"String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal"

[Wowbagger]

Moreover, there was a significant prestimulus effect that peaked with a four standard error difference in physiological measures between extreme and calm targets, one second before the target photo was displayed.

One whole second? A lot of things could account for that.

Sometimes, the mind will try to "brace itself" in anticipation of what it thinks the next photo will be, with no psychic energies needed, only an instictual sense of what might happen next.

I wonder if a similar experiment was done, with "horrible" photos and "pleasant" photos, you would get a lot more positive results of prestimulus for the horrible ones, because the mind will be more inclined to "brace itself" for them, more often.

 

[dudalb]

It's the Nobel Disease - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=188

One is reminded of that saying that when he is outside his area of expertise, an expert can be as stupid as anyone else.

 

[Beth]

One whole second? A lot of things could account for that.

Sometimes, the mind will try to "brace itself" in anticipation of what it thinks the next photo will be, with no psychic energies needed, only an instictual sense of what might happen next.

I wonder if a similar experiment was done, with "horrible" photos and "pleasant" photos, you would get a lot more positive results of prestimulus for the horrible ones, because the mind will be more inclined to "brace itself" for them, more often.

Your supposition of the anticipation effect is not reasonable given the protocol of the experiment, which randomly selected the photos to be shown with replacement from a large set. Any other ideas on what might have caused it?

 

[Limbo]

There are two problems with that. The first is that the possibility that the 'anomaly' consists only of bias has not been ruled-out.

The possibility that the 'anomaly' consists only of bias, fraud, "dirty test-tubes", etc is incredibly small...given the diversity, depth, and scope of parapsychological research over the past century.

The second is that 'psi' is not a coherent idea with a theoretical basis. Psi only fits the 'anomaly' because psi is so vaguely conceived that hardly anything wouldn't fit.

That's how science operates. First you observe the anomaly, gather data for along time, etc...and THEN you gradually move on to coherent ideas and theories. Parapsychology has been mostly proof-oriented in the past but now it's beginning to make the move to coherent ideas and theories.

Because, as Jessica Utts said,

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.

The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability.

A number of other patterns have been found, suggestive of how to conduct more productive experiments and applied psychic functioning. For instance, it doesn't appear that a sender is needed. Precognition, in which the answer is known to no one until a future time, appears to work quite well. Recent experiments suggest that if there is a psychic sense then it works much like our other five senses, by detecting change. Given that physicists are currently grappling with an understanding of time, it may be that a psychic sense exists that scans the future for major change, much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change or our ears allow us to respond to sudden changes in sound.

It is recommended that future experiments focus on understanding how this phenomenon works, and on how to make it as useful as possible. There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data." http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

Of course it's one-sided.

What I mean is, you seem to be getting only one side of the story. I think scientists like Brian D. Josephson have both sides of the story.

I fall squarely on the side of truth and beauty, which means I am frustrated by methods that assure neither.

What a coincidence! Me too!

 

[PingOfPong]

In the pre-stimulus study you presented in post #23 I have at least one question. What methods were used to record and analyze the data? When one uses digital signal processing it is possible, indeed it can be useful, to use non-causal algorithms on a set of buffered/recorded data.

Anyway, the reason could be as simple as an incorrectly calibrated machine.

More importantly, the existence of pre-stimulation has astounding implications. If I discovered it, I would carefully define a protocol that is beyond reproach and beg/badger/dare scientists to try it for themselves. Parapsycholigists have a knack of keeping to themselves and avoiding sincere critics. That makes them suspect.

 

[PingOfPong]

I just had another thought. There are plenty of rythmic things in the human body. If you timed the picture reveals correctly one could get plenty of false hits just from the heartbeat. I'd like to see the details of the skin resistance experiment. The link you provided was only an overview.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The possibility that the 'anomaly' consists only of bias, fraud, "dirty test-tubes", etc is incredibly small...given the diversity, depth, and scope of parapsychological research over the past century.

Still many time bigger than the possibility of paranormal phenomena, which has zero basis in reality.

That's how science operates. First you observe the anomaly, gather data for along time, etc...and THEN you gradually move on to coherent ideas and theories. Parapsychology has been mostly proof-oriented in the past but now it's beginning to make the move to coherent ideas and theories.

Yes, this is a common tactic these days with various flavors of woo...forget about proving that Bigfoot/LGM/ESP actually exists, let's focus on migration patterns/star charts/mechanisms to get our minds off the fact that we're wasting our time.

 

[Wowbagger]

Your supposition of the anticipation effect is not reasonable given the protocol of the experiment, which randomly selected the photos to be shown with replacement from a large set. Any other ideas on what might have caused it?

