Purpose of the RPK Experiment

(Updated May 22, 2013)
The blog posts below are a running account of an experiment that began on August 14, 1965. It has taken this long to get it this simple and for technology to be available.

The present design is a descendant of the 1980s "PK Party" (spoon bending) developed by Jack Houck. Its purpose is to experience and explain the phenomenon of remote psychokinesis and to understand its uncertainties.

We are attempting to produce an NCR (non-consensus reality) event in a CR (consensus reality) frame of reference in order to learn how to apply what physicist/psychologist Arnold Mindell calls The Edge between Physics and Psychology in his seminal work Quantum Mind, published in 2000. We believe that this process will lead us to a more mature understanding of our physical and psychological capabilities, which will in turn help us develop deeper social responsibility for our planet in terms of raising our individual and collective awareness. We believe that this will help transform societal attitudes from ideological needs to subdue, dominate or control each other or other beings of all kinds (animate and inanimate). We believe that this can happen only by partnering and supporting each other in raising our mutual awareness in creative ways.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

New RPK/BFT Protocol

Posted: 21 December 2011; Updated: 20 February 2012

Painting of Jungian analysis dream 

RPK/BFT setup (May 2011)

Now that we have enough data to evaluate the BFT (biofeedback technology) system from a cooperative viewer whom I call A.T., it became clear that the recording mechanism was not behaving as expected when a single viewer gets on-line multiple times. Below are data recorded from A.T. over the first 8 days of successive trial viewings.

              RPK/BFT account of viewing sessions:
A          B                  C                      D                 E
(#)    (h:m:s)         (Date)        (time at end)    (viewing time)
 1     00:12:24    12/15/2011 @ 11:38:29 AM   12:24 m
 2     00:10:22    12/16/2011 @ 11:40:56 AM   10:22 m
 3     23:30:48    12/17/2011 @ 11:01:21 AM  (approx 1 d later)*  [1]  viewing time = 10:23 m?]
 4     47:54:34    12/18/2011 @ 11:25:06 AM  (approx 2 d later)*
 5     71:38:28    12/19/2011 @ 11:08:59 AM  (approx 3 d later)*
 6     97:13:27    12/20/2011 @ 12:43:57 PM  (approx 4 d later)*

                             Revised Protocol
  7   00:09:42    12/21/2011 @ 12:35:01 PM    9:42 m
  8   00:12:47    12/22/2011 @ 12:04:30 PM  12:47 m
  9   20:53:22    12/23/2011 @ 08:45:03 AM*
 10  00:09:34    12/23/2011 @ 11:31:44 AM    9:34 m

*actual viewing time undetermined
converting times to hours in decimals
[1] 34:60:81 - 11:40:56 = 23:20:25; 23:30:48 - 23:20:25 = 10:23

The unexpected power outage after the first viewing allowed me to realize that each viewing period must be a stand-alone event with a unique ID in order to circumvent the unexplained cumulative time period (h:m:s) anomaly evidenced in day 3-6 above.

Viewer A.T. has agreed to try again with a different ID for each new viewing.

Good luck A.T.!!

On Dec 21, 2011 8:44 PM  A.T. said:
[I am] happy but... [don't] twist or twirl anything, when red and I fall in love with each other, we only dance"
At 10:19 PM
Eugene said...
It will be interesting to see what the "dance" will look like.

22 December 2011:

A.T.'s first two new viewings (#7 and #8) successfully give an accurate account of viewing time.

23 Dec 2011, 10:10 AM

Oh, oh! Something unexpected has happened! Day 9 registers thus:

9 20:53:22 12/23/2011 @ 00:45:03, which means A.T. has used the same ID as for the #8 viewing.

On 23 Dec 2011, 8:44 AM
A.T. said..."I just tried to connect BFT with my new one, but it didnt work, I connected it by my previous identity..your system needs a log out too."
Yes, I may have entered the ID/PW for Code-3 incorrectly. I have now re-entered and added A.T.'s stand-alone ID/PW codes through Code-12, which corresponds to viewing #18, should that many viewings be needed.

