MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204878050 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-34.3.297

Could the sheep-goat effect be the manifestation of attentional-phase dependent mind-matter modulation?

2021· article· en· W3204878050 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicParanormal Experiences and Beliefs
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsEvent (particle physics)Dimension (graph theory)Domain (mathematical analysis)Function (biology)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyMathematicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sheep-goat effect of psi cannot be explained without considering mind of specific states. This work speculates mind-matter interaction, as was inferred by many including Erwin Schrödinger, for entertaining an analytically flavored “phenomenological” interpretation of the sheep-goat effect. A fundamental construct of this theory is the operation of mind-matter events in a spatial-temporal-attentional domain, which relaxes to the spatial-temporal domain wherein purely objective events are registered, when the effect of attention vanishes. Attention is quantitated as a nonuniformly interspaced discrete index that depends solely on the number of viable neurons that function in a coherent state for a purpose of the mind. A spatial-attentional “information” domain is assumed to be operable by hinging it with the spatial-temporal “energy” domain along the spatial dimension to form a so-called vivo-dynamic complex. Operations of an event function with respect to the attentional dimension are assigned to assimilate those with respect to the temporal dimension. Domain operators are introduced to specify the domain of temporal or attentional attribution as needed to assess an event and identify the outcome of domain-coupling on the registration of an event. Time-dependent Schrodinger’s equation is then, imperatively, treated as a lower-dimensional case of a higher-dimensional mind-matter-event equation elaborated in the spatial-temporal-attentional complex. The resulted mind-matter-event function defined in the vivo-dynamic complex relaxes to an objective-event function in the spatial-temporal domain at either zeroing of the attention or vanishing of the first-order derivative of the function with respect to the attentional index. The mind-matter-event equation leads to simple traveling-wave-type solutions that are formed by combining the temporal presentation and attentional perception. The auto or cross interaction of the mind-matter event functions then creates “information-energy” coupling terms presumed to be amenable to instrument probing in the spatial-temporal domain as is the objective-event term. The domain-coupling when modulated by the phase difference between the temporal and attentional dimensions is seen to enhance or inhibit the deviation of the event registration in the spatial-temporal domain from its baseline probability. The outcome is thus akin to the sheep-goat effect. The phase-dependency of the event-coupling also elicits why it may be difficult to replicate psi. Such a theoretical manipulation offers novel insights to phenomena that manifest mind-matter interaction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it