Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Cornell's psi/esp study      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 FyrKrakn
Joined: 2/21/2010
Msg: 1
Cornell's psi/esp studyPage 2 of 2    (1, 2)
http://www.cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/11/12/psychic-precognition-may-exist-cornell-study-finds

Generally, I have a problem with psychics.

I've experienced vivid precognition. I've had dreams that revealed the whole puzzle. I've been able to read a person's mind in terms of what they were feeling and what their intentions were. I've read the past. I've seen a whole lot of unexplainable apparitions and other weird of weird freaky stuff. I have a bad habit of getting a contact from someone on PoF or a complete stranger and telling them all about their life. They are usually unnerved by it, but I'm curious to know how much of what I suddenly "know" is true.

I'm certifiably sane. I do feel that most of what I understand is not "psychic" but an observation that is operating beneath my consciousness. I like the tv show "psyche" because I think a lot of what they show him to be doing is exactly what a lot of so-called psychics do. They are keen and learned observers. Or maybe that is what being psychic is.

I cannot control it, it is not on demand. I'm especially distrustful of people who say they have it on demand. This "talent" if you will, runs in the family. I know that if I warn my sons of something in a dream, they will take it very seriously, even though they have not had these "readings", they have seen my warnings come true. On the other hand, being culturalized in my family to accept this and be open to the intuition and the imagination may be what being psychic is.

I once spent a frantic few minutes trying to get my husband to leave a room because I swore the tree outside was going to fall and he refused to budge until I abandoned him and ran and as he was shouting at me that I was crazy he stepped from the room and the tree came crashing down, just missing him. Some part of me may have subconsciously observed things that told me this information. The brain filters out countless bits of data for our conscious but to filter it, the subconscious has to sort it out and decide what information is worthy of passing on. I believe that time, as Einstein describes it, can allow this same gathering and filtering of information to allow us to see into the future and the past, but most of this, to the nth degree, is filtered from our subconscious as unnecessary information. Again, picking up these bits may be what being psychic is, rather than something magical.

I really could fill a book with these moments between me and my female family. No sign of the men having it on my mother's side, but apparently, one of my brothers is gifted, or crazy.

But this new study is showing that there is something worth studying.

My only fault with the study is that the scientists were not disinterested in the results, they got the results they wanted to see, and that could not help but skew things. I would like to see a repeated study done by skeptics and finally a third by scientists who don't care about the outcome at all.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 8/4/2011 4:21:34 AM
I have a LITTLE bit of that myself. What I've learned about it is, that testing it in a lab doesn't work, because it's sort of like a listening thing: when you actively try to use your mind to see something, it's like shouting "la-la-la-la" over the small sounds that you want to hear. The act of trying to hear another persons thoughts, drowns them out, so OF COURSE testing it fails.

What weirds me out, isn't that some folks might be able to see the future. What bugs me, is what that implies about the NATURE of the future: if I can see it now, that means it is already set. I don't like THAT thought at all.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 3
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 8/4/2011 6:20:26 AM

But this new study is showing that there is something worth studying.

No, it does not show that. Since I'd have to purchase the journal article to evaluate the data analysis myself, instead, I am posting an abstract (abstracts are all you can read without charge) of a comment on the article published in the same journal following the publication of the article in question. I'll also note that the editor of the journal found the article precognition questionable, but decided to publish it anyway.

Does psi exist? D. J. Bem (2011) conducted 9 studies with over 1,000 participants in an attempt to demonstrate that future events retroactively affect people's responses. Here we discuss several limitations of Bem's experiments on psi; in particular, we show that the data analysis was partly exploratory and that one-sided p values may overstate the statistical evidence against the null hypothesis. We reanalyze Bem's data with a default Bayesian t test and show that the evidence for psi is weak to nonexistent. We argue that in order to convince a skeptical audience of a controversial claim, one needs to conduct strictly confirmatory studies and analyze the results with statistical tests that are conservative rather than liberal. We conclude that Bem's p values do not indicate evidence in favor of precognition; instead, they indicate that experimental psychologists need to change the way they conduct their experiments and analyze their data.

Psychologists are not exactly sought out for their knowledge of statistics, data reduction and analysis. Note the sentence that states the data analysis was ``partly exploratory.'' That means Bem didn't know how to analyze the data and decided to try various things and use whatever he thought was ``best.'' That's not how one does statistics correctly. Statistical analysis is not arbitrary, but it is difficult, especially when there are many things to factor in as sources of error. If that wasn't the case, your matches page would be filled with people you could date who were matches for you. I assume that you haven't found that to be the case.

A properly done experiment would start with a double blind experiment, i.e., the person presenting the image would not know which is which. That eliminates a systematic error due to cues the participlants might receive from the body language of the presenter or some other artifact of the experiment where the erotic image is correlated with some other observable effect. Second, there should have been control groups in which no images were erotic and both images were erotic. Third, the random number generator used to choose which image was on the right and left should have been checked to see if there was a skew correlated to the differece in the result and a null hypothesis. There's no evidence I could find that any of those things were done..

My only fault with the study is that the scientists were not disinterested in the results, they got the results they wanted to see, and that could not help but skew things. I would like to see a repeated study done by skeptics and finally a third by scientists who don't care about the outcome at all.

Since hypotheses can never be proved true, scientists are supposed to try to disprove hypotheses. Proving an hypothesis true is a logical impossibility. Skeptics and scientists are (supposed to be) equivalent. It's impossibe to eliminate experimentor bias, which is why experiments in the hard sciences do as much as possible to eliminate the human experimentor from the data collection and data analysis and automate it.

However, if Bem could replicate his results in a scientifically controlled experiment, the James Randi foundation has a $1,000,000.00 prize for him to claim.
 FyrKrakn
Joined: 2/21/2010
Msg: 4
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 8/4/2011 5:43:30 PM
Igor, my itty bitty understanding of future and time is that there are multiple "sets".

One story I have for you is dreaming of a three page letter from my sister in a half manila envelope. I got the odd color ink right, the type of paper, the content and more. She sent it from Germany. I had the dream a week or so after she had mailed it and one could say the sister connection is what gave me the dream. Three days later I received the letter, in a different envelope along side junk mail in the envelope that I dreamed about.

So, my conclusion was that the ball had to be rolling before I could see it. I didn't see it sooner in spite of the "sibling connection" , I didn't see it until someone bundled my junk mail with my sister's letter.

Abe, My bad, this new study is showing *me* that there is something worth studying. There needs to be someone who doesn't care either way, it needs to be replicatable, and it needs to follow a protocol that is irrefutable.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 5
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 8/4/2011 6:39:20 PM
"A properly done experiment would start with a double blind experiment, i.e., the person presenting the image would not know which is which. That eliminates a systematic error due to cues the participlants might receive from the body language of the presenter or some other artifact of the experiment where the erotic image is correlated with some other observable effect. Second, there should have been control groups in which no images were erotic and both images were erotic. Third, the random number generator used to choose which image was on the right and left should have been checked to see if there was a skew correlated to the differece in the result and a null hypothesis. There's no evidence I could find that any of those things were done.."

Are you saying that the experiment wasn't double-blind? I'd be quite surprised if this were true. Bem has been doing research for years and I doubt that it would escape the notice of a Randi or Shermer that he wasn't following this basic protocol.

It's been a while since I've read the rules of Randi's challenge, so I could be wrong, but I don't think that Bem is eligible since he claims no psychic powers for himself.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 6
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 8/5/2011 6:07:36 AM
Are you saying that the experiment wasn't double-blind? I'd be quite surprised if this were true.

I have no idea. I could only read the abstract. I wouldn't be surprised though. Psychology isn't a hard science and the comment I posted from the same journal points to a deficiency in the analysis. Any systematic error will gaurantee a result different from random chance that is not statistical.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 7
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 8/5/2011 12:36:49 PM
"I have no idea. I could only read the abstract. I wouldn't be surprised though. Psychology isn't a hard science and the comment I posted from the same journal points to a deficiency in the analysis. Any systematic error will gaurantee a result different from random chance that is not statistical."

