Haunted Place

[MRC_Hans]

Nope, no troll nor sock puppet....

I was just giving Jambo some more windmills to combat....

Actually, I believe Jambo is putting everybody on....

opie

Mmmm. Well, we'll know sooner or later .

About Jambo: So do I.

Hans

 

[opie]

OPIE

Retired, 26 years military.
Retired, college English teacher, published poet
Semi-Retired Magician.
Six kids, four grand kids, one of whom is a granddaughter in the
Army.
BS, University of Tampa, Economics
MA, Central Michigan University, Management/Communications
MA, Southwest Texas State University,English and Counselling
Open-minded sceptic.
Troll buster.....

opie

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: OPIE

Retired, 26 years military.
Retired, college English teacher, published poet
Semi-Retired Magician.
Six kids, four grand kids, one of whom is a granddaughter in the
Army.
BS, University of Tampa, Economics
MA, Central Michigan University, Management/Communications
MA, Southwest Texas State University,English and Counselling
Open-minded sceptic.
Troll buster.....

opie

Word to the wise: if you want to get dates online, you need to post a pic.

Seriously, who cares? This isn't the "get to know you" thread. Try "Forum Community" for that.

 

[opie]

Sorry about that....Hans seemed to want to know....

...it appears to be very difficult to be accommodating here....hmmm...

.....back to reading....

opie

 

[The Mighty Thor]

What I don't understand is the assertion that parapsychology is a pseudoscience that tries to search for phenomena to study rather than studying a naturally occuring phenomena that's out there. Open Mind's story (if accurate) shows that normal people have experiences and occurances that we label as "paranormal".
The strength of such a story lies not in any proof of psi but a demonstration that there is something there to study in the first place.

But given a hundred years of study and research nothing has been found but fraud and "effects" that are so weak, they cannot be fairly analysed. Open Mind's story of his granny has many other rational explanations that don't need the paranormal. She was not being fraudulent -- she probably believed she had powers. But I bet she would not have submitted to testing by JREF if asked. Her psychic beliefs were possibly passed on to her as they have passed on to Open Mind. Of course we don't believe that his sweet old granny would cheat. But she may have been deluded. This one anecdote means nothing. Like many such paranormal anecdotes it is old -- it cannot be tested. And such coincidences (where our subconscious seems to predict an event) happen more often than most people think. They are often due to a misunderstanding of probability, retrofitting the facts, and confabulation over time.

Why do you think the term "old wives tales" became pejorative? My old gran, born in 1890, could tell some tall tales, believe me. She was not being malicious. She was telling tall tales as many people do in order to entertain and out of a "more to heaven and hell than thought of in your philosophy, Horatio" spirit of accumulated worldly knowledge versus the rationality of young whippersnappers who think they have all the answers. "Elders" in tribal societies secured their place of respect by just such methods. Grandads and Grannies have a powerful influence on the development of kids. As children we see them as having power over those who have power over us -- our parents. They are often playfull, fearless, and eccentric, and kids respect this. It's a relationship that is underestimated by society, IMO.

Now, why has nothing definitive been found in a hundred years of paranormal research? Sir Oliver Lodge studied radio waves. Look how far we have come with technology built on his research. He also studied mediumship. Yet what do we have today? -- the same old anecdotes, the same old tricks, the same old claims, the same old negative results when testing is properly done.

Why is the unicorn so shy that it hasn't been photographed? Should we put funds (that could be used for real scientific advancement) in searching the world for a unicorn?

 

[The Mighty Thor]

The key phrase.

Anecdotal evidence may be used as a starting point for a theory or series of studies, but it has no weight in itself.

I can't think of another field of science that has been created to study something that only exists as stories. And has subsequently gained no further evidence. Physics, chemistry, biology, psychology etc. all study phenomena that observably exist.

Don't panic, but I think you are my soul mate -- you expressed my thoughts succinctly while I was still typing.

 

[davidsmith73]

The key phrase.

Anecdotal evidence may be used as a starting point for a theory or series of studies, but it has no weight in itself.

I can't think of another field of science that has been created to study something that only exists as stories. And has subsequently gained no further evidence.

Physics, chemistry, biology, psychology etc. all study phenomena that observably exist.

