This unit follows on Human-Machine Interactions. It discusses further experimental uses of the electronic REGs as well as devices that have non-electronic systems as their source of randomness.
The Random Mechanical Cascade, or RMC, is modeled on statistical demonstration devices frequently used in science museums. These devices show how random processes produce Gaussian (bell-shaped) curves and are known as "Galton’s desks" after the scientist who first developed them..
The RMC is basically a pinball machine. Thousands of balls are dropped through an array of pins in order to create a random distribution of balls in a series of bins at the bottom of the machine. The bin-count distribution of the balls creates statistical data that is suitable for counting and for further analysis.
RMC Operations (video)
THE RANDOM MECHANICAL CASCADE - 8 min 25 sec
The protocol for the RMC experiments was very similar to that of the REG experiments. It also used a tri-polar protocol, but instead of higher or lower numbers, the operator in an RMC experiment attempted to get the balls to bounce either to the left or the right. As in the REG experiments, there was a third condition, or baseline, in which the operator did not have any intention.
So here again, in the RMC experiments, intention could be regarded as the primary variable. After the machine had been run with a series of intentions, the statistical difference between runs could be compared to see if the operator's intention had any influence on the relative distribution of the balls in the bins at the bottom of the machine.
RMC Results (video)
In the following video, Robert Jahn discusses the results from RMC experiments.
RMC Results - 10 min 57 sec
As Professor Jahn mentions, one of the primary reasons for doing these RMC experiments was to see if the effect was device-dependent. Did different kinds of random devices respond differently to the operator's intention?
PEAR's RMC results suggest that the device may not matter very much at all. As it turned out, the character of the data produced by the RMC was strikingly similar to that of the REG data, in spite of the difference in the source of randomness, the operator's experience of the task, and the different statistical measures.
The graph below shows the results of over a thousand runs of the RMC in each intentional category.
RMC Results
In this graph we see the same positive shift in the direction of intention in the Right minus Left condition. This shift shows an effect size with about the same order of magnitude at the REG experiments, although the task, the physical randomness, and the unit of measurement are very different from the REG experiments.
Looking closer at the graph above, however, note that the traces are not labeled with run-direction, but rather as a function of the differential logic we discussed earlier. Since this device responded to weather conditions, it did not have a theoretical mean; there was no precisely known "average run" that could be calculated before-hand. So each trace above shows the relative differences between intentional categories rather than comparisons to a theoretical mean.
So looking again at the graph, we see that the Right minus Baseline comparison shows there's very little difference between the baseline and the right-going efforts. The effect seen above occurs predominantly in the left-going efforts.
If you recall, in the prior unit Robert Jahn discussed the unconscious influence that female operators had on REG baseline data. On closer examination of the RMC data, PEAR again found that it was the females who were having an asymmetric influence on the device, with all three efforts producing shifts to the right. The males once again had a smaller - and more symmetrical - influence on the device, generating results in their desired directions.
So not only do these RMC experiments show the same order of effect size as the REG, but they also show a similar gender dependence.
The RMC experiments also corroborated the very strange findings that space and time were not correlated with effect size. The graph below shows those corroborating results.
RMC Remote Results
The database for the remote experiments is somewhat smaller, but still shows a familiar, and statistically significant, separation between the intentional categories.
From the comparison of the effects seen on the RMC device and those seen on the REG devices, there does not seem to be evidence that this consciousness-related effect is dependent on the type of machine, or the source of the randomness, nearly as much as it is dependent upon other factors, such as gender, or series position.
What this suggests is that the effect is not due to a physical influence on the device. As evidenced by the RMC experiments, the operators are not limited to an anomalous micro-electronic influence. Operators appear to be able to do more than shift an electron or two in a diode. They can also influence ball bounces, as well as frictional damping in a pendulum, the movements of a mechanical robot, turbulent water, and other sources of randomness that the PEAR lab explored experimentally.
So how do we begin to explain this influence? If the effect is indiscriminate with regard to the type of machine the operator is using, one suggestion is that the conscious influence is not taking place at the simple level of the physical device. The operators do not have an electronic/magnetic/gravitational/frictional anomalous channel of influence. Rather, the anomalous effect is taking place at the level of the information that is coming out of the system. They are having a conscious influence on the meaning that is coming out of the randomness and somehow are introducing a component of order that reduces the randomness at a very fundamental level.
Field REG
If the physical nature of the random device does not matter, what experiments could be designed to investigate the parameters that do matter?
From the co-operator experiments, the PEAR lab could see that certain groupings of people with shared purpose had an amplified effect on the REG devices. They also saw, in the unintentional baseline data, that non-intentional or non-directed effects could be measured.
The Field REG experiments were designed to explore the effects of subjectively recognized "group resonance" and environmental quality on the REG device, without a stated intention.
The following video gives an introduction to PEAR's Field REG protocols.
