Originally posted by QMask
reply to post by BlueMule
If humans can do telepathy, then why is it SO DIFFICULT for the average person?
...
One has to ask these questions.
Abstract
Strong correlations between output distribution means of a variety of random binary processes and prestated intentions of some 100 individual human operators have been established over a 12-year experimental program. More than 1000 experimental series, employing four different categories of random devices and several distinctive protocols, show comparable magnitudes of anomalous mean shifts from chance expectation, with similar distribution structures. Although the absolute effect sizes are quite small, of the order of 10–4 bits deviation per bit processed, over the huge databases accumulated the composite effect exceeds 7s (p » 3.5 ´ 10–13).
These data display significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent serial position effects in individual and collective results. Data generated by operators far removed from the machines and exerting their efforts at times other than those of machine operation show similar effect sizes and structural details to those of the local, on-time experiments. Most other secondary parameters tested are found to have little effect on the scale and character of the results, with one important exception: studies performed using fully deterministic pseudorandom sources, either hard-wired or algorithmic, yield null overall mean shifts, and display no other anomalous features.
1. Achterberg, J., Cooke, K., Richards, T., Standish, L.J.,Leila Kozak, L. & Lake, J.. (2005). Evidence for Correlations Between Distant Intentionality and Brain Function in Recipients: a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11, 6, 965–971.
2. Duane TD, Behrendt T. Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins. Science 1965, 150-367.
3. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J. & Ramos, J. (1987). Patterns of interhemispheric correlation during human communication. International Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 41-53.
4. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Delaflor, M., Attie, L. & Goswami, L. (1994). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in the brain: The transferred potential. Physics Essays, 7,422–428
Originally posted by john_bmth
Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by john_bmth
Why would compare a cup of coffee too a human brain? Does this make sense to you?
You missed my point. You speculation that "emitter = receiver" is baseless. There is no more reason to expect the human brain to receive because it emits (and thus more speculation that this equates to psychic powers) than my cup of coffee.
While no
statistically significant departures of the variance, skew, kurtosis, or higher moments from the
appropriate chance values appear in the overall data, regular patterns of certain finer scale
features can be discerned.
It is our opinion that for experiments of
this sort, involving as they clearly do substantial psychological factors and therefore both
individual and collective statistical behaviors, to require that any given operator, on any given
day, should produce identical results, or that any given operator group should quantitatively
replicate the results of any other, is clearly unreasonable.
While no
statistically significant departures of the variance, skew, kurtosis, or higher moments from the
appropriate chance values appear in the overall data
The series score distributions and the count population distributions in both the
collective and individual operator data are consistent with chance distributions based
on slightly altered binary probabilities.
In spite of these
characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli
evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differ-
ences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the
expected effects on patterns of brain activation.
These findings
are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of
paranormal mental phenomena.
In spite of these
characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli
evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differ-
ences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the
expected effects on patterns of brain activation.
These findings
are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of
paranormal mental phenomena.
Originally posted by BlueMule
Hey guys! Thanks to fMRI technology, a number of brain correlation experiments have been performed. The following list may not be exhaustively complete, it is not in any particular order. It's just to give you guys an idea of how much work has been done that no one knows about.
In spite of these
characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli
evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differ-
ences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the
expected effects on patterns of brain activation.
These findings
are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of
paranormal mental phenomena.
Our replication study aimed at validating the existence of theejp.wyrdwise.com...
effect and, if possible, shedding light upon its specifications. In relation
to the preceding studies, it was conducted in a different laboratory and
guided by a different experimenter. All other experimental conditions
were kept unchanged as far as possible. The statistical methods applied
in the precedent studies were reconsidered in detail.
Two studies by Wackermann et al. (2003, 2004) aimed atejp.wyrdwise.com...
examining if correlations in the EEG between a visually stimulated
subject and a second, non-stimulated subject were replicable when
communication between both participants was prevented by spatial
separation of subjects in shielded rooms.
A critical analysis of the Grinberg-
Zylberbaum et al. (1994) study has been provided by May et al. (2001).
They provided evidence for the claim that violations of the underlying
assumptions concerning hypothesis testing had led to an
overestimation of the effects in this study.
The overall result is seen as a negative outcome of the attempt to
replicate prior findings of EEG correlations in this specific
experimental paradigm. Of course, it may not be interpreted as a proof
of the absence of the phenomenon under question; firstly and trivially,
the absence of an effect cannot be proven by an unsuccessful
replication attempt; secondly, the outcome refers to the specific
constellation of EEG correlations if one subject is visually stimulated
by checkerboard reversal, which is an abstract pattern.
It is further suggested that the results presented here should not
be discussed in terms of 'telepathy', which was the motivational origin
of some early studies on EEG correlations between separated subjects
(e.g. Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al., 1994).
In a series of experiments carried out by René Peoc'h in collaboration with the Swiss Fondation Marcel et Monique Odier de Psycho-Physique, a small, self-propelled robot called a Tychoscope was allowed to wander around aimlessly in an enclosed room. A random generator determined the lengths of the robot's straight-line movement and angles of rotation. Left to itself, the Tychoscope moved in entirely random patterns, and spent as much time in the left half of the room as it did in the right half.
But when a cage filled with live chicks was placed on one side of the room, the robot's pattern changed dramatically. On average, it spent considerably more time in the area nearest the animals. It was as if the birds "willed" the robot to stay close.
The chicks had two reasons for not wanting the robot to stray too far. One group had been "imprinted" (when they hatched, the first thing they saw was the Tychoscope, and they adopted it as their mother). Another group had not, but the chicks seemed to respond to the lit candle that was placed on top of the Tychoscope in the darkened room. The scientists assume from this that the chicks didn't like the dark.
By comparison, human operators who tried to "will" the robot to stay on one side of the room achieved much smaller and more erratic results.
By comparison, human operators who tried to "will" the robot to stay on one side of the room achieved much smaller and more erratic results.
This is part of the reason why I don't bother with "skeptics" on forums... they are phony foolish assholes that are threatened by the evidence. So they can't help but treat it unfairly.
This is part of the reason why I don't bother with "skeptics" on forums... they are phony foolish assholes that are threatened by the evidence. So they can't help but treat it unfairly. Like bullies.
15b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums on the Websites, and will neither Post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content. You will also not use common alternative spellings or net-speak alternative for profane words.
...
16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.
Source
Abstract
We tested the possible psychokinetic influence of 80 groups of 15 chicks on a randomly moving robot carrying a lighted candle in an otherwise darkened room. In 71% of the cases, the robot spent excessive time in the vicinity of the chicks. In the absence of the chicks, the robot followed random trajectories. The overall results were statistically significant at p < 0.01.
Originally posted by iwilliam
Originally posted by QMask
reply to post by BlueMule
If humans can do telepathy, then why is it SO DIFFICULT for the average person?
...
One has to ask these questions.
You're right that there are a lot of questions worth asking.
But here I'll give you a question for your question: If humans can slam dunk a basketball, or run a four minute mile, then why are THOSE things "so difficult" for the average person?
Perhaps both questions have a similar answer.
