reviews | originals in Russian

REVIEW
of the monograph:

Physical Effects of Consciousness: The Law of Reproducibility

by Binhi V.N.
published by Infra-M in Moscow in 2021, – 559 p., DOI 10.12737/1555683

The book under review holds significant interest from both scientific and philosophical perspectives, as it delves into the realm of poorly reproducible phenomena. The author undertakes a meticulous and comprehensive conceptual analysis of the various crucial concepts that relate to this subject matter. Particularly noteworthy is the exploration of the profound connection between consciousness and the physical reality, often referred to as paranormal events, which have traditionally been associated with a context that falls outside the realm of science. The author’s merit lies in his balanced approach towards the “paranormal” phenomena. On one hand, he refrains from outright denial of their existence. On the other hand, he endeavors to explore avenues for their scientific elucidation. The author posits and addresses these issues based on the definition that

“the paranormal represents a distinct form of connection between the mental and the physical—a connection that exists alongside the link mediated by the brain as a physical entity” (p. 118).

The book encompasses a plethora of intriguing scientific discussions that pertain to the comprehension of elusive and multifaceted phenomena. However, it is crucial to recognize that an excessive focus on this facet may divert attention from the author’s principal achievement. The true essence of the book lies in its transformative understanding of the intricate relationship between science and non-science, as well as the interplay between events of consciousness and events of physical reality. Within the text, there exists an intangible yet captivating illumination of truth, not yet mastered, but already working in the semantic context of scientific discourse. As an example, I will give the author’s evaluation of panpsychism in light of the scientific meanings it contains,

“The allure of panpsychism stems from its departure from the traditional Cartesian framework, which posits two independent entities with an inexplicable interaction. Instead, panpsychism endows matter with the fundamental property of psychism.” (p. 103).

The first part of the above statement presents a precisely formulated heuristic approach. Undoubtedly, it is arduous to contest the aspiration to eliminate the principle of “division into two independent entities with inexplicable interaction.” Nonetheless, there exists another facet of the matter not entirely explicable through contemporary scientific means. The fact is that the panpsychism approach postulates a connection of incongruous elements without providing a genuine explication for the unity of the mental and the physical. However, if we implement the heuristic expressed in the first part of the statement, we will be able to find a novel, as-yet-unidentified fundamental basis, which has manifestations in the form of both the physical and the mental connections. At the same time, this basis is not necessarily constrained to interpretation in terms of the physical or the mental. Furthermore, it raises the question of whether this foundational basis would pertain to the types of entities that contemporary scientific thought encompasses. In this context, the author’s introduction of the unconventional (and partially inexplicable) term “psi” can be comprehended as an endeavor to somehow articulate the unity being investigated,

“Psi is a conjunction of two correlated events—physical and mental” (p. 224).

Some of the author’s propositions may appear controversial from a traditional standpoint. However, the crux lies not in the content itself, but rather in the terminology employed. When scientific inquiry delves into the realm of paranormal phenomena, it ventures into a domain that has not yet been fully identified as reality, yet evidently demonstrates its efficacy. The question at hand is how to articulate this efficacy, which possesses a character distinct from that described in physical theories. Imposing artificial rigidity in formulations can only obscure the essence of the matter when we confront partially understood phenomena. In this context, it is pertinent to recall Bohr’s style of thinking, “Einstein said, 'Let us establish a solid foundation by identifying the aspects of your ideas that align with my perspective. Based on this foundation, we could proceed with logical reasoning.' Bohr replied, 'I believe that firmly establishing anything in this new realm, where everything remains unclear, would be a betrayal of the scientific process'”¹. A similar stance was expressed by Husserl, who remarked, “It is an error and basically absurd to apply extrinsic and formal criteria of a logic of terminology to scientific expositions which are just emerging and to demand terminologies of the sort which fix the concluding results of great scientific developments at the beginning”². It is important to mention these statements of Bohr and Husserl because V.N. Binhi’s book reveals to us a problematic area where the conceptual framework of science approaches the limits of its applicability. V.N. Binhi’s merit lies not only in recognizing this fact but also in the pursuit of scientifically elucidating the nature of these boundaries and exploring the possibility of transcending them.
______________________
[1] Feinberg E.L. Scientific creativity of Niels Bohr // In: B.G. Kuznetsov (ed.) Development of modern physics. – M.: Nauka, 1964. – p. 54.
[2] Husserl E. Ideas for pure phenomenology and phenomenological philosophy // V. 1, M.: House of Intellectual Books, 1999. – p. 186.

A prominent theme explored in the book revolves around the challenge of reproducibility. Traditionally, phenomena that cannot be reproduced are regarded as scientifically unreal, as they defy description through conventional scientific methods. However, the author rightly highlights the limitations of imposing objectivity as the sole criterion for all events. In this context, it is worth recalling the insights of twentieth-century non-classical philosophy. As Heidegger noted, “Science, oriented toward calculability, aims at univocity… Natural science does not ask whether the ‘univocal’ concept still corresponds to the subject matter”³. Consequently, it becomes evident that a person, who opposes himself to being conceived in the framework of objectification, often endeavor “to release the beingness of beings into an all too loudly bruited 'objectivity'”⁴.
______________________
[3] Heidegger M. Zollikon Seminars // Vilnius: European Humanities University, 2012. – p. 204.
[4] Heidegger M. Letter on Humanism // In: Heidegger M. Time and Being. Articles and speeches. – M.: Respublika, 1993. – p. 202.

