246. DR. MICHAEL GRAZIANO LIKENS NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE RESEARCH TO ASTROLOGY RESEARCH

[Max_B]

I watched part of a presentation on Youtube of Graziano's ideas (below). In the video at 8:07 he shows a graph which I find interesting. You'll need to watch from the start of the video to understand this experiment though.

In the graph on the video I can see the top three fMRI plots of aggregated trials, which show qualitative changes in blood oxygenation on the misaligned, 'hard' tasks. Graziano says this implies increased activity for hard tasks.

The interesting point for me is the bottom line, which shows the plot of aggregated trials on the aligned, 'easy' tasks. This too shows qualitative changes in blood oxygenation. Graziano says this implies decreased activity for 'easy' tasks, compared to the 'hard' tasks. OK... but why does the plot fall way way below the baseline? My assumption would be that Gaziano should interpret these results as indicating a reduction in activity for the 'easy' task compared to normal activity, not just a reduction compared to 'hard' tasks?

You can look at his actual paper here (which I've not read). The same data in the graph on the video is shown at Fig.4 in the paper, I've copied this below. I'm not quite sure why the graph Graziano shows in the video looks somewhat different from the graphs shown in his actual paper? However, I can still see the same general changes, so I'll leave that alone.

What seems clear is the aligned 'Easy' task trials seem to show a reduction in the fMRI signal, compared to baseline 'normal' activity.

Bear in mind that fMRI only shows qualitative changes, that is comparisons between one time period, compared to another. What the actual existing level of activity was before the trials is unknown, but the 'Easy' trial measurement indicate that normal baseline activity was somewhat higher, otherwise we would not have seen any reduction.

I have some issues with fMRI studies anyway, as to just what they are showing us. I'm also not convinced by Graziano's attempt to explain this reduction in his video presentation, I think it's strange, and probably significant.

 

[Max_B]

Actually... I'm going to have to come back to the graph shown in the video, compared to the one provided in the published paper... I've adjusted them so both scales match.

What I assume are the original results shown in the video, indicate a far larger fMRI signal reduction for the 'easy' task trials, than that shown in the paper.

Also I've shown in parallel red lines the period of time where the 'paper' shows both 'hard and 'easy' tasks as having an increasing fMRI signal. Yet in the video graph, both plots for the same period of time appear to be going in rather different directions.

To me, it just looks like they've processed away the original measurements of the 'easy' trials with the effect of making them look less significant in their paper?

What do you think?

UPDATE: Graziano says "...The talk shows preliminary data [of 80 trials] from one subject. The paper shows group data from 50 subjects..."

 

[ghost]

I have to say that I am impressed, or perhaps blown away, that (vedic) astrology can give results. I for one would take great joy in presenting this information to skeptics (rubbing it in their faces). ;)

 

[ghost]

I wish there was an organization that would approach the National Science Foundation for funds for research on behalf of talented psychics, ghost hunters, astrologers, and everyone else who researches the paranormal.

 

[ghost]

I'm curious, how much of astrology is hard information versus being a conduit for an astrologer to exercise psychic abilities to read for the client?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

@Max_B

Definitely seems like they changed the scale, but it seems hard to know whether this is a significant problem. Honestly I'd suggest just emailing Graziano and asking him.

I have to say that I am impressed, or perhaps blown away, that (vedic) astrology can give results. I for one would take great joy in presenting this information to skeptics (rubbing it in their faces). ;)

It's kind of amusing astrology of all things seems to trip skeptics up. I personally can't muster up a lot of interest in it but I wouldn't say it's bunk. I do think it's important to really think about mundane explanations before paying someone a lot of money to read your star charts though.

I wish there was an organization that would approach the National Science Foundation for funds for research on behalf of talented psychics, ghost hunters, astrologers, and everyone else who researches the paranormal.

Would probably be money better spent than searching for the Multiverse or String Theory. Also interesting that Cosmos props up the Mutliverse, which last I checked has no evidence. From what I've seen of the show the evidence of observer participancy and consciousness-as-fundamental intepretations strangely never came up...

 

[ghost]

@
It's kind of amusing astrology of all things seems to trip skeptics up. I personally can't muster up a lot of interest in it but I wouldn't say it's bunk. I do think it's important to really think about mundane explanations before paying someone a lot of money to read your star charts though.

We should definitely spend the money to test some astrologers to see how good they are.

Would probably be money better spent than searching for the Multiverse or String Theory. Also interesting that Cosmos props up the Mutliverse, which last I checked has no evidence. From what I've seen of the show the evidence of observer participancy and consciousness-as-fundamental intepretations strangely never came up...

Scientists want to build some gigantic gravity wave detecting device to look for other universes. Billions of dollars and years of research will produce results that most people will neither understand nor give a darn about. The money would be better spent on paranormal research.

Yet I have this nagging feeling that if money were spent on paranormal research, it would turn the whole field into a circus that would make some people rich, but yield nothing. Would greed ruin the whole endeavor? What if the experiments were carefully designed and money was allocated prudently?[/user]

 

[Bucky]

@Max_B
Would probably be money better spent than searching for the Multiverse or String Theory. Also interesting that Cosmos props up the Mutliverse, which last I checked has no evidence. From what I've seen of the show the evidence of observer participancy and consciousness-as-fundamental intepretations strangely never came up...

That might be because according to certain physicists that doesn't exist...

It think it is debatable, but this stuff is pretty hard.

 

[ghost]

That might be because according to certain physicists that doesn't exist...

It think it is debatable, but this stuff is pretty hard.

The problem with the many worlds interpretation is that the energy of the universe is multiplied ad infinitum. That is a blatant violation of quantum mechanics. How could conservation of energy ever exist if universes just duplicate themselves all the time?

I think it's more rational to interpret quantum mechanics to mean that wave-functions are real things that are very very very subtle "things".

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

That might be because according to certain physicists that doesn't exist...

"Certain" seems to be the key word here? As Margaret Wertheim notes, that such ideas conform to the math doesn't make them true. When I was getting my math degree our department chair even made note of this issue in the physics community.

An honest presentation of QM would include all interpretations, not just the one in accordance with Tyson's favored paradigm. For example in Kaku's book he mentioned what he thought were the three major options, and brought up Penrose's Orch-Or even while noting it was a controversial position.

We'll see if it comes up in later episodes, or if Tyson is more concerned with proselytizing his materialist faith rather than academic honesty. <<insert appropriate smiley>>

 

[malf]

Back to Graziano. I've not heard any NDE researchers give any indication as to what in their research could inform his work. At best it's bits and pieces that appear interesting, and folk tend to read what they want into that. Graziano and his ilk are working at a different level, and I fail to see what they should be doing differently, given that they are looking for testable, repeatable patterns.

(Admittedly, the AWARE study may change all that, depending on their results.)

Max, I agree with Sci. See if Graziano will respond to an email about those results.

 

[ghost]

If I have to choose between "flagrant violations of conservation of energy" versus "spooky paranormal underpinnings", the latter would be closer to what we observe.

 

[Arouet]

I have to say that I am impressed, or perhaps blown away, that (vedic) astrology can give results. I for one would take great joy in presenting this information to skeptics (rubbing it in their faces). ;)

If you're talking about controlled studies, that would be an interesting discussion. Why not start a thread on it?

 

[ghost]

If you're talking about controlled studies, that would be an interesting discussion. Why not start a thread on it?

What if it turns out that astrology is like Tarot, a starting point for the astrologer, but the astrologer (at least the good ones) are actually psychics. How would you create controls for that? it is really the client who decides if the information is meaningful and helpful to their lives.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

If I have to choose between "flagrant violations of conservation of energy" versus "spooky paranormal underpinnings", the latter would be closer to what we observe.

Is there a written critique about these flagrant violations you can point to? I'm not disagreeing, as I've heard of these criticisms here and there but never seen a paper directly attacking MWI on this point.
Peter Woit has a webpage called Not Even Wrong that applies a good degree of skepticism to MWI. I can't recall him ever mentioning an energy conservation problem though I do recall Garrett bringing it up when he pushed for the "we are our thoughts" interpretation in his Google Tech Talk.

Listening to Carroll, at around 5:40 he even mentions observer-participancy as something that "bugs" him. So it seems to me his choice of MWI is based on his gut reaction, which given his position in that afterlife debate doesn't surprise me. He may be right about MWI, but I see no good reason to believe in it at the moment.

 

[ghost]

The hidden variables of QM are really the choices that are made by living creatures with consciousness.

 

[Max_B]

Graziano has replied, and says the graph on the video is the preliminary data of the 80 trials with just one participant, whereas the paper shows a graph for all 50 participants.

 

[Arouet]

What if it turns out that astrology is like Tarot, a starting point for the astrologer, but the astrologer (at least the good ones) are actually psychics. How would you create controls for that? it is really the client who decides if the information is meaningful and helpful to their lives.

Sure, but in that case there's not much to rub anyone's nose in anything. I don't think skeptics have suggested that people don't find astrology readings personally meaningful or helpful.

 

[ghost]

Sure, but in that case there's not much to rub anyone's nose in anything. I don't think skeptics have suggested that people don't find astrology readings personally meaningful or helpful.

They find it meaningful and helpful because the astrologer is describing something very meaningful and real about that person's life. As a skeptic, do you think you could give meaningful information to a total stranger and have them go, "wow! That's amazing!", or start crying because they are so touched by your cold reading and logic?

 

[ghost]

Is there a written critique about these flagrant violations you can point to? I'm not disagreeing, as I've heard of these criticisms here and there but never seen a paper directly attacking MWI on this point.
Peter Woit has a webpage called Not Even Wrong that applies a good degree of skepticism to MWI. I can't recall him ever mentioning an energy conservation problem though I do recall Garrett bringing it up when he pushed for the "we are our thoughts" interpretation in his Google Tech Talk.

Listening to Carroll, at around 5:40 he even mentions observer-participancy as something that "bugs" him. So it seems to me his choice of MWI is based on his gut reaction, which given his position in that afterlife debate doesn't surprise me. He may be right about MWI, but I see no good reason to believe in it at the moment.

According to quantum mechanics, quantum particles can tunnel through barriers. So if universes were splitting off from every particle, why wouldn't a particle tunnel into another universe, resulting in two particles in one universe? That would result in an instability in the number of particles in the system. I think the answer to your question is: no, I haven't read any articles about conservation of energy violations; it just seems to be a plausible consequence if googles of universes are splitting off from each particle.

In any event, it makes more sense that wave-functions are real things, however subtle they may be. They do, after all, interfere with one another.