The phenomena that parapsychology studies does not exist as stories, it exists in the form of experiences. People experience things we label as ESP, ghosts etc. As a comparison, consider something like macular degeneration, a disease which damages the centre of the retina which sometimes results in bizzare hallucinations in the peripheral visual field. This condition might be first brought to our attention because people have bizzare experiences. Such hallucinations obviously cannot be observed by others but nontheless exist, otherwise people would not have reported such experiences. Conventional science such as branches of neuroscience and practically most of psychology do not study phenomena that we can ever observe directly. That is because they are studying aspects of conscious experience.

 

[Ashles]

Optical disorders are a known and studied field. A new type of one would not be considered a new branch of science.

In a similar way all optical disorders are a subset of disorders with the human body. Again a huge field of study with a massive amount of evidence and results.

Conventional science such as branches of neuroscience and practically most of psychology do not study phenomena that we can ever observe directly.

Human behaviour is not doubted to exist, nor are disorders within these behaviours. Psychology may be an inexact science, but no-one doubts that people exhibit complex behaviours and these can be studied.
Neuroscience can come up with theories, study these theories and make predictions about future experiments that can be carried out. And much of it can be studied directly - neural activity, specialisation of certain areas, biochemical effects, perceptive effects etc.

And all of their results and experiments fit in with the larger body of scientific knowledge.

All unlike parapsychology.

 

[davidsmith73]

But given a hundred years of study and research nothing has been found but fraud and "effects" that are so weak, they cannot be fairly analysed.

So you are saying that every experiment that has found effects that are not fraudulent, the analysis procedure is open to question because the effect is too weak.

Can you back up this claim? Where did you get this information from?

Open Mind's story of his granny has many other rational explanations that don't need the paranormal. She was not being fraudulent -- she probably believed she had powers. But I bet she would not have submitted to testing by JREF if asked. Her psychic beliefs were possibly passed on to her as they have passed on to Open Mind. Of course we don't believe that his sweet old granny would cheat. But she may have been deluded. This one anecdote means nothing. Like many such paranormal anecdotes it is old -- it cannot be tested. And such coincidences (where our subconscious seems to predict an event) happen more often than most people think. They are often due to a misunderstanding of probability, retrofitting the facts, and confabulation over time.

These types of explanation are plausable but because we do not have enough information about the events that happened, we can't tell if it's the correct explanation. An explanation like selective memory is the joker card in the sceptics hand. It can be brought into play to explain all experiences that happened far enough in the past, regardless of whether or not it is true.

Why do you think the term "old wives tales" became pejorative? My old gran, born in 1890, could tell some tall tales, believe me. She was not being malicious. She was telling tall tales as many people do in order to entertain and out of a "more to heaven and hell than thought of in your philosophy, Horatio" spirit of accumulated worldly knowledge versus the rationality of young whippersnappers who think they have all the answers. "Elders" in tribal societies secured their place of respect by just such methods. Grandads and Grannies have a powerful influence on the development of kids. As children we see them as having power over those who have power over us -- our parents. They are often playfull, fearless, and eccentric, and kids respect this. It's a relationship that is underestimated by society, IMO.

Open Mind was there to witness the events.

Now, why has nothing definitive been found in a hundred years of paranormal research? Sir Oliver Lodge studied radio waves. Look how far we have come with technology built on his research.

This is because electromagnetic waves are a relatively simple system to study. They can be easily and consistently controlled and manipulated on demand. A phenomena based on human conscious experience cannot be expected to have the same level of amenability to experimental control.

He also studied mediumship. Yet what do we have today? -- the same old anecdotes,

Well that's a good sign. It shows the phenomena is still around!

the same old tricks,

Yes, we see a lot of frauds exposed on this site. Very little on scientific experiments curiously.

the same old claims,

Again from ridiculously see through fraudsters, exposed on sites such as this. Parapsychology focuses more on the serious issue of finding out what is happening with the experiences of ordinary people.

the same old negative results when testing is properly done.

References!

 

[The Mighty Thor]

davidsmith73 -- Such hallucinations obviously cannot be observed by others but nontheless exist, otherwise people would not have reported such experiences. Conventional science such as branches of neuroscience and practically most of psychology do not study phenomena that we can ever observe directly. That is because they are studying aspects of conscious experience.

Yes, but when such specific reports are investigated a cause is indeed found. These hallucinations don't have to be witnessed for a neurologist to say that folk who have this disease see hallucinations. So there is a mechanism that is predictable -- people with this disease will see hallucinations. Just as people who take LSD have hallucinations -- cause and effect. People in fever often hallucinate -- cause and effect. People with brain damage or mental illness often hallucinate or hold bizarre beliefs -- cause and effect?

