Does subconscious perception get confused with ESP?

[Tyooby]

A while back it it was reported on several news sites that

According to experts, sweat people produce when they are scared gives off signals that are subconsciously picked up by others. (source (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4833248.cms))

And in the NY Times, it was reported that

[A] man, a doctor left blind by two successive strokes, refused to take part in the experiment. He could not see anything, he said, and had no interest in navigating an obstacle course — a cluttered hallway — for the benefit of science. Why bother?

When he finally tried it, though, something remarkable happened. He zigzagged down the hall, sidestepping a garbage can, a tripod, a stack of paper and several boxes as if he could see everything clearly. A researcher shadowed him in case he stumbled. (source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/health/23blin.html?_r=1))

These examples show that the process of perception, interpretation and even our physical response thereto can be completely unknown to our conscious mind.

And the example of the blind boy who taught himself to detect objects around him using echolocation (youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLziFMF4DHA)) might indicate that the quantity of sensory input we potentioally have access to is far greater than we're usually aware of.

The result of all the sensory information that doesn't make it to our consciousness, but does get perceived, interpreted and maybe even extrapolated subconsciousnessly, could perceived by our conscious mind, I think. Probably by some more than others, and at some moments more than others. This process might then be interpreted as intuition or ESP.

This way, people might have an awareness of things that normally wouldn't be deemed possible. Such as the presence of another person in a room who's hidden behind a screen, by subconsciously hearing his breath or even the way his body reflects and absorbs the waves of other sounds in the room. If the person moves, one's tactile sense could subconsciously pick up the vibrations in the ground, maybe even the movement of the air, caused by this movement. One might subconsciously smell his presence. One could subconsciously get visual clues of his presence if there are even slight reflections or shadows cast on the ceiling, walls or other objects.

Maybe it goes as far as that this process of subconscious perception and interpretation can sometimes allow one to seemingly impossibly know what another person is feeling or have broad idea of what they're thinking, from visual clues such as body language, breath pattern, color and sweatiness of the skin, olfactory clues such as pheromones, and auditory clues such as tone of voice, rhythm of speach and breath pattern.

What do you think? Do I ascribe too much influence to subconscious perception? Is it true that this process gets mistaken for ESP? Do preliminary tests for JREF's challenge sufficiently rule out this factor?

[shuttlt]

It's pretty clear that information (whether real, or imagined) that we don't consciously know can become consciously known in ways that aren't obvious to the subject. Facilitated communication might be one non-ESP example, but dowsing and Ouija boards work on the same principle (along with a bucket full of cognitive bias). In these cases the subject themself is the source of what seems to them like an external information source.

It's also clear from the examples you give that we can unconsciously have access to real external information.

Personally, I would have said though that cognitive bias has a heck of a lot more to do with it than unconscious access to real information.

[LightningStrike]

The result of all the sensory information that doesn't make it to our consciousness, but does get perceived, interpreted and maybe even extrapolated subconsciousnessly, could (be) perceived by our conscious mind, I think. Probably by some more than others, and at some moments more than others. This process might then be interpreted as intuition or ESP.


Consciousness perceives everything. Everybody seems to think that their position is consciousness but it is really self consciousness. We tend to think of self consciousness as being embarrassed in a situation but it is more than that it is simply being identified with thought and interpretation (the self). The pure ego is a principle in the body that analyses the environment constantly for any signs of danger and could be said to be an agent of consciousness. It is present in all lifeforms and is what is called instinct as it is solely concerned with the protection and survival of the body.

It seems to me that intuition or ESP is the sixth sense. A sense that perceives the five or more senses all at once.

The sixth sense looks into another place or perceives the formless energetic reality within which we call the subconscious and unknowable unconscious.

Now as an aside who is to say that the subconscious and unconscious are not the place of origin for this whole thing (existence). The scientific mind says 'no way!' but the scientific mind is only rarefied self conscious. It can never know because it can't investigate consciousness. Thought can never know consciousness.

