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

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

It depends who has the copyright. If it's the journal, he shouldn't give me one.

~~ Paul

Email the journal then?

[Interesting Ian]

BTW when you obtain a copy could you email it to me?

[David Bailey]

Paul,

Thanks for the link to more details of that paper - I too, do not have access to the paper itself.

Isn't it strange that they made absolutely no reference to the fMRI version of the presentiment experiment, that did report positive results.

Is it convincing evidence at all? I mean, would fMRI respond clearly to a weak signal at the very edge of consciousness?

I'd love to really know if ψ exists or not. It seems so hard to get well-conducted skeptical research - I mean there would be plenty of parapsychologists that would have offered help to maximise the chance of a positive result (which would obviously make any refutation far more convincing!) and as I read it, none were involved.

David

[Open Mind]

Samuel T. Moulton and Stephen M. Kosslyn say......

If psi exists, it occurs in the brain, and hence, assessing the brain directly should be more sensitive than using indirect behavioural methods (as have been used previously).

Must occur in the brain? Nonsense I have spent the past few months in here (and many of us much longer elsewhere) arguing the hypothesis psi is not a brain function. The brain being a filter, not the source of the mind that is generating psi. Their findings struggling to find a perfect correlation between psi and brain functioning is rather what I personally would predict.

These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena.

No, just more evidence of many scientists stubborn determination to look upon psi as a brain function and unwillingness to even consider psi as sourced from an external mind/consciousness.

In particular, the large and massively significant activation revealed by our arousal contrast shows that that the psi effect, if it exists, must be substantially smaller than the effect of arousal on brain activity.

No contradiction here either, if the brain evolved to filter out psi, psi lower than normal arousal via physical senses is indeed expected.

The current neuroimaging approach, however, seeks anomalous knowledge at its source, inside the brain

'Inside the brain' ..... how can one get into their minds that the brain is not necessarily the mind or source of psi? Anyone got a slapstick rubber hammer?

It is also exhaustive...the study incorporated methodological variables (e.g., biological and emotional relatedness of participants, evocative stimuli) widely considered to facilitate psi by parapsychologists.

For those arguing the survival hypothesis, it is not our fault many notable parapsychologists since Richet to Rhine to Radin persist in viewing psi as a brain function. There is 125 years of psychical research suggesting survival of brain death too but parapsychologists have preferred to view psi like a brain function because it is easier to research and control.
.

The current null results do not simply fail to support the psi hypothesis: They offer strong evidence against it.

It may also offer further evidence that psi is not a brain function under much personal conscious control when the brain is effectively filtering.

If these results are replicated over a range of participants and situational contexts, the case will become increasingly strong, with as much certainty as is allowed in science, that psi does not exist.

No but I do agree this research is important and interesting. Now please repeat the research, using children under the age of 5 years old, schizophrenics and those claiming mediumship/psychic abilities.

Open Mind

(PS It would be interesting to hear Dick Bierman's opinion on the Moulton/Kosslyn above research. Since he tested his own brain using fMRI and found a psi correlation 320 to 1 against chance)

[David Bailey]

When will the obvious get through. If you want to refute an hypothesis, you have to bend over backwards to show the opposite. If they had asked Dean Radin (say) to help get the ψ right, it would have made no difference to the outcome if the null hypothesis was true, but every difference to the believablility of the research.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Email the journal then?

They require an online subscription.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Is it convincing evidence at all? I mean, would fMRI respond clearly to a weak signal at the very edge of consciousness?

I think the idea is that as the signal is received and processed, a different part of the brain should be active, or the activity in the usual places should be different. If not, then you have to hypothesize that the entire brain is some kind of multisegmented receiver and doesn't operate any differently when receiving psi inputs vs. not receiving them. That starts to sound too magical and unlikely to evolve.

I'd love to really know if ? exists or not. It seems so hard to get well-conducted skeptical research - I mean there would be plenty of parapsychologists that would have offered help to maximise the chance of a positive result (which would obviously make any refutation far more convincing!) and as I read it, none were involved.

More experiments are in order, for sure.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Must occur in the brain? Nonsense I have spent the past few months in here (and many of us much longer elsewhere) arguing the hypothesis psi is not a brain function. The brain being a filter, not the source of the mind that is generating psi. Their findings strugglying to find a perfect corrolation between psi and brain functioning is rather what I personally would predict.

Even if the brain is merely a filter, psi still "occurs in the brain." It doesn't occur in the heart, lung, or big toe.

No, just more evidence of many scientists stubborn determination to look upon psi as a brain function and unwillingness to even consider psi as sourced from an external mind/consciousness.

See my previous post. If the brain is a receiver, there should still be variance in the blood flow between psi activity and regular activity, no?

'Inside the brain' ..... how can one get into their minds that the brain is not necessarily the mind or source of psi? Anyone got a slapstick rubber hammer?

You're overfocusing on the word source. The ultimate source could be outside the brain, but there still has to be a second-stage source or sources within the brain, the nexuses between the outside source and the brain's processing of the information.

No but I do agree this research is important and interesting. Now please repeat the research, using children under the age of 5 years old, schizophrenics and those claiming mediumship/psychic abilities.

Have the first two groups got good psi?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

When will the obvious get through. If you want to refute an hypothesis, you have to bend over backwards to show the opposite. If they had asked Dean Radin (say) to help get the ? right, it would have made no difference to the outcome if the null hypothesis was true, but every difference to the believablility of the research.

Yes, it would have trashed the believability. Scientists are not going to ask Radin, Schwartz, or Geller for help, because they are laughingstocks within the overall scientific community.

You know, it's funny. We all want more scientists to take up psi, scientists with good reputations for previous research in related fields. Yet many such scientists don't care what the entrenched parapsychology community thinks, and so won't pander to their "requirements" for how the studies should be run. I think we should consider this a good thing.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You know, it's funny. We all want more scientists to take up psi, scientists with good reputations for previous research in related fields. Yet many such scientists don't care what the entrenched parapsychology community thinks, and so won't pander to their "requirements" for how the studies should be run. I think we should consider this a good thing.

~~ Paul

Maybe I am not quite understanding what you mean. You can preform any experiment so badly that it gives no result! What exactly do you think would be a 'good thing'?

You may not credit this, but I would class myself as still somewhat on the fence regarding the reality of ψ, but if people try to refute the idea without trying their hardest to make it happen, that feels more like propaganda to me.

David