A parapsychologist writes about leaving parapsychology

[Merko]

52% of people believe dreams can foretell the future or reveal hidden truths and unlike the existence of God, it is one paranormal belief that should be testable and of interest to the public.

I'm not so sure. I believe that dreams can foretell the future or reveal 'hidden truths' (depending on how we define that). Our brains have the capacity to foretell the future when we're awake. When we dream, the brain clearly functions differently, it seems to be less concerned with logic for example. But this may in fact make it more capable of making certain kinds of predictions or revealing certain kinds of truths. For example, we may be less constrained by our inhibitions when we are asleep, so our dreams may help us understand some aspects of ourselves that we are reluctant to accept in a waking state.

To test this empirically, we'd have to make sure that the things being predicted would be clearly unpredictable using a naturalistic thought process. That seems difficult to me, as people don't seem to be dreaming a lot about controllable outcomes such as the throwing of a dice, or whatever.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm not so sure. I believe that dreams can foretell the future or reveal 'hidden truths' (depending on how we define that). Our brains have the capacity to foretell the future when we're awake. When we dream, the brain clearly functions differently, it seems to be less concerned with logic for example. But this may in fact make it more capable of making certain kinds of predictions or revealing certain kinds of truths. For example, we may be less constrained by our inhibitions when we are asleep, so our dreams may help us understand some aspects of ourselves that we are reluctant to accept in a waking state.

To test this empirically, we'd have to make sure that the things being predicted would be clearly unpredictable using a naturalistic thought process. That seems difficult to me, as people don't seem to be dreaming a lot about controllable outcomes such as the throwing of a dice, or whatever.

How can dreams foretell the future, then?

 

[Merko]

How can dreams foretell the future, then?

Easy. I leave home to go on a trip, but I accidentally leave the gas on. I almost totally forget about it. Later at night, I remember, and in my sleep I'm tormented by images of my exploding home. The next day, my home explodes. No woo involved.

 

[fls]

I'm not suggesting you actually do that to satisfy my point of view. I'm just pointing out that in order to prove what you are saying you would have to do a meta-analysis, but you said that meta-anlyses are inappropriate for resolving this issue. Bit of a catch-22.

That comment was in reference to a different issue.

Linda

 

[Kaylee]

Easy. I leave home to go on a trip, but I accidentally leave the gas on. I almost totally forget about it. Later at night, I remember, and in my sleep I'm tormented by images of my exploding home. The next day, my home explodes. No woo involved.

Because your "unconscious" remembered and played out the likely scenario?
ETA: I think thats what you mean, I just want to clarify:

Later at night, in my sleep, I remember and in my sleep I'm tormented by images of my exploding home.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

. . . .
Sure. But let's take this hypothetical physicist who spends 20 years hunting for the xion particle. After 20 years he concludes that it doesn't exist. Do you really believe that he would do this, if he wasn't willing to bet that the xion really existed, at the start of his project? You think he'd spend 20 years trying to be the guy that showed that there's no xions? I don't think so. He wanted to find it, he was sure he'd find it - and he failed. Yes, he's still a very respectable scientist. But the truth is that he won't go down in history for this work - which he would have if he had found it.

Surely this is not entirely true. If the xion was predicted by theory and the "hypothetical physicist" replicated the conditions under which the xion was predicted but did not find it, he might very well have a place in history.

Think Michelson and Morley. Michelson got a Nobel Prize.

I nominate J B Rhine. All that work must count for something!

 

[Merko]

Because your "unconscious" remembered and played out the likely scenario?
ETA: I think thats what you mean, I just want to clarify:

Yes that was what I meant. Maybe you meant "subconscious"? I don't believe so much in that. But it is obvious that we have *some* kind of consciousness even when we dream, and that this consciousness is able to play out scenarios that may be slightly wacky compared to our ordinary thoughts, but that still follow some kind of logic.

I remember once when I was dreaming, and I got one of those feelings that I was dreaming. So I set about to find out whether I was dreaming or not. I tried looking around me, but everything seemed perfectly normal. I was dreaming that I was sitting in some cafe. Then I tried focusing on the text on the glass windows. My idea was that if I was dreaming, then surely this inverted text would only be gibberish - my mind wouldn't have constructed a properly inverted text just like that. And deciphering it, I found it to be rubbish indeed, and so I was certain that I must be dreaming.

