I have a chapter on this experimental paradigm in Entangled Minds. There are a half-dozen journal articles published on this as well, available in abstract form via places like PubMed, but I cannot place the full articles online because of journal copyright restrictions.
Dean, I was fascinated by your appearance on "Horizon" the other night and was particularly happy to discover this blog. I wonder if you are aware of the work of Anthony Peake and his remarkable book "Is There Life After Death - The Extraordinary Science of What Happens When You Die." The title is somewhat misleading as the book is about consciousness, quantum theory, deja vu and his own theory of what happens to our consciousness at death. I was constantly struck whilst watching the Horizon programme at the relevance that your work could have to Tony's theory and vica versa. PLEASE take a look at Tony's website: www.anthonypeake.com but moreso take a look at his blogsite (where I post some of my own theories and research amongst others) where I fell certain you will find much of interest and I know Tony is keen to contact you so hopefully we can facilitate such. http://cheatingtheferryman.blogspot.com/ A Dark Philosopher Karl L Le Marcs
sue1958booth said... i would be interested in how many people showed this phenomenon
Roughly 1 in 10 to 15 people in the laboratory show a statistically significant effect (at p < 0.05) in the predicted direction. Like many subtle psychological effects this is not a massively powerful phenomenon, but based on the statistics after running 150+ people, and colleagues running 200+ more people with similar results, I have little doubt that it is a real effect.
Dean Radin said: Roughly 1 in 10 to 15 people in the laboratory show a statistically significant effect (at p < 0.05) in the predicted direction.
Are you able to consistently reproduce the effect with these people? (E.g. do they get independently significant results if you run them in a later trial also?)
Not much work has been done on measuring the test-retest reliability within this experimental design. Nearly all of the subjects I've run did the experiment just once, to help enhance the emotional contrast in their responses to the stimuli. A few people I've run many times do seem to show roughly the same results each time.
i am a general practitioner in the uk and my husband is a priest, i have a lot of personal experiences of precognisance which i have never discussed with anyone other than my immediate family for fear that i would be thought absolutely mad!
the strongest one i have had recently is whilst travelling in bolivia in a bus as a passenger. i knew with absolute certainty approximately 1 minute before the coach crashed into a cliff that it would happen and exactely how it would happen. no one was seriously injured apart from the man sat in the front left hand seat which was where i was sitting up to about 1 hour before and decided to move to the other side of the bus!
i would really like to be able to work on this "ability" (??) of mine, not to win the lottery or anything but just because my husband and i find it so fascinating, and it happens to me so often that i would like to investigate it a bit more, have you any suggestions please
yesterday I saw the bbc programm on television. And I was fascinated by your experiments.
Since I am a child, I sometimes know, what will happen in future. It doesn´t happen very often, but when, I knew it for certain.
It is nothing, I can speak about with friends or familiy. But I would like so much to find some peolpe, who have made similar experiences and learn more about this and other abilities, that I have.
So I´d be very thankfull for any suggestions. (I´m from Germany and my English is not the best, sorry)
People working in science or orthodox medicine are extremely reluctant to discuss Ψ, but the internet provides the opportunity to communicate anonymously, so I hope you will tell us more about your experiences.
I wonder if you would get a high score on Dean Radin's presentiment experiment.
to david bailey i would love to be in deans experiments but we are in the uk presently! would you be interested in more of my precognisance experiences?
I can't believe I've missed the existance of this blog. I just finished watching the Horizon that I downloaded on the BBC iPlayer, and was surprised to see you pop up. I've read "The Conscious Universe", and have had a long interest in the field due to various personal experiences, including precognitive dreams that I've had for as long as I can remember.
Dr. Radin,in an article "Unconscious Decisions in the Brain" at http://physorg.com/news127395619.html they discuss a study in Nature Neuroscience (April 13th, 2008) regarding how several seconds before we consciously make decisions, the outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. Can you explain how this relates to the presentiment tests as discussed in your book "Conscious Universe"? It seems similar in some respects.
... a study ... regarding how several seconds before we consciously make decisions, the outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. Can you explain how this relates to the presentiment tests ....
That paradigm differs from presentiment because in the latter the future stimulus is external and completely unpredictable, whereas in the former the response is driven by internal processes. It isn't too surprising that the brain is engaged in unconscious information processing prior to conscious decisions, but it is very surprising that the brain (or some aspect of the nervous system) is also processing information about a randomly generated stimulus that will be shown in the future!
Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times was kind enough to prepare us to be outraged . It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake . I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha in this blog . But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psychology and is available here . The key
Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area
Critics are fond of saying that there is no scientific evidence for psi. They wave their fist in the air and shout, "Show me the evidence!" Then they turn red and have a coughing fit. In less dramatic cases a student might be genuinely curious and open-minded, but unsure where to begin to find reliable evidence about psi. Google knows all and sees all, but it doesn't know how to interpret or evaluate what it knows (at least not yet). In the past, my response to the "show me" challenge has been to give the titles of a few books to read, point to the bibliographies in those books, and advise the person to do their homework. I still think that this is the best approach for a beginner tackling a complex topic. But given the growing expectation that information on virtually any topic ought to be available online within 60 seconds, traditional methods of scholarship are disappearing fast. So I've created a SHOW ME page with downloadable articles on psi a
Comments
I was fascinated by your appearance on "Horizon" the other night and was particularly happy to discover this blog.
I wonder if you are aware of the work of Anthony Peake and his remarkable book "Is There Life After Death - The Extraordinary Science of What Happens When You Die."
The title is somewhat misleading as the book is about consciousness, quantum theory, deja vu and his own theory of what happens to our consciousness at death.
I was constantly struck whilst watching the Horizon programme at the relevance that your work could have to Tony's theory and vica versa.
PLEASE take a look at Tony's website: www.anthonypeake.com but moreso take a look at his blogsite (where I post some of my own theories and research amongst others) where I fell certain you will find much of interest and I know Tony is keen to contact you so hopefully we can facilitate such.
http://cheatingtheferryman.blogspot.com/
A Dark Philosopher
Karl L Le Marcs
Roughly 1 in 10 to 15 people in the laboratory show a statistically significant effect (at p < 0.05) in the predicted direction. Like many subtle psychological effects this is not a massively powerful phenomenon, but based on the statistics after running 150+ people, and colleagues running 200+ more people with similar results, I have little doubt that it is a real effect.
Roughly 1 in 10 to 15 people in the laboratory show a statistically significant effect (at p < 0.05) in the predicted direction.
Are you able to consistently reproduce the effect with these people? (E.g. do they get independently significant results if you run them in a later trial also?)
the strongest one i have had recently is whilst travelling in bolivia in a bus as a passenger. i knew with absolute certainty approximately 1 minute before the coach crashed into a cliff that it would happen and exactely how it would happen. no one was seriously injured apart from the man sat in the front left hand seat which was where i was sitting up to about 1 hour before and decided to move to the other side of the bus!
i would really like to be able to work on this "ability" (??) of mine, not to win the lottery or anything but just because my husband and i find it so fascinating, and it happens to me so often that i would like to investigate it a bit more, have you any suggestions please
yesterday I saw the bbc programm on television. And I was fascinated by your experiments.
Since I am a child, I sometimes know, what will happen in future. It doesn´t happen very often, but when, I knew it for certain.
It is nothing, I can speak about with friends or familiy. But I would like so much to find some peolpe, who have made similar experiences and learn more about this and other abilities, that I have.
So I´d be very thankfull for any suggestions. (I´m from Germany and my English is not the best, sorry)
People working in science or orthodox medicine are extremely reluctant to discuss Ψ, but the internet provides the opportunity to communicate anonymously, so I hope you will tell us more about your experiences.
I wonder if you would get a high score on Dean Radin's presentiment experiment.
i would love to be in deans experiments but we are in the uk presently!
would you be interested in more of my precognisance experiences?
I am sure everyone reading this blog would be interested in reading your experiences.
Keep up the good work.
http://physorg.com/news127395619.html
they discuss a study in Nature Neuroscience (April 13th, 2008) regarding how several seconds before we consciously make decisions, the outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. Can you explain how this relates to the presentiment tests as discussed in your book "Conscious Universe"?
It seems similar in some respects.
That paradigm differs from presentiment because in the latter the future stimulus is external and completely unpredictable, whereas in the former the response is driven by internal processes. It isn't too surprising that the brain is engaged in unconscious information processing prior to conscious decisions, but it is very surprising that the brain (or some aspect of the nervous system) is also processing information about a randomly generated stimulus that will be shown in the future!