I don't think the summary of that experiment rules it out. It provides a chart averaging the data with error bars. I would like to see just how many evocative photos had high change in stimulus ("black dots"), vs. how many non-evocative ones did not ("white dots"). In other words how many data points positively match the prestimulus effect noted. My supposition predicts that many more "black dots" positively fit expectations, than "white dots", assuming an equal number of photos were shown of each type.
You can't determine this with only averages and error bars.

 

[Beth]

I don't think the summary of that experiment rules it out.

Corretct, the summary doesn't. It's the detailed protocol that rules it out.

 

[Wowbagger]

Corretct, the summary doesn't. It's the detailed protocol that rules it out.

Just because they were randomized, and from a large set, does not rule it out. The photos don't need to be in any particular pattern, for the body to assume there is one. That's why paredolias are so predominant.

 

[fls]

The studies referenced in the review article mostly do not demonstrate differences in anticipatory baselines that are unexpected due to chance. For example, the fMRI study states "the results of the multi subject analyses are statistically marginal and would evaporate when multiple analyses are taken into account" (there are about 100 different regions and marginally significant differences were found in only a few). The EEG study may suffer from the same problem as there would be 74 points measured on the set-up described, but only a few are described as showing differences. The standard error bars overlap and p-values are non-significant for most of the skin-conductance studies. The purported significant findings seem to be based on a posteriori small group analyses and are inconsistent from one study to the next.

It looks like chance may account for the results, even if one does not take into account the published research showing the way some biases (such as expectation models) can produce similar results (discussed in a prior thread).

Linda

 

[Limbo]

Still many time bigger than the possibility of paranormal phenomena, which has zero basis in reality.

That's not what the research suggests.

Yes, this is a common tactic these days with various flavors of woo...forget about proving that Bigfoot/LGM/ESP actually exists, let's focus on migration patterns/star charts/mechanisms to get our minds off the fact that we're wasting our time.

First, parapsychology proper has a narrow focus, so lets not lump cryptozoology in with it. Second, it's not a 'common tactic', it's the truth. As you would see if you read up on it a bit more. I recommend a college textbook.

An Introduction to Parapsychology

Product Description

"Irwin begins by defining parapsychology as the investigation of ostensibly paranormal experiences, some of which may ultimately prove to have an explanation in terms of conventional scientific principles. He sees parapsychological investigations as being restricted to three primary domains of content, comprised of extrasensory perception (ESP), psychokinesis (PK), and the survival of death; and he notes that certain other forms of experience (such as Bigfoot and UFO encounters) that are sometimes classified as paranormal by some writers would fall outside the traditional scope of parapsychology. He maintains that the study of parapsychological experiences (i.e., experiences that seem to involve the operation of psi, or are suggestive of survival) is of value whether or not such experiences ultimately prove to have a basis in the operation of paranormal principles."

 

[Limbo]

According to Dean Radin in this talk on Google Video, presentiment experiments of one kind or another have been done about 20 times, give or take. Not all produced positive results, but that's ok.

Presentiment experiments performed at so far:

University of Nevada
University of Amsterdam
University of Edinburgh
Interval Research Corporation
Boundary Institute
University of Texas
Natl Inst of Rad Sciences (Japan)
Lab for Fundamental Research
Budapest, Hungary
University of Northhampton
Institute of Heartmath
Institute of Noetic Sciences

I recommend watching the video. He describes the whole presentiment thing.

 

[Beth]

Just because they were randomized, and from a large set, does not rule it out.

I think it does. There may be other reasons for the seemingly anomolous results, but I think an antipicatory response is effectively ruled out by that aspect of the protocol.

The photos don't need to be in any particular pattern, for the body to assume there is one. That's why paredolias are so predominant.

The randomization and sampling with replacement means that any unconsciously assumed pattern won't match up with the actual pattern of presentation. That's why the randomization is set up that way - to prevent that sort of unconscious anticipatory reaction from inadvertantly giving a false positive.

 

[fls]

The possibility that the 'anomaly' consists only of bias, fraud, "dirty test-tubes", etc is incredibly small...given the diversity, depth, and scope of parapsychological research over the past century.

Why not? Most of the time there is no anomaly - it only seems to show up when the test-tubes are dirty.

That's how science operates. First you observe the anomaly, gather data for along time, etc...and THEN you gradually move on to coherent ideas and theories. Parapsychology has been mostly proof-oriented in the past but now it's beginning to make the move to coherent ideas and theories.

That is not the only way science operates, however. In particular, it's not how physics has operated for the last hundred years. I was trying to be helpful. Since parapsychologists have failed to produce a consistent, replicable anomaly from which to build ideas, approaching the idea from a theoretical basis may be a better way to tell them what to look for.