Funnily, the logic behind this works, but in a different way than I thought at the time. In reality, I doubt I could really keep this vision "in focus" like that. But on the other hand, if I weren't dreaming, the text on the window still wouldn't be gibberish. I probably only found it to be gibberish because I expected it to be. But it still confirmed my theory!

 

[Merko]

Surely this is not entirely true. If the xion was predicted by theory and the "hypothetical physicist" replicated the conditions under which the xion was predicted but did not find it, he might very well have a place in history.

I agree, but I think I would have gotten my point across anyway. Let's assume the xion wasn't predicted by any widely accepted method, but it was just this particular scientist who had a shaky theory about it, which turned out to be nothing.

 

[Kaylee]

Yes that was what I meant.

Thanks for clarifying! Anyway I agree with you that the example you gave would not be paranormal, but I don't think most people would label it a precognitive dream. If instead you consistently dreamt about good and bad events occurring to people that you had no reason for knowing they would occur, and they did occur -- that would be considered paranormal.

Maybe you meant "subconscious"? I don't believe so much in that.

Hmm. I don't accept Freud's beliefs either. I will have to look into it, but for now I'll say whatever word is appropriate to use when one is in REM sleep.

I've also been using the word 'unconscious' when posting in other threads about areas related to neurobiology. I suppose I should have used the word non-conscious. Next time.

But it is obvious that we have *some* kind of consciousness even when we dream, and that this consciousness is able to play out scenarios that may be slightly wacky compared to our ordinary thoughts, but that still follow some kind of logic.

I remember once when I was dreaming, and I got one of those feelings that I was dreaming. So I set about to find out whether I was dreaming or not. I tried looking around me, but everything seemed perfectly normal. I was dreaming that I was sitting in some cafe. Then I tried focusing on the text on the glass windows. My idea was that if I was dreaming, then surely this inverted text would only be gibberish - my mind wouldn't have constructed a properly inverted text just like that. And deciphering it, I found it to be rubbish indeed, and so I was certain that I must be dreaming.

Funnily, the logic behind this works, but in a different way than I thought at the time. In reality, I doubt I could really keep this vision "in focus" like that. But on the other hand, if I weren't dreaming, the text on the window still wouldn't be gibberish. I probably only found it to be gibberish because I expected it to be. But it still confirmed my theory!

Yes. Lucid Dreaming is a fun area! Luciana Nery has posted that, probably because she is studying so much, she reads in her dreams. I've had a few dreams where I read in my sleep. I had one just last night as a matter of fact. I've already forgotten most of the dream, I just remember the part that bewildered me. The author of the book was Leon Uris, and I don't read his books or those type of books -- so I couldn't believe that I was doing so in my sleep. The only reason I can think of for remembering his name is because yesterday I was in my neighborhood's library and I noticed a book on the table. It was written by Leon Uris and it was in a different genre than I thought he normally wrote. I assure you, usually my dreams are interesting!

 

[Rodney]

I don't think Radin misrepresents his findings. I KNOW!

An example would be nice.

You seem desperate to want to believe David. There is no single normal explanation for successful experiments in these areas but a VARIETY of different normal explanations. Fraud, bad stats, misrepresenting findings, technical issues etc.

Again, how about some examples?

I'm not going to contribute to this discussion anymore, if you're not going to listen to what I say.

I've given my position. That I worked hard and honestly to find out the truth.

Don't listen to me and waste your life researching the area. That's what Bem, Radin and the others have done and are doing.

According to this link -- http://www.darkenchantment.co.uk/ouisavva.html -- you used to believe that it's possible to be attacked by a spirit. When did you change your mind?

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Hmm. I don't accept Freud's beliefs either. I will have to look into it, but for now I'll say whatever word is appropriate to use when one is in REM sleep.

I've also been using the word 'unconscious' when posting in other threads about areas related to neurobiology. I suppose I should have used the word non-conscious. Next time. ...

"Dreaming" is the best description of what happens during REM sleep, and you are not conscious or aware of external stimuli.
And "unconscious" is a perfectly good word to describe that sort of condition.
As well as those that result from being hit on the head or overdoing recreational drugs.
But the "unconscious mind" is a bizarre oxymoron that should be avoided at all costs.
Well, most costs, anyway.