[shuttlt]

LightningStrike,

Perhaps you can devise a test that demonstrates somebody being able to "perceives the formless energetic reality".

[catbasket]

[A] man, a doctor left blind by two successive strokes, refused to take part in the experiment. He could not see anything, he said, and had no interest in navigating an obstacle course — a cluttered hallway — for the benefit of science. Why bother?

When he finally tried it, though, something remarkable happened. He zigzagged down the hall, sidestepping a garbage can, a tripod, a stack of paper and several boxes as if he could see everything clearly. A researcher shadowed him in case he stumbled. (source)
Looks like this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4V6JFJV-F&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c269782ef0ea020962e29eeff39d9296) at Current Biology is the original (I can't access the full article). From the Abstract -

A patient with bilateral damage to primary visual (striated) cortex has provided the opportunity to assess just what visual capacities are possible in the absence of geniculo-striate pathways. Patient TN suffered two strokes in succession, lesioning each visual cortex in turn and causing clinical blindness over his whole visual field. Functional and anatomical brain imaging assessments showed that TN completely lacks any functional visual cortex. We report here that, among other retained abilities, he can successfully navigate down the extent of a long corridor in which various barriers were placed. A video recording shows him skillfully avoiding and turning around the blockages. This demonstrates that extra-striate pathways in humans can sustain sophisticated visuo-spatial skills in the absence of perceptual awareness, akin to what has been previously reported in monkeys. It remains to be determined which of the several extra-striate pathways account for TN's intact navigation skills.

[Jeff Corey]

...It seems to me that intuition or ESP is the sixth sense. A sense that perceives the five or more senses all at once...
Just to insert a little reality here, we have more than five real senses already. There is no need to make up any more.

[PixyMisa]

Consciousness perceives everything.
No.

Everybody seems to think that their position is consciousness but it is really self consciousness.
No.

We tend to think of self consciousness as being embarrassed in a situation but it is more than that it is simply being identified with thought and interpretation (the self).
No.

The pure ego is a principle in the body that analyses the environment constantly for any signs of danger and could be said to be an agent of consciousness.
No.

It is present in all lifeforms and is what is called instinct as it is solely concerned with the protection and survival of the body.
No.

It seems to me that intuition or ESP is the sixth sense. A sense that perceives the five or more senses all at once.
Not just no, but heck no.

The sixth sense looks into another place or perceives the formless energetic reality within which we call the subconscious and unknowable unconscious.
Double plus no. With cream.

Now as an aside who is to say that the subconscious and unconscious are not the place of origin for this whole thing (existence).
Every observation of everything, ever. For starters.

The scientific mind says 'no way!' but the scientific mind is only rarefied self conscious.
No.

It can never know because it can't investigate consciousness.
Triple cheese no-burger with a side of no-fries and no shake.

Thought can never know consciousness.
That's what consciousness is.

[Tyooby]

It's pretty clear that information (whether real, or imagined) that we don't consciously know can become consciously known in ways that aren't obvious to the subject. Facilitated communication might be one non-ESP example, but dowsing and Ouija boards work on the same principle (along with a bucket full of cognitive bias). In these cases the subject themself is the source of what seems to them like an external information source.

It's also clear from the examples you give that we can unconsciously have access to real external information.

Personally, I would have said though that cognitive bias has a heck of a lot more to do with it than unconscious access to real information.

I think you're absolutely right and I guess it's indeed, as you said, "pretty clear that information (whether real, or imagined) that we don't consciously know can become consciously known in ways that aren't obvious to the subject". Probably, my post was somewhat superfluous. Still, I'm curious if the scope of information that can be perceived through this subconscious process is sufficiently charted by science to prevent false positives in tests for paranormal abilities.

For example, I remember reading some dogs can be trained to smell tumors, in other words, to smell if someone has cancer. I also remember reading some dogs could be trained to smell the onset of an epillectic seizure in humans. I'm not sure where I read these things so I can't vouch for their validity.

