Conference hydra::dejavu

    As a long-time science fiction reader (I started reading it in 1958 when
    I was seven;  and I'm second generation so there was all this *neat*
    old stuff around the house) I am of course well acquainted with John
    Cambell's interest in Psionics, and his influence on popularizing the
    term.  I had not realized he had coined it.  The history I gave in 85.2
    was based on some conversations I've had with people, so the reliability
    is very open to question.  It gains some credence from the common use of
    the term in translations of Soviet "parapsychology" articles, but the
    usage could have gone in the other direction.

    I think, however, that you are confusing a "discovery" of Cambellian
    Psionics with "the idea behind" it.  The original "Hieronymous machine"
    was not based at all on the substitution of a symbol for the thing.  It
    consisted of an actual circuit which its inventor (I forget who) had
    cobbled together.  (I'm posting a description of the Hieronymous machine
    in the next reply).

    The term Psionics was coined, I think, as a combination of "psi" (i.e.,
    psychology) and "electronics".  That is, the mission of the field was
    to develop a field of engineering, analogous to electronics, which would
    deal with "psychic" forces.  The philosophy behind it seems to have been
    that "mind" is a manifestation of a field, and that that field is a
    special kind of electromagnetic field, or alternately, that it is very
    similar to an EM field.  Electronic instruments should therefore be able
    to interface with it.

    (By the way, although I don't personally feel they are the best
    theories around, I think that field theories of psi are quite reasonable.
    My problem comes about with maintaining strong connections to EM in the
    face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  I also don't think that
    enough is known to try to build on it an engineering discipline, or
    even effectively tinker, at that level.  Imagine someone trying to build
    a radio telescope in, say, the 16'th century).

    The substitution of the schematics for the circuit itself, seems to be
    an outgrowth of one thesis of General Semantics.  General Semantics
    teaches that meaning, and therefore thought, is embodied in arbitrary
    symbols.  Since the circuit operates at the level of the psychological
    plane, where meaning is attached arbitrarily to the symbols, couldn't
    the actuality be eliminated and only the symbols be used?  The "real"
    device would then be "projected" by the symbols into the psychological
    plane where it would operate.

    This did violence to another basic thesis of General Semantics, which
    is: "The map is not the territory", but what matter?  It also did
    violence to the idea that the association of meaning with symbol was not
    only arbitrary, but non-universal.  Who then was interpreting the
    schematic, in order to cause the projection?  If a description of the
    circuit had been written out in, say, Linear-B would it still operate?
    Does the schematic version only work in the presence of someone who
    understands electronic schematic iconography?

    Ultimately, the only coherent resolution for these ideas that I can
    think of is that the machine works completely in the mind of the
    operator: that it is a prop to set up expectations and to provide a
    communication channel for the subconscious.  This is precisely what
    "standard" dowsing seems to do.  So the question becomes, is there
    any advantage to this "high-tech" version over the traditional?
    Furthermore, I haven't heard of anyone doing any experiments with it
    under reasonably "blind" conditions, so I do not see any reason to
    suppose that anything paranormal is taking place: just normal though
    subtle.

    The above discussion is based on memories over 20 years old, so take it
    all with a grain of salt.

    As I said in 85.6, I'm planning to build one (electronic version first).
    Why?  For the same reason one plays the lottery: because its fun to
    fantasize and fun to build on ones fantasy.  It's fun to imagine that
    the machine may demonstrate something completely unexplainable.
    Building and playing with one will help bring those fun imaginings into
    focus.  It is quite likely to provide a good demonstration of some
    interesting psychological effects.  But it must always be kept in mind
    that the chances that there is anything demonstrably paranormal
    operating are vanishingly small.

	    Topher

    The following description is based on some fairly rusty memories.  It
    may be in error in some details, but I believe it to be substantially
    correct.

    Physically the Hieronymous machine consists of:

	o A box, or other housing for the electronics.

	o A sensing antenna, plugged into the box.

	o A knob on the box.

	o A metal plate on the box.

    In operation, a sample of some material is placed by the sensing
    antenna.  The operator slowly turns the knob while rubbing the metal
    plate.  At some point the operator notices a "tactile change" in the
    plate.  It may start to feel "sticky", or "smooth", or "prickly" or
    almost anything else.  The exact effect is different for each operator.
    At the point that the tactile change is felt, the operator stops turning
    the knob.  It is claimed that, for a given operator, the point which the
    knob points to will be:

	o The same every time the sample is made of the same substance.

	o Different when the sample is made of a different substance.

    The box contains either some electronic circuitry which makes no
    traditional sense, or a schematic for the same circuitry.

    There is a fairly recent book by G. Harry Stine (sorry I don't remember
    the title) which contains plans for the Hieronymous machine, among
    other unorthodox gadgets.  He includes circuits for both the
    traditional "tube" version, and a more modern integrated circuit
    version.

	    Topher

    re .1, .2:
    
    I admit my memories, too, are very rusty.  However, a few further
    points.  I stand corrected: it _was_ an actual circuit cobbled together
    first, then reduced to symbology.  However, I don't know what stands
    for a "blind" test, but Campbell reported he got results from peoople
    who had no idea what was in his box, whether real of sketched circuit.
    
    I also recall that the "plate" was plastic in some cases rather
    than metal.  And I have a _vague_ recollection that the prism was
    plastic rather than glass.
    
    Ah, me ... old age doth make sluggards of us all.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    If anybodyy has access to ASTOUNDING/ANALOG magazines of the late
    1950s and early 1960s, please let us know....
    
    -SK
    

    re .3
    
    To establish that the machine was operating parapsychologically rather
    than psychologically, the operator would have to be blind to the
    identity of the sample.  Actually, double blind would normally be
    necessary.

