by I recently built a simple fish tank simulation to explore the relationship between an initial condition and a future event.
In each trial, a group of animated fish randomly assumes one of three behaviors:
- Swim toward the top of the tank
- Gather in the upper-left hiding area
- Continue swimming normally
After a three-second anticipation period, the computer independently selects one of three events:
- Food appears
- A shark enters the tank
- Nothing happens
A trial is considered “aligned” when the fish behavior matches the future event:
- Fish move to the top, followed by food
- Fish hide, followed by the shark
- Fish do nothing, followed by nothing
Because there are three possible fish behaviors and three possible events, the expected alignment rate is 33.3 percent.
An Interesting Run
In one session, the simulation completed 100 trials using a pseudorandom number generator, or PRNG.
The results were:
- 43 aligned trials out of 100
- Expected number by chance: approximately 33
- One-tailed binomial probability: p = .0276
The run also contained nine consecutive aligned trials.
This was an unusually successful session. However, one session is not enough to establish that anything anomalous occurred. If enough experiments are conducted, some will produce unusual outcomes through ordinary statistical variation.
Still, the use of a PRNG raises an interesting theoretical question.
If the outcomes were produced by a deterministic algorithm, how could psi be involved at all?
One possible answer comes from Decision Augmentation Theory.
What Is Decision Augmentation Theory?
Decision Augmentation Theory, or DAT, was developed by Edwin May, Jessica Utts, and James Spottiswoode as an alternative explanation for some apparent psychokinesis results.
In a traditional psychokinesis interpretation, a person somehow influences a physical random system. The random number generator produces more of the intended outcome because consciousness has acted upon it.
DAT proposes something different.
Instead of changing the random system, a person may use anomalous information to make an advantageous decision. The person does not force the system to produce a favorable result. They intuitively select a favorable opportunity that already exists.
An earlier name for this idea was Intuitive Data Sorting.
Imagine that a random process contains both favorable and unfavorable periods. A person might unknowingly begin an experiment during a favorable period, stop at an advantageous point, select a particularly successful run, or choose one option from several possibilities. The final data could look like psychokinesis even though the random process itself was never altered.
In this model, psi functions as information rather than force.
Why a PRNG Matters
A PRNG produces a sequence from an initial seed. Once the seed is established, the sequence is mathematically determined.
That does not eliminate DAT as a possible interpretation. In some ways, it makes DAT more relevant.
If the sequence is already fixed, there is no need to imagine that consciousness physically changed the numbers. The potentially meaningful factor becomes the relationship between the observer’s decisions and the sequence selected for observation.
In the fish simulation, possible decision points include:
- Creating a new session
- Deciding when to conduct the experiment
- Pressing the Start button
- Pausing or continuing the run
- Saving and examining a particular session
The successful sequence may simply have occurred by chance. Another possibility, consistent with DAT, is that the decision to conduct or preserve this particular session was somehow informed by its future result.
The current simulation cannot distinguish between those explanations.
What the Result Does and Does Not Suggest
This session does not prove Decision Augmentation Theory. It was not specifically designed as a DAT experiment, and the interesting features were identified after examining the results.
It also does not provide evidence that the simulated fish anticipated anything. Both the fish behavior and the later event were computer-generated.
What the run does provide is a useful demonstration of the interpretive problem surrounding apparent mind-machine effects.
When an unusual result appears, we can ask at least two different questions:
- Did consciousness influence the random process?
- Did consciousness help select an unusually favorable part of an otherwise ordinary process?
DAT directs our attention toward the second possibility.
This distinction is important because an apparent psi effect may not reside inside the random number generator. It may reside in the larger relationship among the observer, the decision, the experimental context, and the eventual outcome.
Where to Go from Here
A meaningful evaluation will require many complete sessions, including unsuccessful ones. Every run should be retained, the number of trials should be established in advance, and the analysis plan should be specified before looking at the results.
A future DAT-specific version could also generate several hidden PRNG sequences in advance and ask a participant to select one intuitively. The selected sequence could then be compared with all the unselected sequences. That would provide a more direct test of whether people can select favorable data without altering it.
For now, the 43-percent session is best treated as an intriguing observation.
It raises a worthwhile question: When an apparently meaningful pattern emerges from a deterministic system, are we influencing the machine, selecting the right moment, or simply encountering one of the unusual sequences that chance occasionally produces?
That question is precisely what makes Decision Augmentation Theory so interesting.