Now I know that humans have a much weaker sense of smell, but I think of all our sensory impulses, those of the smell have the highest ratio of subconscious/conscious influence on our behaviour. Besides the contagious effect of smelling fear in others, (see my previous post), there's also the established fact (AFAIK) that we can smell if someone of the opposite sex has an immune system type that would combine well with our own, giving a higher chance of healthy offspring. This perception influences our sexual desire for that person. Probably many more examples could be found.

These things seem to indicate that we can smell a lot more about someone's body and emotions than we usually realize. I think that if someone tests positive for the ability to offer a supposedly psychic diagnosis, the more likely cause would be a hitherto unknown ability of the olfactory sense, perhaps in combo with subconscious perception of other senses, as opposed to supernatural causes.

In the case of VisionFromFeeling, who's now a popular topic of discussion on this forum, and wants to be tested for her ability to sense if someone on the other side of a screen has one or two kidneys, let's say she passes this test. She can't see or hear, hasn't seen or heard her subjects. However unlikely, I think it's still far more likely that VFF would have subconsciously smelled the difference, perceiving it as vision due to her anaesthesia. The difference in smell might be caused by a slightly elevated level of transpiration caused by a higher degree of anticipation among the one-kidneyed.

I think the potentially partly unknown amount of influence subconscious perception might have on test results should be taken very serious, and if at all possible, completely ruled out.

[PixyMisa]

Just as an aside, the human sense of smell isn't as weak as is commonly assumed. Weaker than a dog's, that's true, but mostly we're just not in the habit of crawling around on the floor sniffing at things. ;)

[shuttlt]

Tyooby,

is this kind of what you're imagining:

The Dog Beneath the Skin (http://books.google.com/books?id=nc2dE9swe0sC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=%22The+Dog+Beneath+the+Skin%22+stephen&source=bl&ots=p0WrzLKRwf&sig=FnzOFQt6unTud2rHspFASbYjS7s&hl=en&ei=xrSKSr6pG6qvtgfC_O0o&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Dog%20Beneath%20the%20Skin%22%20stephen&f=false)

It's from an Oliver Sacks book. Basically med student takes a bunch of drugs and dreams he is a dog, when he wakes, and for the next few weeks, his senses are hugely sharper.

Apparently this kind of thing is called hyperosmia. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperosmia) doesn't have much to say about it other than weirdly it can be associated with Addison's Disease. I wonder if any of the JFK conspiracy theories have considered this? Was the sniper upwind, or downwind of the president?

[Tyooby]

Tyooby,

is this kind of what you're imagining:

The Dog Beneath the Skin (http://books.google.com/books?id=nc2dE9swe0sC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=%22The+Dog+Beneath+the+Skin%22+stephen&source=bl&ots=p0WrzLKRwf&sig=FnzOFQt6unTud2rHspFASbYjS7s&hl=en&ei=xrSKSr6pG6qvtgfC_O0o&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Dog%20Beneath%20the%20Skin%22%20stephen&f=false)

Thanks! I had totally forgotten all about that, I read that book years ago. I just reread that part, very interesting.

The description of this man's hyperosmia is indeed a nice piece of anecdotal evidence. It could indicate that the wealth of smells he could suddenly perceive is always available to us, but is usually discarded or deferred to the subconscious. In case of the latter, the result of subconscious interpretation of these smells could occasionally find its way to the consciousness, where it might be perceived as ESP.

Here's an interesting quote from the book:

He found he could distinguish all his friends - and patients - by smell: "I went into the clinic, I sniffed like a dog, and in that sniff recognised, before seeing them, the twenty patients who were there. Each had its own olfactory physiognomy, a smell-face, far more vivid and evocative, more redolent, than any sight-face." He could smell their emotions - fear, contentment, sexuality - like a dog. He could recognise every street, every shop, by smell - He could find his way around New York, infallibly, by smell.

[shuttlt]

Of course it would be nice to see someone do this under controlled conditions. I wouldn't be hugely surprised to find that abilities as impressive as the Oliver Sacks example turn out not to be quite so impressive when put to the test. I had a brief look for studies and came up dry.

