Presentiment-type experiments and a question

#1
This is general question meant for anyone who has a good knowledge of presentiment experiments. I'm posting here because this section seems to get the most traction.

Does anyone know if, as part of any presentiment experiments, a researcher was provided with the raw physical response data without knowing what the correlated pictures were and was able to then correctly identify the basic nature of those correlated pictures using only that data?

Sorry if my question is awkwardly worded. To give a specific example, say three types of pictures are shown to test subjects: scary, erotic, and bucolic. And the results show that before each type of picture, specific physical response correlates to the types of pictures. In my layman's understanding of the research, this is the real meat of the results that prove that people can anticipate/predict something specific and above chance. So is it then possible for someone familiar with how these things correlate to look only at the physical response data and say "this data shows they were about to see something bucolic", etc?

Is anything like that part of the research? If so can someone point me to it. And if not, any ideas why?

Thanks.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#2
Did you try emailing Radin or Bem?

I know Radin at least sometimes responds to questions.

I don't know if there was any MRI data on these subjects?
 
#3
Did you try emailing Radin or Bem?

I know Radin at least sometimes responds to questions.

I don't know if there was any MRI data on these subjects?
I will definitely do that. And maybe Dr. Mossbridge as well.

I also don't know if there is any MRI data. But clearly there is some bassline for understanding the physical reaction data that is recorded. Unless the experiment is designed such that the test subject first selects what they think the image before seeing it, which might bipass the need to have other kinds of data. But I don't know enough about how these experiments are setup.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#4
I will definitely do that. And maybe Dr. Mossbridge as well.

I also don't know if there is any MRI data. But clearly there is some bassline for understanding the physical reaction data that is recorded. Unless the experiment is designed such that the test subject first selects what they think the image before seeing it, which might bipass the need to have other kinds of data. But I don't know enough about how these experiments are setup.
When presentiment is not involved, can people look at the data and pick out whether it's arousal, disgust, etc just from looking at data without patient confirmation?
 
#5
Does anyone know if, as part of any presentiment experiments, a researcher was provided with the raw physical response data without knowing what the correlated pictures were and was able to then correctly identify the basic nature of those correlated pictures using only that data
That's a very good question. If skeptics are right and the results are due to a statistical artifact then this is impossible. However, if presentiment is real then this would be easy.

Sorry if my question is awkwardly worded. To give a specific example, say three types of pictures are shown to test subjects: scary, erotic, and bucolic. And the results show that before each type of picture, specific physical response correlates to the types of pictures. In my layman's understanding of the research, this is the real meat of the results that prove that people can anticipate/predict something specific and above chance. So is it then possible for someone familiar with how these things correlate to look only at the physical response data and say "this data shows they were about to see something bucolic", etc?
Usually the physical response measured is skin-conductance. If you get startled, excited, aroused or anything then you will immediately sweat a little bit causing your skin to conduct a little better. I know there was 1 experiment that used an fMRI.
In the original presentiment experiments, there were only 2 types of pictures: arousing and non-arousing.
 
#6
When presentiment is not involved, can people look at the data and pick out whether it's arousal, disgust, etc just from looking at data without patient confirmation?
I'm not sure. But certainly there are clear markers the researchers must be looking for to confirm the presentiment, otherwise the research wouldn't make sense. The pictures must be paired with a clear and detectable physical response.
 
#7
That's a very good question. If skeptics are right and the results are due to a statistical artifact then this is impossible. However, if presentiment is real then this would be easy.
It would not necessarily be easy because the effect is statistical. From what I have read, the experiment has to run for some time to produce meaningful results. That absolutely does not invalidate it.

I guess a data observer might be able to guess the outcome at an above chance rate - which would be interesting.

Clearly if a person could look at the data and know what the subject would see (assuming looking at the data meant a glance at the graph) you could probably set up some kind of paradoxical arrangement where every time the data observer knew the subject would be presented with an erotic image, he would press a button, which would tell the computer to do something else!

