Here is an interesting idea. Many forms of psychokinesis are seen as resulting from the influence of intention on a random process. What I refer to as transform EVP is apparently the influence of the transcommunicator’s intention on background noise. Background noise can be generalized as being a random process. The same goes for induced visual ITC and some forms of precipitation art. The random event generators used in the Global Conscious Project can also be generalized as a random process. On close examination, the norm of paranormal is a random process.
We normally think of the effect of intention on a random process as a thought influence (psi, etheric) that differentiates a physical process. If we speculate that the physical is a product of thought, then metaphysically speaking, the more correct perspective is the influence of expression (thought) on undifferentiated etheric space (psi space).
The model for this would be “transforming a nascent process according to intended order.” Most, if not all of the paranormal phenomena I am aware of conforms with this model. (sometimes we need to look pretty deep into the phenomena for this to be true.)
Truzzi’s* “exceptional claims require exceptional evidence,” has come up several times for me in the last week or so. Most writers on the paranormal argue that this is a fallacious argument because the idea of extraordinary only has meaning from the perspective of mainstream thought, but makes no sense in terms of all things paranormal.
One of the problems we have in the ATransC when considering the various techniques for capturing ITC is that some follow the “transforming a nascent process according to intended order” model, but others apparently do not. An example is transform EVP does but radio-sweep does not. With this difference in mind, I would argue that the norm is transform phenomena and the extraordinary claim is radio-sweep.
In my view, Truzzi’s “exceptional claims require exceptional evidence” argument is valid relative to the local norm. We need to look for such norms amongst the phenomena we study and work with, and accept that there are possible phenomena that may not be real if the norm is correct. All of this is based on the understanding that reality is knowable.
I would be interested in comments about this, both as it pertains to norms and to understanding norms. I am available at http://atransc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=935
*Truzzi, M. (1978). On the extraordinary: an attempt at clarification. Zetetic Scholar 1, 11–22.