect would require 54,000 unpublished reports, or about ninety unpublished reports with negative results for each published report (Radin and nelson 1989, p. 142). Another set of 1,262 experimental studies from PEAR, carried out from 1989 to 1996, was analyzed by York dobyns, a mathematician at Princeton University. His analysis confirmed the previous studies (dobyns 1996).

Analyzing the whole RnG research program, nelson and Radin (1996) reported: “The primary overall findings, considering all available data, are that (a) nearly 40 years of experiments continue to show small but statistically unequivocal mental interaction effects, (b) the effect has been independently replicated by researchers at dozens of universities around the world, and (c) the effect has been replicated using a new experimental design involving skeptical third-party observers . . . A wide variety of theoretical models have been proposed for the interaction effect, ranging from observer effects in quantum mechanics to precognition.”

Evaluations of modern laboratory Based Psychical Research

Several studies commissioned by various agencies of the United States government have given support to psychical research. A study by the congressional Research Service, published in 1981, said, “Recent experi-ments in remote viewing and other studies in parapsychology suggest that there exists an ‘interconnectedness’ of the human mind with other minds and with matter” (U.S. Library of congress 1983; in Radin

1997, p. 4). A few years later, the Army Research Institute commissioned a report on the status of parapsychology. Published in 1985, the report stated that the data reviewed in the report were “genuine scientific anomalies for which no one has an adequate explanation or set of explanations” (Palmer 1985; in Radin 1997, p. 4).