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
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12122409
""Our aim was to identify the precise areas inside the brain where the drug is active. We thought when we started that psilocybin would activate different parts of the brain. But we haven't found any activation anywhere. All we have found are reductions in blood flow"
Wanted: a new paradigm for neuroscience
http://bit.ly/ygYIPq
158. Bernardo Kastrup’s Controversial View of Consciousness Research
http://www.skeptiko.com/bernardo-kastrup-consciousness-research/
"If subjective experiences were indeed merely the result of electrochemical brain processes, then they should always, without a single exception, correlate with brain activation patterns. These activation patterns should also be proportional to the intensity of the experience."
forum: http://bit.ly/zVt0k0