Despite the small scale of the observed consciousness-related anomalies, they could be functionally devastating to many types of contemporary information processing systems, especially those relying on random reference signals.. or to any other technical scenarios where the emotions, attitudes, or purposes of human operators may intensify and deepen their interactions with the controlling devices and processes.. As cutting-edge nanotechnology and quantum computing move into even more delicately poised information processors, protection against such consciousness-related interference could become increasingly relevant..
15m trailer for "The Pear Proposition" DVD review of the project that ran from 1979 to 2007. It was founded by professor Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University, https://player.vimeo.com/video/4359545
"PEAR conducted formal studies on two primary subject areas, psychokinesis (PK) and remote viewing"
...
"PEAR's results have been criticized for deficient reproducibility.[16] In one instance two German organizations failed to reproduce PEAR's results, while PEAR similarly failed to reproduce their own results.[13] An attempt by York University's Stan Jeffers also failed to replicate PEAR's results.[9]"
I think articles like the OP destroy the meaning of words like rigor. If the work was even remotely reproducible we'd see a gold rush that puts AI to shame.
This is parapsychology, not anomalies research.
https://pearlab.icrl.org/implications.html
15m trailer for "The Pear Proposition" DVD review of the project that ran from 1979 to 2007. It was founded by professor Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University, https://player.vimeo.com/video/4359545Reminds me of the Global Consciousness Project:
https://noosphere.princeton.edu/gcpdot/
The two key snippets from Wikipedia:
"PEAR conducted formal studies on two primary subject areas, psychokinesis (PK) and remote viewing" ... "PEAR's results have been criticized for deficient reproducibility.[16] In one instance two German organizations failed to reproduce PEAR's results, while PEAR similarly failed to reproduce their own results.[13] An attempt by York University's Stan Jeffers also failed to replicate PEAR's results.[9]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalie...
I think articles like the OP destroy the meaning of words like rigor. If the work was even remotely reproducible we'd see a gold rush that puts AI to shame.