[See comments]

Friday, December 16, 2011

A.T.'s dance in the face of Fear

Event: Friday, 16 December 2011; Updated: 20 February 2012

Someone on the other side of the world has accepted the challenge to attempt to move the red object hanging in the RPK chamber and identified him/herself  in the previous RPK post.

I'm intrigued by A.T.'s use of the dance metaphor in applying Joseph Dillard's 9/19/2009 suggestion for affecting the hanging objects. To quote A.T.'s 12/15/2011 comment:
A.T.  said...

Eugene, The red object and I were introduced to each other for 10 minutes today. I intend to meet it for 10 minutes daily to make it satisfied we can be friends, when it trusts me it will dance for me someday.
I wish you were beside the TV when it wants to dance for me. Your presence is a psychological excuse for this kinesis.

The RPK equipment recorded:

(h:m:s)            (Date)      (time at end)
0:12:24      12/15/2011 @ 11:38:29
0:10:22      12/16/2011 @ 11:40:56
23:30:48    12/17/2011 @ 11:01:21
47:54:34    12/18/2011 @ 11:25:06
71:38:28    12/19/2011 @ 11:08:59
97:13:27    12/20/2011 @ 12:43:57

The first column is "Time spent" in terms of hours:minutes:seconds; the second column is "Last Connected" in terms of date and Los Alamos time at the end of viewing session.

[Note: after A.T.'s first viewing on 12/15 the system suffered a power outage and lost his/her first view data. Fortunately, I had recorded that first line in my RPK log book. This accounts for why the "time spent" factor in the second viewing begins again from time "0". Those data were lost and I can't yet account for the hours in the "time spent" factor in the third and fourth viewings on 12/17 and 12/18. So, I'm not confident of those numbers. However, it looks like the second column is recording OK.]

I will maintain an updated account of A.T.'s viewings.

Here is a proposed protocol for accepting A.T.'s request of my "presence" when the object "wants to dance" with or for A.T.

1. At a prearranged date and time (say 11:30 AM Los Alamos time) Eugene will position himself in front of the RPK system such that the webcam in the ceiling will show him. (A.T. will be able to view this.)

2. Eugene will then slowly point to:
a) white birch box (containing the RPK objects and surveillance cameras)
b) monitor for two surveillance cameras and ceiling webcam (showing three different views simultaneously)
c) stand alone PC plus monitor with Internet video of step (b)

A.T., is this protocol (which now feels impersonal, strange and awkward! Fear seems to be creeping in...) understandable and acceptable to you? If so, we need to agree on a date to apply it.

If you have suggestions for improving this protocol, please feel free to offer them. This applies to anyone else who may be accessing these posts. I will invite one or two others to offer comments for the sake of balance.

On Saturday 12/17/2011 1:37 AM, Joseph Dillard emailed me:
Dear Eugene,
 This makes sense to me. And I think you taking up [A.T.'s] invitation to be a part of this is important to improving the context for a successful outcome. Keep me posted.
However, before I could update this blog to include Joseph Dillard's above email comment, A.T. commented on the blog,
A.T. said...
[A.T.] has no fear anymore!!
You know I am an expert dancer even with the stars, so please Wait for the red object and I to become good friends. It takes time!
I will let you know the appropriate time.
Dont you want to meditate with me for the progress?
Everything is in God's hands.
December 17, 2011 3:25 AM 
To which I replied and inadvertently deleted, thinking I could restore the blog's order of events:
It seems to me that a good place to meditate is to review the purpose for this experiment. That is contained first in a long-ago essay called "The Case for Sir Isaac", which I will refer to in the updated version of this blog as we go along. It is also mentioned more recently in the header statement of this blog. That statement is subject to change as our understanding of what we are doing becomes clearer and more defined. 
And yes, "Everything is in God's hands." It always has been and will always be. We don't have to tell Him how to do His job. Rather, we need to learn how better to do ours. Would you not agree? I believe this experiment is one way for us to learn....
Since this inadvertent communication glitch (my deletion goof!), Love has sent other comments in reply to the above, which I found confusing and which I delayed publishing until now. This is where I need help from colleagues to help us all (me, at least) to keep perspective and balance.