When tested without tight protocals psychics often produce an effect -- but has a cause ever been found, other than plain self-delusion or cheating? No. The tighter the protocals, the more the effect disappears. Look at the JREF claims section. What do you see? Effects that disappear when merely challenged by Kramer. What does that tell you?

Neuroscience is getting closer and closer to explaining why some (most) people have paranormal experiences. That is where the answers will be found -- not in invented "energies", "spirits", "souls", "chi" and the like. Sceptics have these experiences, too, at times. But they know there is usually a rational, mundane explanation.

When I first experienced the aura of migraine, I did not know what was causing it. But I did not think I was actually seeing some physical manifestation of the paranormal, whereas jambo 372 might have.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

davidsmith73 -- So you are saying that every experiment that has found effects that are not fraudulent, the analysis procedure is open to question because the effect is too weak.

Can you back up this claim? Where did you get this information from?

You are trying to shift the burden of proof, David. Those who make the extraordinary claims must provide the evidence.

Where is the "one white crow"?

Maybe we should all move to the thread you created rather than argue the same things in two threads?

 

[davidsmith73]

Optical disorders are a known and studied field. A new type of one would not be considered a new branch of science.

In a similar way all optical disorders are a subset of disorders with the human body. Again a huge field of study with a massive amount of evidence and results.

In the same way, parapsychology can be considered part of psychology, since it is studying a subset of psychological phenomena.

Human behaviour is not doubted to exist, nor are disorders within these behaviours. Psychology may be an inexact science, but no-one doubts that people exhibit complex behaviours and these can be studied.

I was talking about conscious perception itself. Behaviour is not perception.

Neuroscience can come up with theories, study these theories and make predictions about future experiments that can be carried out. And much of it can be studied directly - neural activity, specialisation of certain areas, biochemical effects, perceptive effects etc.

Cognitive neuroscience studies cognition. Cognition is not the neural activity and biochemistry of the brain. Furthermore, if psi information can indeed be transfered from the mind of one person to another then such information will be expected to have a neural correlate just like any other perception. Indeed, EEG and fMRI have been used in psi experiments. So you are wrong when you say this is unlike parapsychology.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

What age was Open Mind when he witnessed this event?

 

[davidsmith73]

Yes, but when such specific reports are investigated a cause is indeed found.

Which is what parapsychology is trying to do. Fair enough, a cause of psi has not been found yet.

These hallucinations don't have to be witnessed for a neurologist to say that folk who have this disease see hallucinations.

Good! So it is the same for people who say they have seen ghosts or have had ESP experiences. We may differ on the explanation, but to say that physics, chemistry and biology study things that observably exist while parapsychology does not is nonsense.

When tested without tight protocals psychics often produce an effect -- but has a cause ever been found, other than plain self-delusion or cheating? No. The tighter the protocals, the more the effect disappears. Look at the JREF claims section. What do you see? Effects that disappear when merely challenged by Kramer. What does that tell you?

I don't value the JFER claims section as scientific evidence of anything. All that it tells me is that there are a lot of desparate people out there.

Now, give me evidence (a literature review would be nice) that there is a corrleation between disappearing effects and tighter controls in the scientific domain. I'm not denying that such a correlation exists, I just get a bit tired of people saying that it does without any evidence to back up their claim.

Neuroscience is getting closer and closer to explaining why some (most) people have paranormal experiences. That is where the answers will be found -- not in invented "energies", "spirits", "souls", "chi" and the like. Sceptics have these experiences, too, at times. But they know there is usually a rational, mundane explanation.

i agree that science is where the answers will be found. Most serious psi papers don't use invented energies, spirits, souls or chi.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof, David. Those who make the extraordinary claims must provide the evidence.

Erm no, I was asking for evidence for the claim you originally made.

So do you have the evidence or is it just your intuitive opinion? (I shall repeat this until you answer, just like with Claus)

What claim have I made in this discussion?

 

[Ashles]

In the same way, parapsychology can be considered part of psychology, since it is studying a subset of psychological phenomena.

If it is studying delusion, misperception, unreliable memory, fantasy-prone personality types and the like then this is entirley within the realm of standard psychology.
If it is studying new phenomenon that are genuinely paranormal it is an entirely seperate field from psychology.