[Senex]

NYT arcticle:][A] man, a doctor left blind by two successive strokes, refused to take part in the experiment. He could not see anything, he said, and had no interest in navigating an obstacle course — a cluttered hallway — for the benefit of science. Why bother?

When he finally tried it, though, something remarkable happened. He zigzagged down the hall, sidestepping a garbage can, a tripod, a stack of paper and several boxes as if he could see everything clearly. A researcher shadowed him in case he stumbled. (source)


These examples show that the process of perception, interpretation and even our physical response thereto can be completely unknown to our conscious mind.

And the example of the blind boy who taught himself to detect objects around him using echolocation (youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLziFMF4DHA)) might indicate that the quantity of sensory input we potentioally have access to is far greater than we're usually aware of.

The result of all the sensory information that doesn't make it to our consciousness, but does get perceived, interpreted and maybe even extrapolated subconsciousnessly, could perceived by our conscious mind, I think. Probably by some more than others, and at some moments more than others. This process might then be interpreted as intuition or ESP.

Deeper reading in that NYT's article:
Unlike people suffering from eye injuries, or congenital blindness in which the visual system develops abnormally, his brain was otherwise healthy, as were his eyes, so he had the necessary tools to process subconscious vision. What he lacked were the circuits that cobble together a clear, conscious picture.

Your own article states a difference between this person and other blind people such as the bat guy whom I admit I didn't research at all. The point of the article is the guy thinks he's blind but he can navigate better that if you blindfolded him -- opposed to bat guy who could be blindfolded with no difference.

[Tyooby]

Your own article states a difference between this person and other blind people such as the bat guy whom I admit I didn't research at all. The point of the article is the guy thinks he's blind but he can navigate better that if you blindfolded him -- opposed to bat guy who could be blindfolded with no difference.

So what's your point? I used the guy with blindsight ("blindsight, the native ability to sense things using the brain’s primitive, subcortical — and entirely subconscious — visual system") as an example to, as I said, "show that the process of perception, interpretation and even our physical response thereto can be completely unknown to our conscious mind." I used the echolocating guy as an example that, as i said, "might indicate that the quantity of sensory input we potentioally have access to is far greater than we're usually aware of."

[Ashles]

there's also the established fact (AFAIK) that we can smell if someone of the opposite sex has an immune system type that would combine well with our own, giving a higher chance of healthy offspring. This perception influences our sexual desire for that person.


Do you have any references for this "established fact"?

[Tyooby]

Do you have any references for this "established fact"?

I remember it in a newspaper and several places online, can't remember which.

A quick google search gave me the following quotes and references from Wikipedia:

The MHC genes (known as HLA in humans) are a group of genes present in many animals and important for the immune system; in general, offspring from parents with differing MHC genes have a stronger immune system. Fish, mice and female humans are able to smell some aspect of the MHC genes of potential sex partners and prefer partners with MHC genes different from their own.

Reference 1 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0V-4HRDXW9-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d4c993dac5c988a4c30b6224c9725f3a)
Reference 2 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGC-4FD13H8-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b28004d75d3ea4746494966a223b07b6)
Reference 3 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W8V-4KJ73VJ-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f5ed0bbddfcab69e769550d142d00bcc)

ETA: i was talking about this wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfaction)

[Ashles]

I remember it in a newspaper and several places online, can't remember which.

A quick google search gave me the following quotes and references from Wikipedia:

Reference 1 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0V-4HRDXW9-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d4c993dac5c988a4c30b6224c9725f3a)
Reference 2 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGC-4FD13H8-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b28004d75d3ea4746494966a223b07b6)
Reference 3 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W8V-4KJ73VJ-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f5ed0bbddfcab69e769550d142d00bcc)

Fair enough.

I would just be surprised at how much real information is really detected subconsciously by smell.