 

[Kaylee]

"Dreaming" is the best description of what happens during REM sleep, and you are not conscious or aware of external stimuli.
And "unconscious" is a perfectly good word to describe that sort of condition.

Thanks Jeff.

As well as those that result from being hit on the head or overdoing recreational drugs.
But the "unconscious mind" is a bizarre oxymoron that should be avoided at all costs.
Well, most costs, anyway.

Heh

As long as you are volunteering info, what is the best word to describe the brain's state for blind sight, or being consciously unaware when processing some odors or processing some pheromones -- which apparently is normal for most people. Unconscious? Non-conscious?

 

[davidsmith73]

An example would be nice.

I think Louie's talking about these sets of experiments below, unless there are other examples he has. I suggest reading the Savva and French paper first.

http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/apru/hitech/mem/savva/TRI.pdf

In it, they say that Radin misrepresents and oversimplifies the original work by Klintman that inspired these time-reversed effect experiments. You can evaluate whether this is true yourself:

Radin and May's experiment -

http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/articles/tri2.pdf

Also, Louie and Chris French may be referring to misrepresentation in the book "The Conscious Universe" by Radin.

The two original Klintman papers:

http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1983Klintman.pdf

http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1984Klintman2.pdf


I'm currently reading through all these. There's alot to get through but I'll post what I think soon.

On a slightly different issue. Reading through the Savva and French paper above there's something I find quite interesting. They did three studies on a variation of the Stroop task but they did not manage to produce a normal Stroop colour congruence effect in study 1. So here we have an example of how a normal psychological effect cannot necessarily be demonstrated all the time just by following the experimental procedure of a fellow scientist. Louie, if you're reading, I'm not suggesting you're incompentent. I'm just making an observation. If this is true for a normal psychological effect, should we expect the same for psi effects? I wonder how many failed Stroop experiments go unpublished?

 

[psp02ls]

According to this link -- http://www.darkenchantment.co.uk/ouisavva.html -- you used to believe that it's possible to be attacked by a spirit. When did you change your mind?

If you read that article I say 'it's possible' but also clarify that I didn't (and don't) believe in an afterlife. My opinion is less tactful now.

And if you don't know why I changed my mind, you haven't read the article which stimulated this thread. And what is the point in writing anything if people aren't going to read it and keep demanding the same information?

 

[psp02ls]

Well David, you are preempting a blog posting on this. But if I might interrupt.

Are you are psychologist? Do you have any science training at all?

According to quite a few large scale examinations of the Stroop effect, what you find is that it is very replicable (although people do attempt variations) but it doesn't work every time.

Since there have been over 400 successful replications of the Stroop effect, we can be confident that processing of colour and processing of meaning interfere with each other. Is that really controversial. If you've played brain training for the Nintendo DS it features as one of the games. It is consistent and reliable.

You ask, how many failed stroops are unpublished. But since there are well over 400, there must be many many more to negate their effect. But then you would have learnt that in first year cognitive, unless you haven't got any training (in which case I'd give up para and go and learn some real facts).

It is taking me time to turn my PhD chapters into readable blog posts. So it may take time for me to give you my examples.

But read Klintman's papers. Read Camfferman's failed replication. Read my papers and Radin's papers. Ask yourself, why did Klintman use colour in only 1 out of 4 experiments, but Radin only mentions the colour task. Why did Klintman not run any more experiments.

Why did Radin not mention the failed replication of Camfferman in the conscious universe? Why did Radin use colour? Why did Radin change or simplify Klintman's hypotheses? Why didn't he use the same equipment that Klintman used? Why did he not use the same analysis?

You see what I found was that when I applied the different statistical tests that the different authors used, to my own data, that I got 3 different results.

Believe what you want. I advise that you engage your brain some more though. Because nobody is going to do it for you and if you are just going to believe everything people say (yes, including me) you are going to fall for lots.

 

[davidsmith73]

Are you are psychologist?

No

Do you have any science training at all?

A BSc in developmental biology and an MSc in neuroscience. I don't like people to know how much scientific training I've had because it tends to unfairly influence peoples opinion on the merit of someone elses arguments when it shouldn't do. But since you seem to be questioning my ability to understand these things I thought I'd respond. I don't much care to know how much scientific training others have had either.

According to quite a few large scale examinations of the Stroop effect, what you find is that it is very replicable (although people do attempt variations) but it doesn't work every time.