Because, as Jessica Utts said,

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.

The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability.

A number of other patterns have been found, suggestive of how to conduct more productive experiments and applied psychic functioning. For instance, it doesn't appear that a sender is needed. Precognition, in which the answer is known to no one until a future time, appears to work quite well. Recent experiments suggest that if there is a psychic sense then it works much like our other five senses, by detecting change. Given that physicists are currently grappling with an understanding of time, it may be that a psychic sense exists that scans the future for major change, much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change or our ears allow us to respond to sudden changes in sound.

It is recommended that future experiments focus on understanding how this phenomenon works, and on how to make it as useful as possible. There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data." http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

I realize that is what she wants to believe - that the rest of the scientists are meanies for not taking this seriously.

What I mean is, you seem to be getting only one side of the story. I think scientists like Brian D. Josephson have both sides of the story.

What do you mean by that? They have super-duper high-quality research results that robustly demonstrate anomalies that they are hiding from the rest of us?

Linda

 

[fls]

I think it does. There may be other reasons for the seemingly anomolous results, but I think an antipicatory response is effectively ruled out by that aspect of the protocol.
The randomization and sampling with replacement means that any unconsciously assumed pattern won't match up with the actual pattern of presentation. That's why the randomization is set up that way - to prevent that sort of unconscious anticipatory reaction from inadvertantly giving a false positive.

There was a paper that looked at the effects anticipation may have that showed it introduced a significant bias.

http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/publications/2002/expectationbias_PA2002.pdf

There was another paper I saw that tried a few different models for anticipation that also demonstrated bias. I couldn't find it with a quick search, but I'll keep looking.

Linda

 

[Limbo]

Why not? Most of the time there is no anomaly - it only seems to show up when the test-tubes are dirty.

'Most of the time' is ok. 'Most of the time' is not all of the time.

What do you mean by that? They have super-duper high-quality research results that robustly demonstrate anomalies that they are hiding from the rest of us?

I wouldn't say that. I would simply say that unless one reads parapsychology proper journals, books, and textbooks, lectures, and actually listens...then one is getting only one side of the story. The debunker side. So that someone can't see the true strength of the mounds and mounds of cumulative, corroborative evidence.

Ray Hyman is a noted critic of parapsychology. But even he admits that "...members of the scientific community often judge the parapsychological claims without firsthand knowledge of the experimental evidence. Very few of the scientific critics have examined even one of the many experimental reports on psychic phenomena. Even fewer, if any, have examined the bulk of the parapsychological literature.... Consequently, parapsychologists have justification for their complaint that the scientific community is dismissing their claims without a fair hearing..."

 

[fls]

'Most of the time' is ok. 'Most of the time' is not all of the time.

How is that ok? In what way is it helpful when something doesn't look any different than chance?

I wouldn't say that. I would simply say that unless one reads parapsychology proper journals, books, and textbooks, lectures, and actually listens...then one is getting only one side of the story. The debunker side. So that someone can't see the true strength of the mounds and mounds of cumulative, corroborative evidence.

I think that is my problem. I read the research papers and got a first-hand look at the true strength of the evidence.

Ray Hyman is a noted critic of parapsychology. But even he admits that "...members of the scientific community often judge the parapsychological claims without firsthand knowledge of the experimental evidence. Very few of the scientific critics have examined even one of the many experimental reports on psychic phenomena. Even fewer, if any, have examined the bulk of the parapsychological literature.... Consequently, parapsychologists have justification for their complaint that the scientific community is dismissing their claims without a fair hearing..."

I suspect that's true. I have looked mostly at the topics and research articles that have been identified by parapsychologists as their strongest. It seems pretty pointless to look at the rest after that (it usually just makes me want to cry).

Linda

 

[Robin]

What's your explanation for the effect demonstrated by the paper in post #23?

Ok, let's get this clear. If the paper is fair dinkum then we ought to be able to perform the following experiment:

1. In a room somebody spins a roulette wheel. If black comes up he presses one button, if red comes up he presses another
2. In another set of rooms, 30 people are shown pictures, either calm or emotional depending on which button is pressed.
3. In yet another room, an apparatus predicts red or black based on the average galvanic skin response (edit: or MRI) of the 30 people, up to two seconds before the picture is shown.

So the person in the third room ought to be able to predict red or black in the first room two seconds before the ball stops rolling, significantly more than 50% of the time.

Do you say such a result is possible or not?

 

[devnull]

Before you can explain where paranormal abilities come from, you have to demonstrate that they exist in the first place

^^^^

What wowbagger said.