Field REG demonstration (video)
Field REG - Protocol Demonstration - 4 min 54 sec
The Field REG experiments, then, did not use a high/baseline/low, statistical protocol. Since there was no operator intention in these experiments, the comparison was between "resonant" environments and "non-resonant" environments. The experimenter simply took the Field REG device to a location or event, and placed marks in the data stream when they sensed that the subjective environmental ambiance had changed.
The data from "resonant" environments could then be compared with data from "non-resonant" or prosaic environments. In the video below Robert Jahn speaks about these experimental results.
Field REG lecture (video)
Field REG - Results - Robert Jahn - 10 min 03 sec
The Field REG experiments showed that REGs did respond to "resonant" activities and environments. During activities such as group meditations or visits to locations with religious or spiritual purposes, the REGs produced data that far exceeded chance expectations.
The data that operators had subjectively marked as "resonant" showed frequent excursions from the chance envelope. The graph below displays the data using a chi-squared measure.
Field REG Results "Resonant"
As we can see above, the Field REG data from "Resonant" applications are significantly beyond the .05 chance probability.
Interestingly, the PEAR lab found that in notably non-resonant environments, such as laborious meetings or other tedious or boring sorts of events (here termed 'prosaic' applications) the opposite result was also in evidence.
Field REG Results "Prosaic"
Here we can see that these data show a chi-square value far less than the chance expectations would dictate. It is as if the random noise in these situations has quieted down, and is hugging the baseline. That is, it is producing less deviation from the theoretical mean than its calibrated randomness dictates that it should.
So here we see not only a positive, enhancing, influence of 'resonance' and subjective 'togetherness,' but also a damping influence of tedium and subjectively dull environments.
Unit Conclusion
In their experiments with devices such as the Random Mechanical Cascade (RMC), which had different sources of randomness than the REG experiments, the PEAR lab not only corroborated that there was a consciousness-related effect, but also that the subjective correlates seemed to apply in very similar ways across experiments and device-types - similar effect sizes, similar time/space independence, similar gender effects. This suggested once again that the influence was not happening at the level of the physical process, but rather at the level of the information, or meaning, that the device was producing.
That is, operators were not limited to a specific 'anomalous' power of some kind, such as control over electrons in a diode, as in the REG experiments, or some kind of micro-kinetic effect in influencing the balls in the cascade. A more appropriate way to view the process is that the operators were influencing the information produced in the experiments. The unit of measurement could be seen as the 'meaning' that resulted from the experiment, rather than the number of changed bits, or the placement of polystyrene balls. Other random systems studied by the PEAR lab also had corresponding informational changes within the context of their own physical measurements.
Since use of a different source of random data did not seem to change the nature of the effect, and it seems that the effect takes place at the level of information, or 'meaning' rather than at the level of a physical force of some kind, what would an experiment look like if the variable being studied were no longer intentional influence but subjective meaning?
The Field REG experiments started out by identifying group togetherness, or 'meaningfulness' in given environments, and sure enough, amplification and damping was present in the Field REG data relative to the subjective ambiance of the situation. Subjective togetherness seemed to enhance the effect, and boredom, or lack of collective engagement, seemed to kill it.
As we continue our investigation of consciousness, we should take heed that these anomalous consciousness-related physical effects do not seem to need specific experimental devices to manifest. And these effects continue to express themselves in the physical world even when we are not directly intending to cause an effect. This suggests that these anomalous influences, while small, are quite pervasive in our interactions with our environments.
Suggested Activity
Take a look at your calendar for the next week. Do you have any group events where there might be a particular emotional 'resonance' (or lack thereof)? When you go to this event, keep a shorthand record of when you subjectively feel a qualitative difference in the ambiance. Use your subjective social sense to track the group 'vibe'. Pay attention to when the feelings of group togetherness occur.
The PEAR lab used a simple binary, 'resonant' vs. 'prosaic' in their experiments, but is this something that you could develop more discrete measures for? Can you parse a 'good party'? When you attend 'prosaic' gatherings, how are your subjective experiences different from when you are in 'resonant' environments? How do you predict which environments will be 'resonant'? What physical influences do you think the 'resonance' is having?
Future research into this phenomenon will require much more detailed analysis of these subjective experiences, the group interactions, and the attendant effects.
Additional Study Materials
Roger Nelson, after retiring from work at the PEAR lab, went on to found the The Global Consciousness Project(cache) (GCP), which is a further exploration of non-intentional conscious influence, similar in some ways to the Field-REG experiments. Data are collected continuously from a global network of 65 random number generators, and the output is then correlated with major global events, such as cultural holidays (like new-year's day), natural events (eclipses, earthquakes), or other newsworthy events (September 11th as a noteworthy example). The cumulative statistical results are shown below:
(cache) (GCP), which is a further exploration of non-intentional conscious influence, similar in some ways to the Field-REG experiments. Data are collected continuously from a global network of 65 random number generators, and the output is then correlated with major global events, such as cultural holidays (like new-year's day), natural events (eclipses, earthquakes), or other newsworthy events (September 11th as a noteworthy example). The cumulative statistical results are shown below:
