I found this today.  Whether you're a believer or sceptic of psychic phenomena I think its worth watching. The presentation is about an hour and then there are some questions at the end.  The 'presentiment' section was fascinating once I understood the study.  Apparently some of the studies have been repeated by sceptics and some results confirmed.  I'm sure at least one person here will have many negative things to say about the presenter.  I hope not though.  I recall that we've discussed things like premonitions on these boards before and a number of us members have had personal experiences that aren't easily explained.  I tend to keep quiet about experiences where I am the only one experiencing whatever it is.  This is about premonitions and telepathy mostly.

 

Edited July 1, 20223 yr by sightseer

The range of topics posted in this forum is about as random as it gets, and somehow I find all of them interesting. I'm definitely a sceptic - I'm about as positive as one can be that anything para-normal is completely bogus. BUT - as a sceptic - I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong. 

So here I am, a sceptic - 10 mins into this video, and I can't seem to stop watching it. 

Thanks for posting this! 

Here is an interesting rebuttal to this - or at least a different view on the nature of consciousness and how it relates to "the future". 

 

12 hours ago, enright said:

I'm about as positive as one can be that anything para-normal is completely bogus. BUT - as a sceptic - I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong. 

So here I am, a sceptic - 10 mins into this video, and I can't seem to stop watching it. 

Thanks for posting this! 

I'm glad you like it and keep an open mind but maybe you could watch more than 15 minutes of it before posting a rebuttal video?

Quote

Dean Radin’s new book claims that the scientific evidence for supernormal human abilities is now overwhelming. Radin relies upon meta-analyses and misrepresentations of published results to produce outlandish confidence numbers that work against the very belief he is trying to foster.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2014/01/when-big-evidence-isnt-the-statistical-pitfalls-of-dean-radins-supernormal/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6714546/

 

Just to say... Radin has been debunked many times.

 

46 minutes ago, martin-w said:

debunked many times.

 

Show me where the 'Presentiment' study has been debunked.

He shows evidence that people respond stronger to negative images that they have not yet seen than to an upcoming calmer image.  How is that possible?

and read this which seems to say its a real thing:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971164/

Edited July 2, 20223 yr by sightseer

2 hours ago, sightseer said:

Show me where the 'Presentiment' study has been debunked.

 

Debunked was probably too harsh, heavily criticised is probably more accurate. 

I wasn't talking about any particular work he did, I was talking about his work in general. See links. However, presentiment was what I was talking about earlier, where subjects were shown erotic images and responded in terms of brain waves prior to  the images appearing. 

A metanalysis is fine, if the studies making up that metanalysis are quality studies. 

All I'm saying is keep an open mind, and done believe and don't disbelieve. 

 

Quote

 

Such findings of “psi” effects fuel the imagination and most people probably agree that there are things that current scientific knowledge cannot explain. However, the seismic nature of these claims cannot be overstated: future events influencing the past breaks the second law of thermodynamics. If one accepts these claims to be true, one should also be prepared to accept the existence of perpetual motion and time travel. It also completely undermines over a century of experimental research based on the assumption that causes precede effects. Differences in pre-stimulus activity would invalidate baseline correction procedures fundamental to many different types of data analysis. While the meta-analysis briefly discusses this implication (Mossbridge et al., 2012), the authors are seemingly unaware of the far-reaching consequences of their claims: they effectively invalidate most of the neuroscience and psychology literature, from electrophysiology and neuroimaging to temporal effects found in psychophysical research. Thus, it seems justified to ask for extraordinary evidence to support claims of this magnitude (Truzzi, 1978; Sagan, 1995).

 

 

First, any meta-analysis can only be as good as the primary studies it analyzes. Several of the studies included are of questionable quality

Second, the meta-analysis should be much broader including myriad studies

Third, a particular critical factor that should have been analyzed directly is the imbalance between control (calm) and target (arousing) trials typically used in these studies. 

Fourth, could these effects be at least partially explained by analytical artifacts? 

Fifth, the effect of expectation and trial order must be tested explicitly. 

Lastly, are the purported effects even biologically plausible? These studies employ vastly different measurements from skin conductance and electrophysiology to hemodynamic responses. Under conventional knowledge these are assumed to be caused by preceding neural events, e.g., a typical hemodynamic response peaks ~6 s after a neural event (Boynton et al., 1996). Conversely, electrophysiological measures have a latency of fractions of a second, while skin conductance measures, heart rates, pupil dilation etc. probably fall somewhere in between. Thus, the same precognitive neural event probably cannot cause all of these responses. Alternatively, if these responses themselves reverse the arrow of time and are caused by future stimuli, this will require a complete overhaul of current theory. Why should blood oxygenation increase before neural activity in such a way that predicts the up-coming stimulus?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00332/full

 

 

Edited July 2, 20223 yr by martin-w