In this context, the perspective put forth by V.N. Binhi, which introduces the notion of relative objectivity within the realm of scientific analysis, garners attention. The author asserts,

“reproducibility serves as a gauge of relative objectivity. The irreproducibility of something does not imply it is unreal, does not exist, but rather suggests that it exists unobjectively, such as subjective qualia, for example. Furthermore, absolute reproducibility is applicable to the objective domain, which extends beyond the physical realm... Both physical and non-physical entities can exhibit both absolute and relative objectivity” (p. 184).

An immediate question arises here: Can the level of paranormality be qualified within the framework of science? At first glance, it appears to be fundamentally impossible, even if we acknowledge the existence of paranormal phenomena, which, by their very nature, defy reproduction. After all, irreproducible (poorly reproducible) phenomena present themselves as a “reality... with highly... inconvenient characteristics for research” (p. 17).

It is commonly held that this particular attribute places the investigation of such phenomena outside the realm of science. However, the author puts forward an intriguing proposition. Even if we cannot scientifically reconstruct irreproducible phenomena, the degree of irreproducibility can be clearly quantified. V.N. Binhi accomplished the accurate characterization of paranormal effects by employing an approach that bears some resemblance to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. In this context, the role of non-commuting operators is assumed by the magnitude of the effect and the parameter of its reproducibility. As a result, the author succeeded in identifying

“... a universal correlation law stating that the reproducibility of the physical effects of consciousness is inversely proportional to their relative magnitude” (p. 8).

In order to prevent any potential misunderstandings, it is crucial to reiterate the distinctive feature of the peer-reviewed study, as previously highlighted. When it comes to phenomena commonly referred to as paranormal, some readers may harbor concerns that they are delving into esoteric or unscientific speculation. However, the work of V.N. Binhi is infinitely distant from such matters. The author conducts a meticulous scientific analysis, exploring approaches that are suitable for examining phenomena that typically lie beyond the purview of scientific inquiry. A notable instance is the author’s comprehensive analysis of the implementation of the international Internet project, the “Global Consciousness Project” (see pp. 406–412). In general, it is worth noting that the topic chosen by the author may appear exotic solely to those who confine their attention to conventional scientific disciplines, thereby overlooking new emergent areas of inquiry. Some of the ideas elucidated in the 2021 book are already finding scientific and philosophical validation. In this regard, I would like to cite the philosophical article by V.A. Bazhanov (2022), who astutely observed that, in a certain sense, “in sciences dealing with the real world, the inaccuracy—and consequently, the tendency towards limited reproducibility—is determined ontologically”⁵.
______________________
[5] Bazhanov V.A. The phenomenon of reproducibility in the focus of epistemology and philosophy of science // Voprosy Filosofii (Questions of Philosophy). – 2022. – No. 5. – p. 33.

V.N. Binhi’s comprehensive analysis encompasses almost all subjects of paranormality (with the exception of astrology, which the author did not commented in detail, providing just a brief criticism). Therefore, an evaluation of the entirety of Binhi’s analysis would necessitate a substantial expansion of the review. Nevertheless, a resolute conclusion can already be drawn from what has been said.

The monograph authored by V.N. Binhi shows a high standard of scientific, philosophical, and methodological rigor. Within the author’s discourse, a number of approaches are presented that possess the potential to serve as a heuristic foundation for the scientific and philosophical-methodological understanding of yet unexplained phenomena. The content of the monograph is not only presented conceptually but also with clarity and precision, making it a work that is likely to captivate a diverse readership, including both natural scientists and philosophers.

Thus, the monograph by V.N. Binhi certainly deserves publication.

Sergei N. Zharov

PhD, D.Sc. in Philosophy
Associate Professor
Department of Ontology and Theory of Knowledge
Faculty of Philosophy and Psychology
Voronezh State University

August 22, 2023

Review

of the monograph by V.N. Binhi
“Psychokinesis. The Law of Reproducibility”

