View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Is There Really Such a Thing as Premonition That Foretells

Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.

Re: Is There Really Such a Thing as Premonition That Foretells

Postby quantumparanormal » 04 Sep 2009, 01:50

ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:[
However, if you can guess some numbers for those two questions, I can figure out the statistical probability for you.

No, that won't be necessary. My post was simply to show that what appears to be, on the surface, possible precognition but in actuality, there are many more variables or variations to a story that could show that it was not precognition after all.


Well, to be fair, "many more variables or variations to a story that could show that it was not precognition" is not an "actuality." In other words, you can't say that an event cannot be due to precognition (not without sufficient, proper data as evidence to show otherwise). This shows your bias towards a non-precognitive explanation. I said we can neither know it was nor was not due to precognition given the available data.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA






Re: Is There Really Such a Thing as Premonition That Foretells

Postby ProfWag » 04 Sep 2009, 01:59

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:Actually, Radin's done no experiments himself, no. He has, however, performed statistical research on the phenomenon.

Quantum, since you have his "Entangled Minds" book, would you mind looking on page 86 and telling me what his experiments are about and then again on page 188 where he lists his conclusions? This pseudo-skeptic is curious.
Thanks
Wag


Certainly.

Page 86 does not describe Radin's experiments. Page 86 describes the Pearce-Pratt distance telepathy trials conducted between Aug 1933 and Mar 1934. These trials produced a hit rate of 32%, with chance expectation being 20%. They later conducted more tightly controlled trials which ended up still producing significant statistical odds against chance. As a matter of fact, and here's just one example, answer to your "one quadrillion to one chance of it being chance" question, the results produced odds against chance of 10 to the 27th power to 1, or a billion billion billion to 1 (more than a quadrillion!). Even when accounting for experimenter bias, the file-drawer problem, lack of proper controls, methodological flaws, etc., the statistical odds against chance are still extremely high.

Page 188 does not contain his conclusions regarding the entire set of research listed in the book. That comes later on in the book. On that page is discussed Dr. Ryan Taft's experiment with intentional "healing" on cultured brain cells. The hypothesis was whether or not "healing" intention could cause cultured brain cells to grow faster than those not given such intention. This was a double-blind experiment utilizing controls. The results (page 189) showed "odds against chance for the increased growth trend in the treated cells was 1,100 to 1. By contrast, the control cells did not show a significant trend."

It's good to see you've admitted you're a pseudo-skeptic, although I've known all along. ;)
It appears that I gave you the wrong page number to look up. Not sure where I got 86 so I sincerely apologize for that. I'm at work so possibly I was looking at another number while just typing away, thinking of two things at once which I'm not good at. In any event, from a review of his book, I found the following information:
"In 1993, Dean Radin got the idea "to monitor a person's skin conductance before, during, and after viewing emotional and calm pictures, and then see if the autonomic nervous system responded appropriately before the picture appeared" (2006, p. 184). He eventually did four tests with mixed results, but a meta-analysis saved the day. The first test was small (24 subjects) and he found that the subjects reacted 2 to 3 seconds after the presentation of the stimulus, as measured by a blip on a screen hooked up to a skin conductance measuring device. He also found blips occurring before the stimulus and he calculated their odds against chance at being 500 to 1, for what it's worth.

His second experiment had 50 subjects. All he says about it is that the "results were in the predicted direction, but weren't as strong as those observed in the first experiment." The third experiment had 47 subjects. He says it "resulted in a strong presentiment effect, with odds against chance of 2,500 to 1." The third experiment used different hardware, software, and pictures. The fourth study produced results that "weren't statistically significant."

Radin concludes:

These studies suggest that when the average person is about to see an emotional picture, he or she will respond before that picture appears (under double-blind conditions). (2006, p. 188, emphasis in the original)"
Radin, Dean. (2006). Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. Paraview Pocket Books.

I guess I am going to have to buy the book since it appears that there is a significant difference of opinion on what precognition actually is. I was under the impression that precognition was knowing something in advance of what happens and it seems to me that this was what his experiments were doing, unless my source is a total fabrication.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Is There Really Such a Thing as Premonition That Foretells

Postby ProfWag » 04 Sep 2009, 02:03

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:[
However, if you can guess some numbers for those two questions, I can figure out the statistical probability for you.

No, that won't be necessary. My post was simply to show that what appears to be, on the surface, possible precognition but in actuality, there are many more variables or variations to a story that could show that it was not precognition after all.


Well, to be fair, "many more variables or variations to a story that could show that it was not precognition" is not an "actuality." In other words, you can't say that an event cannot be due to precognition (not without sufficient, proper data as evidence to show otherwise). This shows your bias towards a non-precognitive explanation. I said we can neither know it was nor was not due to precognition given the available data.

Please read again. I said--In actuality...that COULD show. That does not mean--in actuality...DOES show. I don't believe that I have stated that anything is impossible. Thanks for trying to point out my bias though.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Is There Really Such a Thing as Premonition That Foretells

Postby quantumparanormal » 04 Sep 2009, 02:20

ProfWag wrote:Please read again. I said--In actuality...that COULD show. That does not mean--in actuality...DOES show. I don't believe that I have stated that anything is impossible. Thanks for trying to point out my bias though.


Very true; I stand corrected.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Is There Really Such a Thing as Premonition That Foretells

Postby ProfWag » 04 Sep 2009, 02:20

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:I sure can. You'll find it in the Journal of American Medical Association, right next to the article that discusses how listening to Mozart makes you smarter.


Thank you. Can you please provide a specific title, reference number, or link to the paper? Thanks.

ProfWag wrote:C'mon Quantum, it's a MYTH. That means you won't find research articles on it.


Ahh, OK. Since you say it's a "myth," that's all the evidence I need. Forget the empirical data! :lol: (sarcasm intended, of course)

ProfWag wrote:But again, you won't find a journal article on the 10% brain myth, but you can search any neurological journal for reports on brain imaging and scanning.


I didn't ask for a journal paper on the supposed 10% "myth." Here's what I asked for:

QuantumParanormal wrote:This is a contradiction: How can they claim we use 100% of our brains when they only understand 10% of how the brain functions? Ahh, perhaps part of their 10% understanding includes the knowledge that we use 100% of our brains? :o Oh, I know how they could be right: They are Nobel prize winners! That's evidence enough, correct? :lol:

In all seriousness, though, I'd like to see the published papers about this, not an article. Do you have any journal references regarding such research? Otherwise, it's all just unsubstantiated opinion. I form my conclusions based on empirical data obtained via valid scientific research (well, for the most part ;) ). Thanks.


When I said "this," I meant the claim we use 100% of our brains. I don't deny it might be true, but I'd like to see the empirical evidence first. I agree that we most likely use more than 10% of our brains, but since it was stated we only understand 10% about how the brain works, it's a contradiction in terms. In other words, if you we only understand how 10% of the brain functions, how can we logically purport to understand how the other 90% works? But forget the latter. I'm interested in the we-use-100%-of-our-brains theory, specifically the empirical research done that demonstrates this is the case. Again, thanks for providing the info.

ProfWag wrote:BTW, did I miss where you posted your reference on your paranormal experiment that had a one quadrillion to one chance of it being chance?


See my previous post for the answer.


Quantum, I am an not a brain surgeon. I know nothing of medicine. I really don't care how much of the brain we use. This all started with a comment by someone saying we only use 10% of our brain and I simply provided two references to point out that this statement was a myth. One of these references was from the Cornell Med Center which is quite solid to back up my claim on the 10% brain usage myth. They do the research and understand the brain more than I. If you're interested in neurological experiments, please, as suggested, go to the JAMA. Barry Beyerstein also wrote a book on it entitled "Mind Myths: Exploring Everyday Mysteries of the Mind." Between those two sources, there might be something that would interest you. As I said, I am quite comfortable in my stance that it is a myth that we only use 10% of our brain and the sources I have provided back up my stance. 'Nuff said.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Is There Really Such a Thing as Premonition That Foretells

