posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by Somamech
And it is not just Ingo Swann and Hal Puthoff making these claims. Throughout academias history you have have these folks (Rhine, Radin, Bierman, and
now Bern at Cornell, who is currently releasing a paper talking about a minor 1% deviation from chance in some experiment).
Nearly 20 years elapsed before the idea of precognitive information reflected in the physiology of subjects was picked up again by the second
author of this article (Radin 1996). He used the physiological measures Skin Conductance, Heart Rate, and Plethysmography, which reflect behavior of
our sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system. Furthermore, in contrast to Hartwell, he used highly emotional pictures that were presented 5
seconds after the subjects had pressed the button for the next trial. In 3 independent studies Radin found significant differences in physiology, most
notably in the skin conductance, preceding the exposure of calm versus extreme pictures. The precognitive response was termed "presponse." Radin
discussed a number of possible classical explanations for presponse but concluded that these do not apply.
However one potential "normal" explanation, namely the effect of anticipatory strategies, was not discussed at the time. Subjects who participate in
this type of experiment while being aware that once every so often an extreme picture will be displayed may build up (generally incorrect)
expectations about the probability that such an extreme picture will be shown in the forthcoming exposure. Indeed, owing to the "gambler's fallacy,"
their expectation may increase after each calm picture and decrease after an extreme. Superficially it appears that this could result in a mean
anticipatory presponse that is smaller for calm stimuli than for extreme stimuli.
This possible explanation of the differences in presponse was later modelled through elaborate computer simulations by the first author and by an
independent sceptical outsider. It turned out that the effect as described above only emerges when randomization is done without replacement, and
therefore it could not explain Radin's original results (see also discussion section). Thus the experimental results by Radin suggested a true, large
and replicable "precognitive" psi effects with a remarkable signal to noise ratio
But if you read this article:
From MIT, you will find that there is some mainstream parties pursuing decidedly non-mainstream activities.
The conclusion of the MIT study:
The results indicate a precognitive response-subjects react up to several seconds before the stimulus appears. Having ruled out anticipatory
strategies, the only remaining explanations suggest some backward time referral. Formally the laws of physics are time-symmetric. Practically this
time symmetry is observed in classical mechanics but not in thermodynamics where Boltzmann's second law forces the development of systems toward
higher entropy. In a lucid book on time symmetry, Huw Price analyzes this problem and concludes that the standard "explanation" for assymetry based
upon probabilistic arguments is incorrect (as Boltzmann himself also realized) (Price 1996). In an analysis of the asymmetry observed in radiation (EM
theory) Price suggests that asymmetry here is caused by the spatial arrangements of radiation absorbers and emitters. Absorbers tend to be noncoherent
while coherence is often the case for transmitters. According to Price this results in a destructive interference of any "advanced" waves (i.e., from
absorber to emitter). Thus we never observe in nature back-action except potentially if we have a coherent absorbing system. Maybe our consciousness
is such a system. Price shows also that when allowing for time-symmetry in quantum physics all puzzling paradoxes related to the measurement problem
such as nonlocality disappear.
The results show that presponse occurs subconsciously but that ("subsequent") conscious experience of the emotional figures are required. Price's
analysis of the problem of lost time-symmetry suggests a continuation of these types of experiments with experienced meditators in altered states. If
the meditator succeeds in blocking out the picture of his awareness we may get a complete disappearance of the phenomena. Interestingly this fits with
lore about the relationships between meditation and the occurrence of "psi"-phenomena. It is said that on the path toward complete control of one's
consciousness at some point psi-phenomena will appear. It is also said that one should not pay attention to these phenomena because that would only
frustrate progress in meditation performance. Within this, admittedly very speculative, framework the expected point of symmetry on the time axis is
NOT at stimulus onset but rather at the start of the conscious (emotional) experience, which may be around 500 msec later. Therefore the peak of the
presponse is not expected around 3.5 seconds before the stimulus onset (where it would be if it was a mirror image of the response with symmetry point
at stimulus onset) but rather about 2.5 seconds before stimulus onset, which fits well with the specification of the dependent variable in section
And an interesting philosophical discussion regarding time symmetry and PSI:
edit on 14-11-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason