"Predicting the unpredictable" in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

I conducted my first presentiment experiment in 1996. As of today this type of experiment has been repeated something like 40 times by a dozen labs. In this article, Julia Mossbridge, Patrizio Tressoldi, Jessica Utts, John Ives, Wayne Jonas and I discuss implications and potential applications of this phenomenon. The meta-analysis mentioned in this article considers only a clearly defined subset of the published studies. 

Predicting the unpredictable: Critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity 

A recent meta-analysis of experiments from seven independent laboratories (n=26) published since 1978 indicates that the human body can apparently detect randomly delivered stimuli occurring 1-10 seconds in the future. The key observation in these studies is that human physiology appears to be able to distinguish between unpredictable dichotomous future stimuli, such as emotional vs. neutral images or sound vs. silence. This phenomenon has been called presentiment (as in "feeling the future"). In this paper we call it predictive anticipatory activity or PAA. The phenomenon is "predictive" because it can distinguish between upcoming stimuli; it is "anticipatory" because the physiological changes occur before a future event; and it is an "activity" because it involves changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin, and/or nervous systems.

PAA is an unconscious phenomenon that seems to be a time-reversed reflection of the usual physiological response to a stimulus. It appears to resemble precognition (consciously knowing something is going to happen before it does), but PAA specifically refers to unconscious physiological reactions as opposed to conscious premonitions. Though it is possible that PAA underlies the conscious experience of precognition, experiments testing this idea have not produced clear results.

The first part of this paper reviews the evidence for PAA and examines the two most difficult challenges for obtaining valid evidence for it: expectation bias and multiple analyses. The second part speculates on possible mechanisms and the theoretical implications of PAA for understanding physiology and consciousness. The third part examines potential practical applications.

See the full paper here.


Unknown said…
Hi Dean!
Have you in mind to do any experiment about OBE? I think there is evidence that OBE are a real phenonema (veridical). What do you think?
qualityparks said…
Sorry to post this here: I am looking for a scientific paper based on the claim, "Our brains produce as many as 50,000 thoughts per day (National Science Foundation)." (This came up during a Quality Parks Master Naturalist training session.) and I need a reference. Everyone seems to believe this but I can't find the source....
Dean Radin said…
Juan -- not at the present time.
Unknown said…
Dean Radin- not at the present time.
Have you any opinion about this? Do you think that there is enough evidence?
Dean Radin said…
>Juan .. Do you think that there is enough evidence?

If your question refers to OBE as a veridically and literally out-of-body phenomenon, then no, there isn't enough evidence to establish that with confidence.

Popular posts from this blog

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Show me the evidence