Reply to comment

I recently read an article from the New York Times titled “A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close its Doors”.  The main focus of the article was the controversy that surrounded the lab and whether the study of ESP was “hard science”.  However what really piqued my curiosity in the article was a description of a routine experiment performed by the scientists in the lab.  After looking at an electric box that projected a random series of numbers just above and below 100, the person was asked to either think of high numbers or low numbers and continue looking at the box.  The scientists would then look for a correlation between the numbers being shown and what the person was told to think about.  Taking into consideration chance, the researchers found that 2 or 3 times out of 10,000 each person was able to change the outcome of the machine, implying that they were able to somehow communicate with the machine. 

I find it highly unlikely that humans are able to communicate with a machine in this capacity.  Just 2 or 3 times out of 10,000 doesn’t really convince me that the subjects were communicating with the machine.  How do we know that those 2 or 3 times can’t be attributed to chance or experimental error?  On the other hand, how do we know they aren’t attributed to chance?  If it isn’t chance, then maybe the people were communicating with the machine. 

The researchers suggested that these findings implied that it is also possible for people to control other aspects of their lives such as being able to cure disease in oneself and others.  This part of the research makes more sense to me.  As mentioned by Dmckeever people can experience different levels of pain from the same procedure.  To what extent can a positive attitude or “mind over matter” mentality change our perceptions of our experiences?  If we are able to control our own experiences and behaviors, are we able to influence others’ as well?