I was talking about conscious perception itself. Behaviour is not perception.

Both are studied within the remit of Psychology and Experimental Psychology.

Furthermore, if psi information can indeed be transfered from the mind of one person to another then such information will be expected to have a neural correlate just like any other perception.

Show the effect first then you can start coming up with explanations and theories. And why should your supposition follow anyway. If it's an entirely new ability that seems to break known physical laws why should it follow known biological laws?
Like Jambo you seem to be quite certain about the characteristics of something that has never been shown to exist.

Indeed, EEG and fMRI have been used in psi experiments. So you are wrong when you say this is unlike parapsychology.

That's ridiculous. If they use a thermometer is it automatically like physics?
If my niece uses a digital camera to try and take pictures of fairies is she using advanced scientific methods? Is she using paraoptics, paraelectronics and paraphysics?

Cognition is not the neural activity and biochemistry of the brain.

Well actually it is "The process of receiving, processing, storing, and using information. "
AllPsych Psychology dictionary
Are you telling me you don't think this involves the study of neural activity and biochemistry of the brain?

I'm interested in your level of Psychology certification that allows you to rewrite the definitions of psychological terminology.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

You are trying to shift the burden of proof, David. Those who make the extraordinary claims must provide the evidence.

Where is the "one white crow"?

Maybe we should all move to the thread you created rather than argue the same things in two threads?

Sorry, I see it was Open Mind who opened the thread with a poll on "should paranormal studies receive funding?" It seemed to duplicate some of the issues raised here.

 

[davidsmith73]

If it is studying delusion, misperception, unreliable memory, fantasy-prone personality types and the like then this is entirley within the realm of standard psychology.

If it is studying new phenomenon that are genuinely paranormal it is an entirely seperate field from psychology.

Why? You seem to be asserting your opinion as fact. You say optical disorders are a subset of disorders within the body so they belong to this general field of study. Interestingly, this means you can lump together the study of epilepsy and hemorrhoids in the same discipline. We may differ in our view of which general scientific discipline parapsychology belongs, but at the end of the day it has no bearing on the validity of the field itself.

I was talking about conscious perception itself. Behaviour is not perception.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Both are studied within the remit of Psychology and Experimental Psychology.

Right, so you agree with me that these conventional scientific fields are studying things (among others) which cannot be directly observed, such as a schizophrenic's hallucinations. A schizophrenic patent will first approach the doctor or scientist with an account of his experiences. Your assertion that parapsychology is the only field whereby the phenomenon in question only exists as "stories" is nonsense.

Show the effect first then you can start coming up with explanations and theories.

That's funny. I always thought that you JREF people insist on developing a theory first before you can show something to exist. Anyway, my point is that parapsychology can use the same techniques to study correlates of psi as conventional psychology uses to study correlates of normal perception. So parapsychology is like other scientific fields in this respect.

And why should your supposition follow anyway. If it's an entirely new ability that seems to break known physical laws why should it follow known biological laws?

Because the the aquisition of the information is the new principle, eg, through the future in the case of precognition. Once the information is in the brain then it follows as a perfectly reasonable theoretical assumption that there will be the same neural corrleates associated with that information as there would be if the information was aquired by normal means.

Like Jambo you seem to be quite certain about the characteristics of something that has never been shown to exist.

I'm not certain. I'm just making reasonable assumptions that can and have been tested.

That's ridiculous. If they use a thermometer is it automatically like physics?
If my niece uses a digital camera to try and take pictures of fairies is she using advanced scientific methods? Is she using paraoptics, paraelectronics and paraphysics?

EEG and fMRI are used to study neural correlates of perception. Parapsycholoy is studying a new aspect of perception using the same tools as conventional psychology and neuroscience. Call them separate fields if you wish but the fact remains that they have similarities based on that, contrary to your assertion.

Well actually it is "The process of receiving, processing, storing, and using information. "
AllPsych Psychology dictionary
Are you telling me you don't think this involves the study of neural activity and biochemistry of the brain?

I'm interested in your level of Psychology certification that allows you to rewrite the definitions of psychological terminology.

That is the current theory. However, cognitive neuroscience studies both the neural correlates of the brain and the associated cognition. In this respect they are different. Just as parapsychology can study anomalous cognition and its associated physical correlates.

