New Evidence that the Human Mind can Perceive the Future

W

woowoo

Registered Senior Member
New psi research from Cornell University has recently been published in a peer reviewed scientific
journal. This is currently getting a great deal of publicity as the research
makes the claim it is indeed possible to see into the future, precognition.

The experiment asked students to predict the position of erotic images
displayed on a screen. There was an accuracy of 53% which is according
to the researchers highly significant.

Skeptics and debunkers will get their chance to try out the experiment
for themselves as the protocols are now available online.

http://dbem.ws/online_pubs.html#psi
 
I shouldn't wonder that the accuracy of participants will increase in time. People talk of some sort of energetic increase in the solar system. Thirty years ago, I don't think you would have had any luck with this type of thing which showed results beyond random guessing. . . Just a hunch though.

I predict there will be more and more parapsychology successes in the near future. But again, it will depend greatly on the thoughts of the participants and the expectations of the observers (the scientists conducting the experiments), as that is how this sort of things works. It is an observer affected type of phenomenon, which is why peer review is so hard to duplicate with clock work accuracy.

Much like the double slit experiment, it is affected by thought, emotion, and consciousness. It is the apex of where one dimension ends, and the other begins. Hence, new rules for experimentation must be devised for the consciousness (i.e. hopes, thoughts, expectations) of the experimenting scientist mingling in the alternating dimension, as it is always going to pollute the results, for good or ill.

Thus, topics like these, information on new technology that is based on information garnered from science based on this type of research, will always be ridiculed by the establishment old sciences. It doesn't matter too much to me. Eventually the tidal wave of crashing realities will be evident. There is only so much empirical data that can be denied. Once people create technology for the right people that know how to use it, it doesn't matter what others without the right out look or know how decide to say or do about it. :rolleyes:
 
Sorry but 53% does not seem statistically significant to me, certainly not to a high degree of confidence..I couldn't find stats on a control group either - did I miss it?
 
ULTRA said:
Sorry but 53% does not seem statistically significant to me, certainly not to a high degree of confidence..I couldn't find stats on a control group either - did I miss it?
Click to expand...

What? 53% confidence? It doesn't get statistically insignificant from an acceptance test unless it is <.05%. That means over half of what our brain interprets is somehow a perception of the future. Like how you know two people aren't going to last as a couple. It's not hard to make educated guesses for the future. Many people throught the years have held this talent well.
 
chaos1956 said:
What? 53% confidence? It doesn't get statistically insignificant from an acceptance test unless it is <.05%. That means over half of what our brain interprets is somehow a perception of the future. Like how you know two people aren't going to last as a couple. It's not hard to make educated guesses for the future. Many people throught the years have held this talent well.
Click to expand...

The OP uses the word "percieve"... I think you mistake perception with prediction.
 
The Esotericist said:
I shouldn't wonder that the accuracy of participants will increase in time. People talk of some sort of energetic increase in the solar system. Thirty years ago, I don't think you would have had any luck with this type of thing which showed results beyond random guessing. . . Just a hunch though.

I predict there will be more and more parapsychology successes in the near future. But again, it will depend greatly on the thoughts of the participants and the expectations of the observers (the scientists conducting the experiments), as that is how this sort of things works. It is an observer affected type of phenomenon, which is why peer review is so hard to duplicate with clock work accuracy.

Much like the double slit experiment, it is affected by thought, emotion, and consciousness. It is the apex of where one dimension ends, and the other begins. Hence, new rules for experimentation must be devised for the consciousness (i.e. hopes, thoughts, expectations) of the experimenting scientist mingling in the alternating dimension, as it is always going to pollute the results, for good or ill.

Thus, topics like these, information on new technology that is based on information garnered from science based on this type of research, will always be ridiculed by the establishment old sciences. It doesn't matter too much to me. Eventually the tidal wave of crashing realities will be evident. There is only so much empirical data that can be denied. Once people create technology for the right people that know how to use it, it doesn't matter what others without the right out look or know how decide to say or do about it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

a paradigm shift in any field comes about not by logic or evidence from experimental data
but slowly over time as the closed self interested minds of the preceding generation die off
and a younger breed of inspired thinkers take their place. i forget whose
observation that was but i tend to agree with it.
 
What irony! Y'know it doesn't appear to say what statistical test was applied such as Chi2 or whatever...How can you do proper stats without a control?
 
quite right, quite right. thanks for the reminder. gets a bit stodgy round these parts if you know what I mean, what what. :eek:
 
In a proper test they would have thought of that (lack of esp?)
 
ULTRA said:
What irony! Y'know it doesn't appear to say what statistical test was applied such as Chi2 or whatever...How can you do proper stats without a control?
Click to expand...

there is a thorough analysis of the stats in the research paper.
the hypothesis was that the subjects would identify position of erotic
pictures significantly more than chance and the hit rate would be more
in the erotic pictures compared to non erotic pictures, which was the case.
presumably the non erotic pictures could be considered the control?
 
Its not a piece of research that I find compelling. However, I'm not going to say you are wrong to believe it if you want to. I was hoping to see something conclusive, this is not it.
 
ULTRA said:
Its not a piece of research that I find compelling. However, I'm not going to say you are wrong to believe it if you want to. I was hoping to see something conclusive, this is not it.
Click to expand...

what would be conclusive?
 
Hard to say, maybe 70% or so as a wild guess. Because there is always going to be a variation of, say 5% above or below, you need a return that is statisically significant acording to 1) confidence level 2) Type of statisical analysis used 3) Comparative control group. This research does not apparently fulfil these criteria. Personally, I would file this research under "Fun" and bring it out at parties. Interesting, but not scientifically credible. Do please do correct me anyone if I am wrong..
 
ULTRA said:
Hard to say, maybe 70% or so as a wild guess. Because there is always going to be a variation of, say 5% above or below, you need a return that is statisically significant acording to 1) confidence level 2) Type of statisical analysis used 3) Comparative control group. This research does not apparently fulfil these criteria. Personally, I would file this research under "Fun" and bring it out at parties. Interesting, but not scientifically credible. Do please do correct me anyone if I am wrong..
Click to expand...

there is a great deal of discussion on control sessions in the research paper,
what exactly do you think is wrong with the protocols?
 
The troube is, along with what I've already stated, that 53% is not in the range that you would normally expect to be significant for an experiment of this type. Bearing in mind that 50% is exactly normal for random results. The 3% would normally be well within a calculated margin of error and is thus statistically insignificant. Now if the results came back at anything over, say 60%, I would say that is interesting - and 70% or over would be pretty much conclusive providing it could be repeated. It's stodgy and boring I know, but it's the way to analyze results meaningfully.
 
Ps. The figures I give are only examples, it really depends on what type of stats you're applying to the results.
 
Pps. I hate stats - they really are boring and can never "prove" anything conclusively
 
woowoo said:
New psi research from Cornell University has recently been published in a peer reviewed scientific
journal. This is currently getting a great deal of publicity as the research
makes the claim it is indeed possible to see into the future, precognition.

The experiment asked students to predict the position of erotic images
displayed on a screen. There was an accuracy of 53% which is according
to the researchers highly significant.

Skeptics and debunkers will get their chance to try out the experiment
for themselves as the protocols are now available online.

http://dbem.ws/online_pubs.html#psi
Click to expand...

I predict "perceive" that Cornell will be taking a huge hit to its credibility as a reputable institution every time they publish something stupid like this.

Edit: Here's an example of the kind of dupes performing these "experiments". If they were doing anything resembling real science, they wouldn't need to call it "parapsychology" as it would already fit under one of the other branches. IMO they should merge with the dept. of Theology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top