Double blind is pretty standard in psychology and parapsychology.
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 8/5/2011 1:08:51 PM
Imagine a million years ago when early man first started experimenting with fire.

Certainly humans started out knowing about fire but couldn't understand what it was or how it worked. Some people probably started messing with it, trying to understand and control it but the scientists of the day would tell them that fire was too ephemeral and would be unwilling to take the issue of fire as a subject of serious study.

Naturally, there would be a whole evolutionary process in the human understanding of fire. We would learn what it's limits were, how to preserve it, and eventually how to even create fire whenever we wanted. We would even learn how to use fire in it's many different forms as a necessary tool in every day life.

I have an open mind on the subject of ESP and other such things.
I too have had certain occurrences of what could only be considered extra sensory events. But, they have always been haphazard and I've never been able to control these things. I'm sure most people have experienced the same things at times in their lives.

I think it's probably likely that our human brains are not evolved enough to really control these abilities or utilize them to their full potential.
Rather like your dog, who can understand a few words of simple English but can't speak it himself or understand what a book is . His brain isn't biologically evolved to that point yet.
So there are other, higher abilities which our brains still need to evolve to.

Until then, our scientists wont take such topics as worthy of serious study.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 9
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 8/6/2011 10:21:27 AM
I've never heard of Dean Kraft before so I did a little digging.

http://www.deankrafthealer.com/Research.html

The above page mentions healing Frank Zappa of prostate cancer. After a link to a letter written by Frank and Gail Zappa it says:


Letter in support of Dean's participation in the NIH study, and mentions healing of Frank Zappa from prostate cancer.


Wow, you'd think that Dean Kraft had healed Frank Zappa's prostate cancer. There's a tiny fly in that ointment. Frank Zappa died from prostate cancer. Will the other examples of his alleged healing wither as quickly under the harsh light of evidence?
 FyrKrakn
Joined: 2/21/2010
Msg: 10
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 8/7/2011 8:59:35 PM
I've looked at healers, faith and spiritual and not a one of them, including Kraft, uses techniques unknown in hypnotherapy. There is documentation, including double blind studies, using hypnotherapy for healing.

The AMA accepts hypnotherapy as a healing tool.

It has some very logical limitations.

Hypnosis is something one does to one self. A good hypnotherapist acts as a navigator, instructor, facillitator, but they cannot *do* any of it to someone else. Not even street hypnosis. When you see amazing stunts done with street hypnosis, it is because the practitioner has specifically observed his targets and the best way and when to approach them.

Hypnosis works primarily on the purely psychosomatic of the illness.

It works secondarily on the actuality of the illness or injury by easing psychosomatic issues that exascerbate the problem and by encouraging psychosomatic symptoms that lessen or could remove the symptoms of the illness.

I hae several serious conditions that I have spent a lifetime healing myself with hypnosis techniques. It does not cure me and it must be done with regular frequency. One effective treatment for allergic reactions is hypnosis, but it is not a one time deal. As with weightloss, it is a very effective tool, but there are dozens of different tweaks one must apply with frequency and discipline (not my strong suit and one I could use hypnosis for *curing* but which I never get around to doing) in order for it to continue working.

Healers do a great service in that hypnosis often fails at the secular level because a lack of belief in the therapy ruins the effects. A person who wants to believe in a healer will do much better with a healer. A person wants to believe in the healer being filled with the Holy Spirit will be effectively healed through that facade. The problem is in the money and the regular visits, same, really with hypnotherapy.

Hypnotherapy does not negate my faith in a higher power using it like a tool, or rather, giving us a tool to use. It does not negate my faith in intelligent intuitive and educated medical practitioners. It does not negate the need for a person to make intelligent intuitive and educated decisions about their own bodies.