My feeling is that this experiment has been repeated a lot, and it should be time for a sceptic to take the setup, learn to repeat the effect (because if you do any experiment badly enough you can get a null answer), and then try to prove (not just conjecture) that the effect happens in a mundane way.

David
 
#8
This is general question meant for anyone who has a good knowledge of presentiment experiments. I'm posting here because this section seems to get the most traction.

Does anyone know if, as part of any presentiment experiments, a researcher was provided with the raw physical response data without knowing what the correlated pictures were and was able to then correctly identify the basic nature of those correlated pictures using only that data?

Sorry if my question is awkwardly worded. To give a specific example, say three types of pictures are shown to test subjects: scary, erotic, and bucolic. And the results show that before each type of picture, specific physical response correlates to the types of pictures. In my layman's understanding of the research, this is the real meat of the results that prove that people can anticipate/predict something specific and above chance. So is it then possible for someone familiar with how these things correlate to look only at the physical response data and say "this data shows they were about to see something bucolic", etc?

Is anything like that part of the research? If so can someone point me to it. And if not, any ideas why?

Thanks.
I'm not absolutely sure I understand what you are asking. But if I try and answer what I think your asking...

I'm not quite sure why the subjects brain state, might be a better measurement, compared with how the subjects actually choose. Judging by what we can do today, I'd guess it's probably a lot less accurate to use brain state... as any measurements might mean summat else (a bit of moldy cheese, and underdone turnip)... and in the end researchers are still back to being completely reliant on how subjects actually choose... otherwise how do you know what the brain measurements really mean.
 
#9
My feeling is that this experiment has been repeated a lot, and it should be time for a sceptic to take the setup, learn to repeat the effect (because if you do any experiment badly enough you can get a null answer), and then try to prove (not just conjecture) that the effect happens in a mundane way.
:D
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#10
Does anyone know if there's been a selective sample, kind of like trying to isolate creative people?

It seems worthwhile to try presentiment tests on athletes or really anyone who can be shown to have above normal reaction times?
 
#11
I'm not absolutely sure I understand what you are asking. But if I try and answer what I think your asking...

I'm not quite sure why the subjects brain state, might be a better measurement, compared with how the subjects actually choose. Judging by what we can do today, I'd guess it's probably a lot less accurate to use brain state... as any measurements might mean summat else (a bit of moldy cheese, and underdone turnip)... and in the end researchers are still back to being completely reliant on how subjects actually choose... otherwise how do you know what the brain measurements really mean.
I was thinking that a read on the physical response data would not somehow replace the research, but act as a congruent piece of the puzzle. I figure one of the main skeptical responses to presentiment studies is that the researchers first learn what image the subject chose, and then retroactively search for the physical markers to prove that the subject knew what the image would be. A congruent control of reading the physical response data to surmise, blindly, what image the subject chose would be a huge boost to the research IMO. So I was just curious if this has been done.

If the physical response data can only be understood following the foreknowledge of what exact type of image has been chosen then this would appear to be a bit of a red flag. Or if it's not I would be welcome and appreciative of some further ideas on it.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#12
I figure one of the main skeptical responses to presentiment studies is that the researchers first learn what image the subject chose, and then retroactively search for the physical markers to prove that the subject knew what the image would be..
Wouldn't this have to be done the first time, to know what physical markers are associated with which responses? I figure this would the part that has nothing to do with presentiment.

Or do you mean every precognition paper you've read does this even after establishing what the markers are?
 
#13
Wouldn't this have to be done the first time, to know what physical markers are associated with which responses? I figure this would the part that has nothing to do with presentiment.
Correct. To clarify, I meant one criticism might be that researchers are looking for the physical markers without first having established what exactly they are first (or some type of confirmation bias). If there are pre-established physical markers, which of course there must be, then blindly determining the nature of the images based solely on those markers would not be a problem.
 
Top