Since there have been over 400 successful replications of the Stroop effect, we can be confident that processing of colour and processing of meaning interfere with each other. Is that really controversial. If you've played brain training for the Nintendo DS it features as one of the games. It is consistent and reliable.

You ask, how many failed stroops are unpublished. But since there are well over 400, there must be many many more to negate their effect. But then you would have learnt that in first year cognitive, unless you haven't got any training (in which case I'd give up para and go and learn some real facts).

Quite. I would still be interested to have an idea of how many failed replications there actually are of a robust psychological effect such as this. But that would be very difficult to find out in practice. I guess there must be much more researchers doing conventional Stroop experiments than there are doing psi experiments. The point is this; we know that failed replications occur for robust cognitive effects. Must we assume that psi effects attain the same level of robustness and replicability at a point before we have learned the precise conditions in which to observe them?

It is taking me time to turn my PhD chapters into readable blog posts. So it may take time for me to give you my examples.

No problem. Look forward to reading it.

But read Klintman's papers. Read Camfferman's failed replication. Read my papers and Radin's papers. Ask yourself, why did Klintman use colour in only 1 out of 4 experiments, but Radin only mentions the colour task. Why did Klintman not run any more experiments.

Why did Radin not mention the failed replication of Camfferman in the conscious universe? Why did Radin use colour? Why did Radin change or simplify Klintman's hypotheses? Why didn't he use the same equipment that Klintman used? Why did he not use the same analysis?

You see what I found was that when I applied the different statistical tests that the different authors used, to my own data, that I got 3 different results.

I'm currently doing that. If you're interested in my response it will be here in due course.

 

[Beth]

You see what I found was that when I applied the different statistical tests that the different authors used, to my own data, that I got 3 different results.

That isn't all that surprising. I often run multiple statistical tests to see if they are consistent in the results. If all or most tests show similar results, then I have a high level of confidence that the effect is real and not a statistical artifact because it is robust with regard to the type of analysis used. If only 1 out of 3 different tests showed significance, then I would have little confidence that the results were due to real effect.

I presume that is what you found and congratulate you for your honesty in evaluating the evidence. It's easy to keep running statistical tests till you get the results you want. It's much harder to step back and say - I ran all these different tests and most were negative, therefore I conclude the result is negative.

 

[Rodney]

If you read that article I say 'it's possible' but also clarify that I didn't (and don't) believe in an afterlife. My opinion is less tactful now.

You also say in that article that you hoped to be a parapsychologist 10 years down the road. So, it appears your whole worldview has shifted drastically this year. Why?

And if you don't know why I changed my mind, you haven't read the article which stimulated this thread. And what is the point in writing anything if people aren't going to read it and keep demanding the same information?

I've read the article and it's pretty vague. When I first saw this thread, I thought it was about someone with 20 or more years experience as a parapsychologist, not someone who hasn't even gotten his Ph.D. in the subject. Do you really think you're an expert on the subject with such limited experience?

 

[Ersby]

Do you really think you're an expert on the subject with such limited experience?

LOL

 

[Merko]

"Dreaming" is the best description of what happens during REM sleep, and you are not conscious or aware of external stimuli.
And "unconscious" is a perfectly good word to describe that sort of condition.
As well as those that result from being hit on the head or overdoing recreational drugs.

This seems strange to me. When I dream, I obviously still have some sort of consciousness. I have thoughts, sensations, desires, everything that we associate with consciousness. If we're really unconscious, for example from a head blow, we have nothing of that.

My point was anyway that it's probably not that easy to make a good test to see if people's dreams can foretell the future in a paranormal way. We can't control what people will dream about, and mostly dreams will be focused on very personal things that it would be very difficult for an experimenter to objectively rate as predictable or unpredictable through normal means. For example, if we take "death of a child" as the predicted event, and then record the dreams of a huge number of people (fortunately children don't die that often), we would almost certainly find a positive correlation. After all, parents that have reason to worry will probably worry slightly more than those who don't have any particular reason (with large individual variations of course).

Obviously we'd also have to record the dreams, and decide what is a prediction, before any of the predicted events could have taken place. Otherwise the subjects will obviously be prone to remember (or even change) details of their dreams that turned out to be correct predictions. Of course this could be done, but it would be a rather major undertaking to get enough data, I think.