If there were unexplained studies indicating something was skewing ESP-like detection/perception results inexplicably then maybe it might be worth exploring the possibility, but as far as I am aware, isolated examples notwithstanding (I haven't looked at the blind guy example in detail yet) there is nothing currently requiring explanation.

[Tyooby]

If there were unexplained studies indicating something was skewing ESP-like detection/perception results inexplicably then maybe it might be worth exploring the possibility, but as far as I am aware, isolated examples notwithstanding (I haven't looked at the blind guy example in detail yet) there is nothing currently requiring explanation.

I guess you're right. But I do think that if someone would test positive for paranormal abilities, the explanation is more likely to be found in subconscious perception than the paranormal. There might not be enough reason to take this risk into account, but if at all possible, I think it would be wise to rule it out, especially for the million dollar test.

I mustn't think of what would happen if someone won the prize by way of some unknown process of natural perception. The media would propbably pick up the news and describe it as the definite proof of the supernatural.

[shuttlt]

It strikes me that this is similarly useless as an example of ESP as Ganzfield. When you look at what people who claim to have ESP are claiming it isn't generally stuff like "over a thousand trials I can sometime produce results at a level bordering on significance" or "I have a knack for knowing when my coworkers are ovulating". They claim to have predicted assassinations and disasters, they claim to be able to locate missing children, they claim to be able to communicate with the dead. It seems to me that few examples of ESP can be explained as actual heightening of normal senses, or subconscious access to sensory information as in the blind sight example. Some may be unconsciously picking up on clues that would have been consciously available if only they'd thought of looking, but mostly I suspect the bulk of the explanation lies with phenomenon like confirmation bias.

If people were hitting the JREF with genuine access to heightened sensory information I would expect Randi to have had to work a lot harder to keep his million. Is there any evidence from the challenge that anybody with these abilities has presented?

[Ashles]

I guess you're right. But I do think that if someone would test positive for paranormal abilities, the explanation is more likely to be found in subconscious perception than the paranormal. There might not be enough reason to take this risk into account, but if at all possible, I think it would be wise to rule it out, especially for the million dollar test.

I agree 100%.

I mustn't think of what would happen if someone won the prize by way of some unknown process of natural perception. The media would propbably pick up the news and describe it as the definite proof of the supernatural.

To be fair we wouldn't know otherwise at that point.

In fact what you suggest is in my opinion quite likely to happen - someone in the near future may well demonstrate what appears to be paranormal ability, that will subsequently be discovered to have an explanation within known scientific processes.

Perconally I believe that will be more likely to be as a result of cunning trickery (or very clever use of cutting edge technology) than biological processes because mankind has had thousands of years to use his natural abilities as well as he can, and there are still no replicable demonstrations that defy explanation.

As a mild musing, I wonder if Derren Brown could pass the Million Dollar Challenge if he really put his mind to it?

[Senex]

So what's your point? I used the guy with blindsight ("blindsight, the native ability to sense things using the brain’s primitive, subcortical — and entirely subconscious — visual system") as an example to, as I said, "show that the process of perception, interpretation and even our physical response thereto can be completely unknown to our conscious mind." I used the echolocating guy as an example that, as i said, "might indicate that the quantity of sensory input we potentioally have access to is far greater than we're usually aware of."

I believe you are hoping for something too subtle. This (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/health/research/28brain.html) NYTimes article I believe is closer to the truth you seek.

As a mild musing, I wonder if Derren Brown could pass the Million Dollar Challenge if he really put his mind to it?

Not on his best day ;)

[SusanB-M1]

Re Echo Location: Peter White, a totally blind (since birth) radio presenter, was talking about this a while ago when the news came up, and he said that he thought everyone knew that blind people did this. He and his friends at school used it all the time; and still do, as far as he knows.

People asked me, when I lost all but some peripheral vision, whether myhearing 'got better', but of course it doesn't, especiallyw with age!, but I just pay more attention to it, and touch and smell, although I haven't noticed taste changing. As soon as my brain realised that focal vision was not coming back, it just makes maximum use of what is available.