At 07:15 AM 5/24/2005, you wrote:

Richard M writes## Advertising

> I remember Plaga's original post on the Los Alamos > archives way back when the server there was a 386. > Most of the methods I've seen--Plaga's, Fred Alan > Wolf's, and others involve tweaking the mortar, so > to speak---prying apart the wallboard to obtain > evidence of the next room over. > Since all I'm interested in is whether behavior systems > incorporate knowledge of clearly defined probabilities > that may exist in the next lane over (so to speak)--I > would like to make a modest proposal--- > Assemble a hundred college students...in a double-blind > experiment to determine their awareness of occult but > clearly defined probabilities. > Here's how: set up a random number generator that will > return a value on a screen--say 1 through 50 (or whatever > object set you'd like). Tell the students it's a random > number generator that will return a perfectly random > result, and you'd like to see how good they are at > guessing a value just before it appears. Pay the > student a nominal sum each time she gets the value > correct. Debit the student a small amount each time > she gets it incorrect--so they'll have something > invested in the outcome. How, essentially, does this differ from the casino game of roulette?

`Because we don't have a finite set of probabilities to compare the`

`responses against. Hypothetical: We watch a roulette player at Monte`

`Carlo. Then, we reach down into our case and bring out our QM probability`

`viewer and switch it on. Now, in addition to the central scene, we see ten`

`versions of the same player (and roulette) each differing only in`

`probability from the original. As a result, each scene shows a different`

`number winning. Luckily, we have the newest model QM viewer, so with each`

`version a number flashes on the screen that shows the probability of this`

`win being the one we saw originally. Of the ten, some would likely have a`

`lower probability of occurring and some would have a higher probability.`

`Since we have no QM viewer, we have to stack the deck (so to speak) and`

`limit the number of probabilities per run to a set quantity. Of course, it`

`could be fairly argued that MW is far more resilient and pervasive and that`

`some version of us (or the machine) would choose different values and`

`sets--thus muddling the results. But on the off-chance that MW is somewhat`

`more stable, I think we may see subjects that can accurately assess hidden`

`probabilities. As before, if it is found that we routinely sample`

`"probability space" this might involve brain processes that developed`

`through evolution---but would also suggest that consciousness exists as an`

`object in probability space. Hilgard's experiments can be interpreted to`

`suggest that. His book, incidentally, is "Divided Consciousness" by Wiley`

`Interscience. reprinted in '88, I believe.`

As for the latter, roulette has been played so very much that by now there would have been almost enough time to evolve people who were good at it.

`And there are people who are good at it. Everyone calls them "lucky" which`

`really doesn't explain much. Some of us routinely choose the wrong queue,`

`others get the correct one (queuing theory and probability offer good`

`explanations for this sort of thing, but other factors may simply involve`

`an ability to sample alternate worlds.`

Richard