Postby ProfWag » 04 Sep 2009, 02:24

quantumparanormal wrote: Page 86 describes the Pearce-Pratt distance telepathy trials conducted between Aug 1933 and Mar 1934. These trials produced a hit rate of 32%, with chance expectation being 20%. They later conducted more tightly controlled trials which ended up still producing significant statistical odds against chance. As a matter of fact, and here's just one example, answer to your "one quadrillion to one chance of it being chance" question, the results produced odds against chance of 10 to the 27th power to 1, or a billion billion billion to 1 (more than a quadrillion!). Even when accounting for experimenter bias, the file-drawer problem, lack of proper controls, methodological flaws, etc., the statistical odds against chance are still extremely high.

Please clarify--the 1 quadrillion/1 chance you are referring to was from the Pearce-Pratt trials conducted in the 1930's?
Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Is There Really Such a Thing as Premonition That Foretells

Postby quantumparanormal » 04 Sep 2009, 02:47

ProfWag wrote:In 1993, Dean Radin got the idea "to monitor a person's skin conductance before, during, and after viewing emotional and calm pictures, and then see if the autonomic nervous system responded appropriately before the picture appeared" (2006, p. 184). He eventually did four tests with mixed results, but a meta-analysis saved the day. The first test was small (24 subjects) and he found that the subjects reacted 2 to 3 seconds after the presentation of the stimulus, as measured by a blip on a screen hooked up to a skin conductance measuring device. He also found blips occurring before the stimulus and he calculated their odds against chance at being 500 to 1, for what it's worth.

His second experiment had 50 subjects. All he says about it is that the "results were in the predicted direction, but weren't as strong as those observed in the first experiment." The third experiment had 47 subjects. He says it "resulted in a strong presentiment effect, with odds against chance of 2,500 to 1." The third experiment used different hardware, software, and pictures. The fourth study produced results that "weren't statistically significant."

Radin concludes:

These studies suggest that when the average person is about to see an emotional picture, he or she will respond before that picture appears (under double-blind conditions). (2006, p. 188, emphasis in the original)"
Radin, Dean. (2006). Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. Paraview Pocket Books.


It's no wonder why you'd receive such as biased review of Radin's research: it comes from skepdic.com. However, and that said, there were two biased statements I noticed:
skepdic.com wrote:He eventually did four tests with mixed results, but a meta-analysis saved the day
; and
skepdic.com wrote:He also found blips occurring before the stimulus and he calculated their odds against chance at being 500 to 1, for what it's worth.


In the psi world, and even in the non-psi world, of empirical experimentation, no one trial will typically yield the exact same outcome, nor will any one session. Therefore, you need to conduct many sessions, each with many trials. This is the replicability standard required by "science." The "saved the day" comment implies that it's because of Radin's inclusion of other experiments into the analysis of the various experiments (aka meta-analysis) why the positive statistical effect was present, not because of Radin's experiments alone. But this happens all the time: researcher A could get different results than research B, C, D, and so on. It's the aggregate of all of their research that matters. To single out one experiment over another is to be biased, unless, of course, you are excluding experiments that are truly invalid, but there's no indication of such experiments existing here that I can tell.

In the second quote (i.e., "for what it's worth"), it's implied that odds of 500 to 1 is not statistically significant. Well, that's surely a subjective assessment, isn't it? Surely in the sports world, those odds are huge. In the psi world, they might not be construed as "significant," but they are still odds against chance nonetheless. It's the meaning we give to "odds against chance of 500 to 1" that ultimately becomes a subjective determination. To me, it's significant, although not mind-shatteringly so. To others so inclined, it's not significant at all. It all depends on who you ask. However, logically speaking, since presentiment should not occur at all, according to classical, conventional, Newtonian physics, those are indeed significant odds. In other words, even odds against chance of 2 to 1 should not be possible under tightly controlled, blinded experiments.