12/17/2011  5:00 PM. 
After reflecting on my reaction to [A.T.'s] newest comments, I realized that I allowed this discussion to slip into the boundary or territory between science and religion, rather than between physics and psychology. That is, between consensus reality (CR) and non-consensus reality (NCR) in Arnold Mindell's terms. (See blog header "The Purpose of the RPK Experiment", third paragraph). Arnold Mindell's seminal Quantum Mind: The Edge Between Physics and Psychology explores the same territory, but to include religious language takes the project out of science, where physics and psychology (including medicine and psychotherapy) are both sciences.

It is very important to this discussion and experiment not be hijacked by religious rhetoric, jargon or ideology, which is why I realized that I reacted to [A.T.'s] comments. Let's keep it in the realm of science, which includes both the "hard" and "soft" sciences. Is is also important to state that this experiment is pro-science, not anti-religion. I feel confident that since A.T. is a professional cardiologist [with] a scientific background and can relate to this caution. I need [A.T.'s] assurance that this is so.

12/18/2011  [A.T.] has assured me "that this is so"....

[A.T.] said...
Dont worry! Eugene, because I want to reasure that" this is so"...lol.
Let's leave punctuality {for God...lol} and Have fun with this experiment and our beautiful time!! Don't you want to dance with love?
Do You know what the edge between physics (hard science) and psychology (soft science) is?
The harmonic wave of love, rather than force, fills this edge SURELY. Can you guess who has created this wave?..{smiling}..oh It seems I am melted in the red object.
December 18, 2011 11:28 PM 

12/19/2011 08:20
Very funny!  Now that we have this "assurance", let's focus on the experiment itself. I just looked at the setup and see that "Red" is not melted (that would be a disaster!!), but hanging quietly where it has been, ever since I changed its spring for a string.

Here is a suggestion for a change in protocol. Since you have been finishing your daily viewing sessions consistently between 11:00 and 11:45 A.M. Los Alamos time, I want to get into the act at a precise time to validate the experiment for others.

At precisely 11:00 A.M. beginning today (12/19) I will stand near the BFT set up in the field of view visible in the PC monitor. I will stand there for at least a full minute turning around, waving my arms, etc. Maybe even do a dance for, toward and about Red! This will begin a new post. Whoever is following this blog, please tell me if you can see me well enough.

[A.T.] said...
OK, I am there ,,but it makes me laugh more than concentration!! would you prefer Salsa or Chacha dance? You are so lovely ( Hard )scientist..lol
Eugene said...
[A.T.], this is serious business (Ha!Ha!Ha!) and get ready for the old, crazy, hard-scientist pointing dance! Coming up in a little over 10 minutes from now.
[A.T.] said...
I saw you and your hands. This act wishes any boring experience from the experiment because "your hands are the warm flesh with the bone"..You walked on the edge between physics and psychology !!
Eugene said...
(Trying again correcting a typo) Great! Did you mean that "this act eliminates any boring experience..."? Now, can you coax Red to move? Can you climb on it like it was a child's swing? Or get inside it like it was a puppet? Or twist it? Or twirl it? Or what?!

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Changing from springs to strings

December 3, 2011. ~10:00 PM

We have changed from stainless steel springs to nylon strings.

Since getting the biofeedback system [BFT] on line last year, we have experienced an artifact in recording  the movement in the hanging stainless steel disks. Up to now these disks have hung on tiny stainless steel springs so that vertical displacement movements can be recorded. But this has become a problem since strong vibrations in the room (like jumping on the floor) can make the disks oscillate up and down and trigger the motion detection cameras. But there are other times the cameras are triggered (by both disks being affected) which we cannot explain.

If only one disk were to move without affecting the other, that would be news! But that hasn't happened yet, since beginning this experiment.

So, we have removed the springs and replaced them with strings to see if this removes an unexplained artifact trigger motion.