 

[Ashles]

You seem to be asserting your opinion as fact.

I'm merely passing on factual information. If you don't like it that is hardly my problem.

Interestingly, this means you can lump together the study of epilepsy and hemorrhoids in the same discipline.

You'd go to a doctor for both in the first instance. They are both issues studied by the field of medicine.
I'm unsure as to what point you are making here.

Right, so you agree with me that these conventional scientific fields are studying things (among others) which cannot be directly observed, such as a schizophrenic's hallucinations.

Behavior can be directly observed. Schizophrenics behaviour has distinct patterns. Treatment can provide observable results and improvements.

Poor psychology always gets picked on by parapsychologists. "Look" they say "That's a scientific field where you have to listen to stories".

To a certain extent this is of course true. If someone has depression we have to take their word they have depression. A psychologist can ask questions and hear symptoms that match a classical account of depression and then attempt to treat accordingly.
However the behaviour itself is what you are observing and the behaviour is what you are attempting to treat and analyse.
And of course this ignores the very real actual aspects that can be directly measured such as brain chemistry, physical damage, neurological activity etc.

This is completely different to parapsychology as actual events and abilities are being described in anecdotes, yet the events themselves are not actually observed (although they should be observable if they existed).

I always thought that you JREF people insist on developing a theory first before you can show something to exist.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? Well I'm happy to assure you that you are completely and totally wrong about that.
Show that something exists first (or evidence towards this), otherwise developing a theory is a little pointless.

I'm just making reasonable assumptions that can and have been tested.

It's been tested that PSI ability has a neural correlate? Well please provide a link or reference to that research.

Once the information is in the brain then it follows as a perfectly reasonable theoretical assumption that there will be the same neural corrleates associated with that information as there would be if the information was aquired by normal means.

Or if the information was made up, or dreamed, or hallucinated, or misinterpreted etc.
People can have as strong reactions to false memories and delusions as they can to real stimulus. The whole point is to tell them apart.

Parapsycholoy is studying a new aspect of perception using the same tools as conventional psychology and neuroscience. Call them separate fields if you wish but the fact remains that they have similarities based on that, contrary to your assertion.

No I asserted that the tools of one field of study do not give another field of study using those same tools equal credence.

That is the current theory.

No that is the actual definition of the word.

Just as parapsychology can study anomalous cognition and its associated physical correlates.

Anomolous cognition would literally mean unusual information processing. Once again this is studied by psychology. The 'associated physical correlates' (if you are referring to the paranormal) have never been observed.

Parapsychology really should be able to stand up for itself as a scientific field of study without having to compare itself to other fields to justify its existence.

 

[davidsmith73]

I'm merely passing on factual information. If you don't like it that is hardly my problem.

You're not passing on factual information here, you are just making arbitrary assertions on which scientific discipline belongs to another in an feeble attempt to discredit parapsychology. You keep asserting that parapsychology shares no similarities with other fields which is simply not true.

You'd go to a doctor for both in the first instance. They are both issues studied by the field of medicine.
I'm unsure as to what point you are making here.

Likewise! I don't understand why you think parapsychology is so unlike other fields simply because the phenomenon occurs in the form of bizzare experiences. Bizzare experiences occur in lots of different forms, many of which are studied in conventional science such as various forms of hallucinations or other cognitive dysfunction.

Behavior can be directly observed. Schizophrenics behaviour has distinct patterns. Treatment can provide observable results and improvements.

Yes, but people who have schizophrenia that causes hallucinations would only know they had the condition by way of their bizzare experiences. All your talk of behaviour is missing the point. On the subject of behaviour, since we cannot observe and measure experience directly, we must observe the appropriate behaviour. Parapsychology measures various observable behaviours that are the results of anomalous cognition, such as the choice of ganzfeld target, or physical correlates of psi such as anomalous EEG or the BOLD response in an fMRI experiment.

Poor psychology always gets picked on by parapsychologists. "Look" they say "That's a scientific field where you have to listen to stories".
To a certain extent this is of course true. If someone has depression we have to take their word they have depression. A psychologist can ask questions and hear symptoms that match a classical account of depression and then attempt to treat accordingly.

Which is my point. And this shows that your original assertion is nonsense. You even admit it yourself.

However the behaviour itself is what you are observing and the behaviour is what you are attempting to treat and analyse.
And of course this ignores the very real actual aspects that can be directly measured such as brain chemistry, physical damage, neurological activity etc.