   The new monograph authored by Vladimir Nikolaevich Binhi represents an extended continuation of the research that was previously published as a dedicated chapter within the book titled “Principles of Electromagnetic Biophysics,” released by the publishing house FizMatLit in 2002. This scholarly investigation is devoted to the discovery and comprehensive substantiation of a fundamental pattern that imposes limitations on the observable properties of the physical effects of consciousness.
   In scholarly discourse, this study gathers substantial empirical evidence pertaining to the relative magnitude and reproducibility of alterations induced by diverse factors across various domains of practical endeavors, including scientific inquiry. It emerges that these characteristics of the alterations are not entirely detached from each other in the physical effects of consciousness but are rather interconnected through a specific inequality. These effects are either of low probability or of minor magnitude.
   The author presents the findings derived from an analysis encompassing several hundred experiments on the influence of consciousness on random number generators. Through a compelling exposition, it is convincingly demonstrated that the effects of psychokinesis do not contradict scientific data.
   The influence of an individual’s mental intentions on physical systems is bound by limitations dictated by the law, extending beyond the realm of physics and delving into the domain of metaphysics. Consequently, the author embarked on an analysis of theories and philosophical frameworks, examining those that align with this law and those that diverge from it.
   The scientific index proposed by the author exhibits promise, as it enables rapid assessment of the practical utility inherent in a range of human activities.
   The monograph, while occasionally presenting information in a succinct manner that assumes a level of expertise from the reader, undoubtedly holds significant appeal for a broad audience. This is particularly true for scientists, as it exemplifies the application of the scientific method in a seemingly incongruous domain. Notably, the author strives for neutrality and allows readers to determine the most plausible worldview, offering valuable insights encompassing physical, methodological, and philosophical aspects. As a result, skeptics will also discover a multitude of intriguing facts and contemplations within the monograph.

V.B. Akopyan
Ph.D., D.Sc. in Biology, Professor
Department BMT 2, Bauman Moscow State Technical University
105005, Moscow, 2nd Baumanskaya St., 5
tel: +7 903 506 0633, E-mail: akopyan1941@mail.ru

Review of the book by V.N. Binhi
“Psychokinesis. The Law of Reproducibility”

The reviewed monograph by V.N. Binhi is truly unique. It delves deeply into analyzing phenomena that are difficult to reproduce, including paranormal events where the state of the object being studied depends on the cognitive activity of the subject. This monograph, a significant work in the realm of worldview, was penned by a widely known theoretical physicist in the field of magnetobiology. In the initial three chapters, the author provides clear definitions of the main philosophical categories and concepts used in the analyzed problem. He also describes the paradoxes of quantum mechanics and the diverse attitudes of renowned physicists towards them. Furthermore, the author critically analyzes many concepts pertaining to the relationship between consciousness and the physical body. It is convincingly demonstrated which concepts can and which, in principle, cannot consider paranormal phenomena associated with the mutual influence of consciousness and the material world. Additionally, the author highlights irreconcilable points of view that underscore the unresolved problem of consciousness. The book also illustrates that many definitions related to paranormal effects are far from unambiguous and vary across various philosophical systems. The text considers the potential involvement of consciousness in physical processes from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Finally, it discusses the disparities between the real and quantum worlds.

Lobyshev V.I.
D.Sc. in Physics and Mathematics
Professor, Faculty of Physics
Lomonosov Moscow State University

Review

of the book “Psychokinesis: The Law of Reproducibility” by V.N. Binhi

This monograph appears to be the first attempt to comprehensively analyze psychokinesis from both a physics and philosophy perspective. Until recently, the prevailing belief was that the influence of thought on physical processes was impossible and lay entirely beyond the realm of science. However, as demonstrated in the monograph, research in recent decades indicates the potential reality of psychokinesis, at least at the level of small-scale effects. The correlations, though not universal, between people’s intentions and observable physical events necessitate thorough investigation. These effects do not align with traditional natural science concepts and thus hold the promise of new paradigms.
   The author of the book, V.N. Binhi, D.Sc. in physics and mathematics, is a globally acclaimed authority in the field of theoretical magnetobiology, a discipline focused on investigating the impact of weak magnetic fields on organisms. Magnetobiological effects exhibit a notably diminished reproducibility, — a characteristic shared with effects observed in other cutting-edge scientific domains, particularly in the physical manifestations of consciousness. This resemblance formed the foundation for examining the reproducibility of psychokinetic effects. V.N. Binhi was able to demonstrate that the reproducibility did not surpass the inverse of the relative magnitude of the effects.
   This law represents a generalization of the attributes of effects across various realms of human activity. It is expressed in terms of quantifiable measures and is amenable to empirical validation. Nevertheless, based on the empirical evidence presented in the book, it is clear in advance that the law holds true across a wide range of variations in its variables, spanning over ten orders of magnitude and more. Crucially, the law does not require a revision or clarification of the conventional physical framework. It follows from the law that effects observed with a significant probability are minuscule, while substantial effects are highly improbable. Furthermore, the study holds significance for philosophy as it consolidates individual instances of consciousness influencing physical processes into a coherent framework. This represents a novel argument that rekindles the dualistic concepts prevalent in Russian philosophy during the late 19th century.
   The book’s value is underscored by its meticulous definition of terms and the clear interpretation of statements. While some sections adopt a specialized presentation style, more commonly found in scientific articles, this does not diminish its significance for future interdisciplinary research.
   Consciousness, as a unique phenomenon, is only just beginning to be explored, and the advancements in this field show great promise, with research progressing on multiple fronts. In addition to traditional sciences like psychology and cybernetics, new disciplines such as neuro-molecular biology, cognitivistics, and artificial intelligence are also emerging. The potential linked to studying aspects of consciousness that are challenging to attribute solely to neural processes is genuinely remarkable.
   Overall, the release of such a substantial book is a welcome development, and it is hoped that a Russian translation will soon be accessible to domestic researchers.

E.V. Stepanov
D.Sc. in Physics and Mathematics, Professor