Back in the 70s, I read pretty much every book written by or about Edgar Cayce, government experiments with ESP and clairvoyance, Uri Gellar, Carlos Castenada, - the whole thing. What began as intense curiosity and a
desire to "believe" evolved into a healthy skepticism of the entire field of mind over matter.
Before I tackle the real question, some random thoughts about the subjects. Have they seated two subjects in front of the generator and instructed them to "will" contradictory results to see if the 50/50 bell curve returns? If not, why not. And, out of curiosity, how do they know if the subjects were lying or not about the outcome (ones over zeros) they willed for? I also wonder how have they "controlled" for the unfiltered thoughts of the scientists in the next room or across campus? Since they seem to be comfortable with the idea that physical distance is not a limiting factor, how do they account for the thoughts of those other than the subject? When asserting a dependency, it is pretty damn important to eliminate all factors other than the one being tested (the subject's thoughts). Also, have they tried interfering with the subject by, for example, putting him behind a lead wall to see if they can "break" the connection. Bottom line: the scientists cannot control what they are "measuring" since they don't know what it is. And an experiment that lacks
any control over the variable being tested is, to say the least, not scientifically rigorous.
EVEN IF there is a physical component to thought that can be directed, the idea that it can be clarified and directed with such focus and precision so as to influence the behaviour of a diode/ electrical circuit in a consistently singular direction is nothing short of laughable. The subject is merely "desiring" a certain outcome. The subject has NO IDEA of what he or she is trying to accomplish in terms of the specific physical influence he or she is trying to exert to enforce their desire (for ones over zeros). And if desire is the key element (the more desire, the more dramatic the results), why not substitute pictures of Pamela Anderson and Jeanine Garafolo instead of ones and zeros and use drunk frat boys as subjects. I mean, how passionate can someone be about 1s over 0s.
That's the difference between "wishing" my car would roll itself up the hill and applying a very specific force (with my actual shoulder after planting my foot on the ground) in the opposite direction of gravity. Whatever physical component there might be to thought it is probably little more than equivalent to the magnetic field of a power line - an unfocused energy field. Might thought influence matter? Sure! Might it do so consistently? Sure! Might one take that force and, by applying it differently, create different outcomes (i.e., push the car downhill instead of uphill)? Surely not.
Bottom line: for me, if the scientists are alleging a physical component to thought by proving that it affects physical processes, then I think that obligates the scientists to measure the "force." If its physical its measurable. To completely sidestep this question and suggest that we should all be happy with the mere "inference" that there is a force is, not scientifically credible as a conclusion.
Thirdly, the statistics are troublesome. Drawing the conclusion that "something is happening" because a random process no longer appears random (even tho we have no control over the force or forces influencing the outcome) is weak. Much more preferable is actual physical evidence that there is a force. I need to see a fingerprint. Let's bounce a laser off the moon and see if anyone can "will" it off target. Some of the most sensitive devices in the world are gravity wave detectors. Let's see if someone can "will" a false positive. But these tests are not happening. As important as what "is" is what isn't - or, if my suspicions are accurate, what was and what was quashed for its audacity to contradict the conclusion that preceded the carefully culled evidence.
Conclusion: too many unanswered questions to take it seriously. And, furthermore, I'm skeptical of anyone who isn't (to a healthy and reasonable extent) skeptical of themselves in matters such as this.
And as a sidenote, their seminal work was published 16 years ago. Talk about resting on ones laurels.
Sorry to be so skeptical but outlandish claims deserve outlandish scrutiny.