Dr Steve Novella and The (Pseudo?)Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well, as I said before, if you really want to refute something, you absolutely have to try hard to achieve the opposite! I suspect a lot of skeptics find that hard to stomach. People like Dean Radin can possibly help make a ? experiment work. If you bring them in, they won't upset the null hypothesis, but they will certainly make people like me take such an experiment more seriously.

I don't think skeptics have a problem with that, as long as the requests aren't ridiculous, such as when the experimenter effect comes into play.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

The whole argument is based around the notion that if psi is operating, the neuronal responses must be different from when it is not operating. Hence we surely must take it as a given that statistically significant results were obtained suggesting that psi is either occurring or apparently occurring.

If there were no indication whatsoever that psi is operating then obviously indistinguishable neuronal responses would be obtained regardless of whether psi exists or not.

Unless merely trying to receive psi signals causes interesting brain functioning. But yes, I agree that it's a whole lot more interesting if the statistics were in favor of psi occuring.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

:

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

The whole argument is based around the notion that if psi is operating, the neuronal responses must be different from when it is not operating.

Yes that is what they (Bierman and others too) are reasoning in this type of experiment (and they could be right) however if the brain is a filter of consciousness, we could also alternatively view psi as a largely unconscious pre-brain filtered effect, would such filtering show up in an fMRI? Hmm .... perhaps not or perhaps it might.

Hence we surely must take it as a given that statistically significant results were obtained suggesting that psi is either occurring or apparently occurring.

That would be fascinating outcome! *if* they got a statistically significant psi results but due to no correlating fMRI response, they dismiss it like 'nothing but something else unknown' ....it could actually point to an external consciousness producing a psi effect without a clearly related fMRI response?

If there were no indication whatsoever that psi is operating then obviously indistinguishable neuronal responses would be obtained regardless of whether psi exists or not.

Yes, if they are correlating no psi found with no fMRI correlation found to try and prove psi doesn't exist .......if so, in my opinion they have proven nothing, except the future of science may be doomed in such hands

But of course we need to get hold of the paper before discussing it.

Yes indeed but it is fun for us all to speculate till then.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Yes that is what they (Bierman and others too) are reasoning in this type of experiment (and they could be right) however if the brain is a filter of consciousness, we could also alternatively view psi as a largely unconscious pre-brain filtered effect, would such filtering show up in an fMRI? Hmm .... perhaps not or perhaps it might.

It should show up on an fMRI if it is a brain function at all. You could propose that psi uses exactly the same parts of the brain as are used when performing a similar non-psi task, I suppose.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Ian
If there were no indication whatsoever that psi is operating then obviously indistinguishable neuronal responses would be obtained regardless of whether psi exists or not.


Open Mind

Yes, if they are correlating no psi found with no fMRI correlation found to try and prove psi doesn't exist .......if so, in my opinion they have proven nothing, except the future of science may be doomed in such hands

But as I mentioned I don't think they could possibly be making this assumption!

If they are then that is unbelievably bad.

Paul, have you obtained this paper yet??

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No response from the author yet.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here is a post by someone who read the paper:

Evidence against psi? - JREF Forum

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Here is a post by someone who read the paper:

Evidence against psi? - JREF Forum

~~ Paul

Thanks for that Paul. Pity I'm no longer allowed to contribute on there. Do you think I should use a sock puppet?

Excellent analysis by David Smith.

From what I've heard so far of the paper I must confess I'm baffled as to how this can possibly constituted any evidence against psi whatsoever -- never mind strong evidence!

A question for you Paul and the other skeptics on here. From what you've heard of the paper so far would you agree that it doesn't constitute any evidence against psi whatsoever?

[Open Mind]

Good post by David Smith.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have a copy of the paper, so I will read it over the next few days.

~~ Paul