I wish our health classes in high school taught youth how to pay better attention to what is going on with their bodies, to be intuitive, and to use tools like self-hypnosis, and to work with doctors instead of acting as if the doctor can fix it all no matter how much damage they do to themselves.
 FyrKrakn
Joined: 2/21/2010
Msg: 11
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 8/8/2011 9:16:43 AM
I'm curious about detecting people in your space. I wonder how well blind people do in a similar test? I had my time blind, and I still do a lot of things with my eyes closed out of habit. I work at night and I rarely use lights of any kind except to drive, and that isn't really necessary most of the time. We had a coworker who was always trying to sneak up on women from behind and he never could get me, I always knew he was there. Frustrated him to no end. I had a few classes in martial arts and the instructor talked about learning to be aware when someone was behind you and if your eyes were shut and I showed him that I already knew. I will trip with my eyes open, but I can go for a walk some distance with my eyes closed and be aware of objects, and curbs and such.

I've never had an accident in my car, baring the backyard incident when I was on waaaaay too much cough meds, and I confess that, to this day, I've never remembered to look behind me when backing up until after I started. Yet I have still avoided every person driving too fast, walking around a corner, etc., even dogs and kids that weren't visible in my mirrors. There's an awareness there that comes from the blindness I experienced as a child and again later as an adult.

But on the value of touch therapy, loving kind attentive touch has been studied and found as effective as that received from pets. People live longer and healthier. Do pets and people cure from touch or laying on of hands? There is nothing documented that I know of. Is it without value because it does not "cure"?

Placebo effect is not to be ignored. Placebo is from a person accepting the word of the authority. It is pretty facinating.

I was listening to a guest speak about his book "the God Part of the Brain." On Coast to Coast, last night. He is a true skeptic. I am very excited to read his science and studies.
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 8/20/2011 7:48:31 PM

You probably think Im gullible dont you?, Well ok Im going to do some more research and find some names to healers that may be of interest, that might give you some proof, and also open your mind to this energy healing.


I wish schools would teach science literacy and critical thinking skills. We would have a lot fewer of these conversations.

The vast majority of the public does not bother to check their facts. In addition, they do not know how to evaluate the quality of the information they read.

No one has ever yet demonstrated psychic abilities under controlled conditions. No one. Ever. Period.

There are no psychic healers.

Feeling calm after some sort of electromagnetic healing session is not surprising. You probably lay down for 30-60 minutes, right? And some very nice person, who has probably created a soothing environment, pays attention to you, maybe puts their hands on you. We happen to know that humans respond positively to attention and touch. No need for any bioenergetic field to do this.

As for clairvoyance - sure, we all have uncanny coincidences. We notice when it happens and do not notice the millions of thoughts that pass through our minds that are *not* coincidental. Often, in retrospect, we remember things differently than the way they actually happened.

So someone got some mail that, coincidentally, resembled something they say in a dream. Big deal. If you are really clairvoyant, why don't you actually use it for something useful?

True believers do not care about facts.
 FyrKrakn
Joined: 2/21/2010
Msg: 13
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 9/29/2011 10:22:57 AM
http://news.discovery.com/human/flawed-esp-study-sparks-uproar.html

It really does not help any believer of any phenomena cause to do research that is flawed. One would think that the people behind the study actually did a flawed study on purpose just to give ultimate support to those who don't believe it.

It also does not help the scientist to be hostile or insulting or to classify all answers in black and white possibility.

I don't think that the experiences of myself and others can be called coincidences. I think the weird stuff will all pan out to be connected to by the whole space-time thang whereas time is a subjective perception and all things exist at once. Some people have filters that fail.

Another issue standing out is that there is nothing that is actually solid, as in NOT moving. Our brain perceives solids. Can a person's physical energy presence affect the physical energy of other molecules? Some studies say yes, but as to how flawed those are, I never investigated.

I think that being psychic is not magic, it has something to do with data that our brain perceives and filters out. If you watch TV that has the fake psychics, Lie to Me, Psyche, and uh, crap I forget the other one, but you see these examples of extreme detail observation, much like what autistic children deal with. The person doing the observing may consciously know what they are picking up on, and make educated guess that seem psychic, or they could be at the other extreme and make experienced guesses at possibilities and not really be able to list the clues they noticed as they call it gut instinct or a "feeling", even though the feeling is actually a subconscious response to observable facts.