Which can and is used in parapsychology, although only relatively recently. (see below)

This is completely different to parapsychology as actual events and abilities are being described in anecdotes, yet the events themselves are not actually observed (although they should be observable if they existed).

Rubbish. The actual "events" are peoples experiences, just like a depressed or schizophrenic patient. How can you actualy observe someone elses experience? You can certainly measure a behaviour based on such experiences which is what ganzfeld experiments have been doing. Also, physical correlates of psi can be measures by using skin conductance responses, EEG or fMRI.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? Well I'm happy to assure you that you are completely and totally wrong about that.
Show that something exists first (or evidence towards this), otherwise developing a theory is a little pointless.

Well I'm happy to assure you that I've had this conversation with many people here many times now. Most are of the opinion in order to perform science you must have a hypothesis to test. Objections are to the negative hypothesis of psi experiments that attempt to demonstrate the existence of anomalous cognition without have a positive mechanistic hypothesis under test.

It's been tested that PSI ability has a neural correlate? Well please provide a link or reference to that research.

Bierman, D. J. & Scholte, H. S. (2002). An fMRI brain imaging study of presentiment. Journal of ISLIS, 20, 380-388.

I used to be able to access a pre-published version of this paper from Prof Bierman's web site but I can't seem to find it anymore. The experiment is basically the same as previous presentiment experiments although I'm not sure what specific design they employed to eliminate gambling fallacy articacts (shown to be a possible factor in early experiments).

Or if the information was made up, or dreamed, or hallucinated, or misinterpreted etc.
People can have as strong reactions to false memories and delusions as they can to real stimulus. The whole point is to tell them apart.

These are all normal means of cognition. Psi experiments are set up so that normal means are eliminated. Any neural correlates found to anomalous will therefore be correlates of information mediated by anomalous cognition.

No I asserted that the tools of one field of study do not give another field of study using those same tools equal credence.

No, you asserted that parapsychology is unlike all other fields of science because it only studies "stories". This is not true as I've shown above. Parapsychology studies behavious and physical correlates associated associated with anomalous cognition.

No that is the actual definition of the word.

Which is based on current theory.

Anomolous cognition would literally mean unusual information processing. Once again this is studied by psychology. The 'associated physical correlates' (if you are referring to the paranormal) have never been observed.

Wrong. See the above paper (if you can find it on the web) and various others I've posted in previous threads that use EEG and skin conductance responses.

Parapsychology really should be able to stand up for itself as a scientific field of study without having to compare itself to other fields to justify its existence.

Indeed, it doesn't have to compare itself. I'm not trying to justify the existence of parapsychology by comparing it to other fields. I'm just showing you how your original assertion is nonsense. It's only you and I that are having this discussion. You are the one who started to discredit the field by comaring it to conventional science.

 

[davidsmith73]

Got the abstract for that Bierman fMRI paper:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The present study examined the neural substrates of anticipation in conjunction with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Ten subjects were scanned while 48 pictures were presented. Each stimulus sequence started with the 4.2 seconds presentation of a fixation point before and during which the anticipation was measured. After the exposure of the stimulus picture which lasted also 4.2 second there was a period of 8.4 seconds during which the subject was supposed to recover from the stimulus presentation. It is found that large parts of the visual cortex do show larger activity after emotional stimuli than after calm. All brain regions that show a difference have also a response on calms except for regions that are at or near the amygdala. Here violent and erotic stimuli do generate a response but the response on calm stimuli is flat. Anticipatory effects tend to influence baseline values and hence influence the response values. This might be a problem if the subject is guessing the upcoming stimulus condition correctly but with proper randomiza-tion this is theoretically impossible. Great care was taken to randomize stimulus conditions with replacement while using different pictures for each stimulus presentation. Results suggest that, in spite of proper random-ization, anticipatory activation preceding emotional stimuli is larger than the anticipatory activation preced-ing neutral stimuli. For the male subjects this appeared before the erotic stimuli while for the female both erotic and violent stimuli produced this anomalous effect. Possible normal explanations of this apparent anomaly, also called ‘presentiment’, are discussed. Most notably the possibility that this effect is just a result of ‘fishing’ for the right analysis out of many possible analyses. Exploratory results are presented dealing with differential effects in the responses to emotional stimuli and calm visual stimuli.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------