Like you say, science can't really help with questions of subjective experience. I think this is more about observing an objective phenomenon, which is that "th

Like you say, science can't really help with questions of subjective experience. I think this is more about observing an objective phenomenon, which is that "thought" can affect random number generators. The problem, as stated on the site, is this: When it comes to "what we are measuring" the story becomes more complicated because there is no real understanding of the mechanism whereby an REG [Random event generator]’s behavior can be altered by thoughts and emotions or intentions. [...] We do not know how a mental state such as an intention or emotion is able to inform the physical system to affect its behavior. In addition, all of the robust measures we have providing evidence for the anomalous effects are statistical in nature, and the signal to noise ratio is extremely low. This means that we typically cannot be sure that the "signature" of an effect in any individual analysis is driven by the hypothesized influence of consciousness. The details written in the data from single instances are more likely to be chance fluctuations than consciousness effects. Only in larger concatenations, gathering the weak signals from many separate events, can we be satisfied that trends and structure represent the hypothesized effect. In short, they believe they have observed an inexplicable phenomenon -- intention influencing random number generation. The attempt to quantify, describe, and eventually fully understand that supposed phenomenon is the key purpose of their research.