    What this means is that the operator would have to be ignorant of the
    identity of the sample on each trial.  Furthermore, care would have to
    be taken to avoid hints.  The subconscious has an amazing ability to
    pick up little facts in the environment and turn them into accurate
    guesses.  This is why a "double blind" is required:  no one in the room
    should know which sample is being used, people can unconsciously feed
    each other information without either being aware of it.  This is
    sometimes called the "Clever Hans" phenomenon.

    I would want to use some kind of masking odor, and to be careful that
    the time for the sample to be selected is independent of it identity.
    Any patterns to the selection of the sample would also have to be
    avoided, of course.

    After establishing parapsychological operation, we would still have to
    establish that the machine was more than a prop for the operators own
    abilities.  A sufficiently high and/or consistent scoring rate would
    pretty much clinch that.

		Topher

    re .4:
    
    Even better: create _three_ "machines": one with the electronics
    in whatever form, one with the schematic, and a third with only
    the external appearance of the other two (plate, vernier, etc.,)
    but nothing at all inside.  A consistently high score on this third
    "machine" would imply that the detection of whatever's being detected
    is being done independently of the machine, by whatever mechanism.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

RE: .5

    Sounds good.  I would probably do this as two separate experiments,
    though.  The first would establish whether or not the electronic and
    the symbolic versions are equivalent.  The second would establish
    whether or not a blank sheet of paper was equivalent to one with the
    schematic on it.

    This gets us into some of the tricky parts of interpreting
    parapsychological experiments.  If we find a difference in the second
    experiment, how do we know that the operator or experimenter didn't find
    out which condition each trial was by paranormal means  (i.e., by
    clairvoyance, or by effecting the condition randomization with PK)?  How
    do we interpret it if the operator does significantly better with the
    blank sheet?  How do we interpret it if the operator does better with
    the schematic but only because they did well below chance with the blank
    sheet?  How do we interpret it if the operator went as much below chance
    with the blank as he/she went above chance with the schematic?  (Going
    significantly below chance in a parapsychology test is as hard as going
    significantly above chance.  Results such as I described happen all the
    time in parapsychology, so I'm not just raising spurious difficulties).

    Here's one specific to this test.  If the schematic gets the same result
    as the blank sheet, how do we know that the "idea" of the circuit
    isn't as effective as a symbolic representation of the circuit?  To me
    this doesn't seem any more outlandish than that a schematic could act
    in the place of the circuit itself.

    Because of the complexity of interpreting comparisons like this, the
    only really exciting (as opposed to simply interesting) result from one
    or two experiments would be a noticeably larger or more consistent
    result than we get with, say, card experiments.

		Topher

    Re .6:
    
    As you may gather, I'm not to hot on Psionic Machines either, but
    am open-minded enough to let 'em be tested.
    
    To answer your questions, in an experiment with blank paper (the
    placebo psionic machine), if the test subject doesn't know what
    the interior of the "box" is, then one might assume that the "machine"
    is not really necessary to the process other than as a mental prop.
     That would imply that the mechanism involved is "machine independent"
    [:-)] and would probably suggest that Psionic Machines _per se_
    are a dead end.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    Of course, if they work, the reverse would be the case.
    
    -S
    

    For those who are interested in exploring this further [particularly
    if you have lotsa money]:
    
    I've received in the mail a catalog of a whole variety of items,
    titled either "Alp[ha and Beyond" or "Catalogue of the Amazing and
    Unusual."  Whatever its title, it's an item printed on cheap stock
    that sells a variety of items including psdionic machines (from
    plans to kits to assembled devices).  They also sell books.
    
    Their explanation of psionics (which they link to "radionics")
    utilizes information whose technical/scientific content either is
    vague or inaccurate -- or unverifiable. On the basis of the writeup,
    I'd be very wary of the product(s).
    
    On the back, customers have to sign a disclaimer form that says,
    among other things, "I am aware that neither the American Medical
    Association nor the U.S. Food and Drug Admn. has acknowledged any
    proven or established evidence of the healing qualities of any
    radionic/psionic/psychotronic device or of the subliminal effects
    of any FLF or Pacer unit or tape, and that they regard such devices
    as having no known emanation or radiation.  I further understand
    that neither the seller of such items, nor the mfg., offers any
    claims or guarantees regarding the use of, or results obtained from,
    such devices. ...."
    
    Given that, if you're interested, the folk involved are:
    
    Lor'D Indistries Ltd.
    P.O. Box 14511
    West Allis, Wi 53214-0511
    
    _My_ disclaimer:  This is neither an advertisement nor an endorsement
    of this outfit by any means!  However, they seem to have the most
    complete collection of psionic stuff, if you have to. ....

Re: .8
But what do these products do?  Put you into theta or blip when 
your skin temperature goes down?

/chuck

    re .9:  Some are supposed to be diagnostic machines.  Two are said
    to be dowsing machines.  One is billed as a telepathy machine. 
    One is supposed to contact spirits of the dead.  They sell a "Chakra
    charger," whose description sounds suspiciously like the recently
    banned "relaxicizer" muscle stimulator.
    
    That should give an overall picture....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Long ago (sub-teenage, I believe) I read the ANALOG concerning the
    Heironymus machine.  I ordered the U.S. Patent (which I still have,
    somewhere) and built the schematic-based unit.
    	
    Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  
    	
    Of course, this proves nothing.  :-)
    
    Actually, I shouldn't have had to build anything except the tactile
    plate.  The schematic in the patent itself should have been adequate
    for the purpose. :-)
                     

    Do you still have a copy of the schematic?  If so, I'd like to try
    this thing out myself.  You can send it to me through mail to
    
    Andy Infante
    WMO/B16
    
    thanx.
    

    Anybody ever do anything with the above?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.