Prayer for someone's health (this was something I read in Scientific American many many years ago), was shown to be effective when the subject was aware that they were being prayed for, and the more awareness there was, the more effective it was. So, is it the people praying, or is it the subject themselves making themselves better based upon their perception? Should a parent not pray with a hurt child just because it is placebo? Or could one consider this a God given tool - regardless of *how* it works, and others, even the atheists, give them the benefit of the doubt for doing what helps?

I believe in "healers" not because they do the healing, but because they facillitate self-healing, either through their personal knowledge and skills, or a natural ability to persuade others, or some combination of the two. This is why some can have success over phone or email.

There won't be successful psychic demonstrations in controlled conditions. Science is trying to prove or disprove a magical element. Good luck. I think if we change the concept of what is psychic to questioning data filtration and space-time effect on existence, then we can find that the people who most seem psychic but who declare loudly that they are NOT psychic, will be able to show some amazing demonstrations in controlled conditions.
 RandomScause
Joined: 8/16/2011
Msg: 14
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 9/29/2011 12:27:56 PM
OP, this is tough. If you want the world to recognize your ability, you have to perform under test situations. Igor said he feels the same as you, and stated that under the stress of the test he can't perform.

If double-blind controlled experiments are conducted, then it is highly likely that the experiment will show the correct result. If you argue against that, I am sorry, then you are arguing that we, humans, ought not believe our senses and our logic.

Your experiences are different, but they are in your mind, which other than you nobody knows what's going on in there. If you say that you just finished a conversation with Julius Caesar, then I believe that your impression is that, but I don't believe it happened in actuality, because if I ask you what he was wearing: a victory baddius or an eagle's feather (according to history books, he never appeared without wearing either, but not both), and you say, the baddius thing, then I can say that history books never mentioned this, and when he appears to psychics, he wears a toga.

You can fool those who want to believe you, but you can never impress those who don't believe you. This is a more widely applicable statement than to psychics or psis.
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 10/2/2011 8:44:26 PM
The James Randi Education Foundation offers a $1,000,000.00 prize to anyone who can demonstrate, under controlled conditions, psychic abilities. The prize remains uncollected.

The Rosa Study, cited above, was simple and elegant and has never been contradicted.

Read the Wikipedia entry on "cold readings." People can unwittingly develop this skill and begin to believe they have psychic powers. It's self-delusion. It is easiest to fool ourselves.
 CDHax
Joined: 9/24/2011
Msg: 16
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 10/8/2011 4:36:46 AM
don't outside observers change the outcome of physics? of course it's skewed.
 Coeur_Vaillant
Joined: 9/24/2011
Msg: 17
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 10/12/2011 5:25:08 PM
^^^^^^

So true.

So why trying to prove some thing?

They don't get it, so it can't be possible.
You have an acute sense of observation, your brain can detect a signal , may be reading what a person is sayingon a post, may be even if you are not conscient of it, you can observed a body language, facial expression, voice intonation, and your brain do all the work for you. You may have also a very strong "six sense", hard to explain that one also. That is why some call it a gift.
 RandomScause
Joined: 8/16/2011
Msg: 18
Cornell's psi/esp study
Posted: 10/13/2011 1:10:08 PM
don't outside observers change the outcome of physics? of course it's skewed.
+++++

I haven't heard of that, but I do know that they introduced double-blind controlled experiments because all biological units do tend to confirm the hypotheses of the experiment.

So this is funny. The experiements that are not double-blind invariably show a psychic connection, which even experiementers and scientists can't deny; scientists were the first to notice this phenomenon happens; and they introduced the double-blind tests, to avoid this bias. But the bias as it exists proves something, something psychic. Because not only human subjects showed an experimentally biassed response by the subjects, but also dogs, horses, earthworms, mollusks, mould formations, and grass.

This can't be hushed up.

But nobody can cheat science in a double-blind experiment. Even psychics fail to show evidence to the hypotheses that pscychism exists.

But it exists for any group of biological beings: they can sense intention, as has been shown by analytical statistics over and over and over again.

This is a firglick dilemma, if I ever saw one.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Cornell's psi/esp study