And by the way, his reference to the first Radin quote refers to page 164, not 184. Furthermore, presentiment research has been replicated and confirmed (Radin, 2006, p169+).

ProfWag wrote:I guess I am going to have to buy the book since it appears that there is a significant difference of opinion on what precognition actually is. I was under the impression that precognition was knowing something in advance of what happens and it seems to me that this was what his experiments were doing, unless my source is a total fabrication.


The experiment shown above involved testing presentiment (aka presentience or unconscious precognition), a "feeling", a "sense" of something before it occurs (resulting in some form of a physiological response to future stimuli); whereas, precognition involves cognitive processes, such as thoughts, ideas, etc. They are not the same thing.

But, yes, you should get the book. It was the final "nail in the coffin" that convinced me of psi's reality.
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 04 Sep 2009, 02:54, edited 2 times in total.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Is There Really Such a Thing as Premonition That Foretells

Postby quantumparanormal » 04 Sep 2009, 02:50

ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote: Page 86 describes the Pearce-Pratt distance telepathy trials conducted between Aug 1933 and Mar 1934. These trials produced a hit rate of 32%, with chance expectation being 20%. They later conducted more tightly controlled trials which ended up still producing significant statistical odds against chance. As a matter of fact, and here's just one example, answer to your "one quadrillion to one chance of it being chance" question, the results produced odds against chance of 10 to the 27th power to 1, or a billion billion billion to 1 (more than a quadrillion!). Even when accounting for experimenter bias, the file-drawer problem, lack of proper controls, methodological flaws, etc., the statistical odds against chance are still extremely high.

Please clarify--the 1 quadrillion/1 chance you are referring to was from the Pearce-Pratt trials conducted in the 1930's?
Wag


No, it was based on other forms of psi research, not specifically related to the Pearce-Pratt set of trials, but it was a point made in that it really doesn't matter whether or not the Pearce-Pratt distance telepathy trials produced quadrillions-to-1 odds, as they produced odds against chance far greater than quadrillions-to-1.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Is There Really Such a Thing as Premonition That Foretells

Postby quantumparanormal » 04 Sep 2009, 02:55

ProfWag wrote:Quantum, I am an not a brain surgeon. I know nothing of medicine. I really don't care how much of the brain we use. This all started with a comment by someone saying we only use 10% of our brain and I simply provided two references to point out that this statement was a myth. One of these references was from the Cornell Med Center which is quite solid to back up my claim on the 10% brain usage myth. They do the research and understand the brain more than I. If you're interested in neurological experiments, please, as suggested, go to the JAMA. Barry Beyerstein also wrote a book on it entitled "Mind Myths: Exploring Everyday Mysteries of the Mind." Between those two sources, there might be something that would interest you. As I said, I am quite comfortable in my stance that it is a myth that we only use 10% of our brain and the sources I have provided back up my stance. 'Nuff said.


Fair enough. You're surely entitled to your opinions.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Is There Really Such a Thing as Premonition That Foretells

Postby ProfWag » 04 Sep 2009, 03:39

quantumparanormal wrote:In the second quote (i.e., "for what it's worth"), it's implied that odds of 500 to 1 is not statistically significant. Well, that's surely a subjective assessment, isn't it? Surely in the sports world, those odds are huge. In the psi world, they might not be construed as "significant," but they are still odds against chance nonetheless. It's the meaning we give to "odds against chance of 500 to 1" that ultimately becomes a subjective determination. To me, it's significant, although not mind-shatteringly so. To others so inclined, it's not significant at all. It all depends on who you ask. However, logically speaking, since presentiment should not occur at all, according to classical, conventional, Newtonian physics, those are indeed significant odds. In other words, even odds against chance of 2 to 1 should not be possible under tightly controlled, blinded experiments.

I wholheartedly agree that 500 to 1 odds could be quite significant. That, in my pseudoskeptic opinion, is a pseudoskeptic comment from Mr. Carroll.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Previous

Return to Psychic Phenomena / ESP / Telepathy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

cron