Evolution of telepathy?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I have already explained why it is not suggestive! :mad: You have just contradicted me but have failed to provide any reasons to call into question my original point.

If JREF has the power to refuse any applications what's to stop them from refusing any application that they feel has a tangible chance of winning the prize?
Perhaps there are some legal considerations? I don't know, but it would seem to me that Randi could not turn aside a legitimate application without incurring some problems.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Perhaps there are some legal considerations? I don't know, but it would seem to me that Randi could not turn aside a legitimate application without incurring some problems.

He could turn aside any application by saying that it is not a paranormal claim. He could then give an explanation as to why he thought so and not have to justify the validity of his explanation, but its not even clear from the application page that he is even required to do that.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But I have already explained why it is not suggestive! :mad: You have just contradicted me but have failed to provide any reasons to call into question my original point.

No, you have suggested why it is not suggestive. I dare to disagree.

If JREF has the power to refuse any applications what's to stop them from refusing any application that they feel has a tangible chance of winning the prize?

Because they would be open to scandal. If anybody were to publish a scientifically viable protocol plus documentation that the JREF had refused to accept it, the JREF would loose all credibility in the skeptic community. And forget about fan group or cult, there is nothing that enrages skeptics more than a false skeptic. Something you may have noticed reading this board.

Hans

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Because they would be open to scandal. If anybody were to publish a scientifically viable protocol plus documentation that the JREF had refused to accept it, the JREF would loose all credibility in the skeptic community. And forget about fan group or cult, there is nothing that enrages skeptics more than a false skeptic. Something you may have noticed reading this board.



No, can't say I've noticed that at all!

But to the main point. How would people know about it if they don't publish details of the applications they have turned down??

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Nivek


This confuses me..:confused:
How can a phylosophy on the nature of knowledge allow one to deny knowledge? Can this truely be trustworthy? It seems like a contradiction to me.....

Knowledge, the last I looked, doesn't include things that are false. The methods of science are the gating mechanism that screens out the false and lets in the true.

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
You see, you have displayed the exact kind of bias I am talking about. If you were the JREF member that decided on the basis of a paranormal claim, you would have rejected a ganzfeld protocol. The claimant would then have to go home, the claim not tested, regardless of whether or not anybody else thought the claim was legitimately paranormal.

On the contrary, you are displaying the exact kind of nonsense for which JREF will not jeopardize a million. If your only ganzfeld design is so squishy, then you inherently have only pap to serve, sir. If ganzfeld falls apart under a more rigorous definition, then it was a house of cards to begin with.

What parameters are there for this "judging"? What good old fashioned hard rules? An apple can be called a Big Mac? That is permitted? Why? Can any food be substituted for any food? Only fruit for fruit? Only fruit of a different size? How about fruit pies? If I guess mince meat pie does that count as an apple hit? Why not open it up more broadly? An apple is made of molecules. Molecules are made of atoms. So anything made of atoms is a hit?

I don't think so.

Now lets go a bit further. Given you are unwilling to modify ganzfeld so that a "hit" must be a "hit", or even to define hard bounds around hit, how can anybody estimate the probabilities?

Give me a design. Hard and fast. Let's see if you can do something other than whine and smear.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Now I find this extremely suspicious. What's to stop Randi from refusing any application which is likely to win?

Well, gee, we would records of correspondence, right? From both sides, right? So, how about you stop this smear campaign and cough up some evidence of all these horrid things that might be? Where are the letters from such an applicant and responses from JREF?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


On the contrary, you are displaying the exact kind of nonsense for which JREF will not jeopardize a million. If your only ganzfeld design is so squishy, then you inherently have only pap to serve, sir. If ganzfeld falls apart under a more rigorous definition, then it was a house of cards to begin with.

What parameters are there for this "judging"? What good old fashioned hard rules? An apple can be called a Big Mac? That is permitted? Why? Can any food be substituted for any food? Only fruit for fruit? Only fruit of a different size? How about fruit pies? If I guess mince meat pie does that count as an apple hit? Why not open it up more broadly? An apple is made of molecules. Molecules are made of atoms. So anything made of atoms is a hit?

I don't think so.

Now lets go a bit further. Given you are unwilling to modify ganzfeld so that a "hit" must be a "hit", or even to define hard bounds around hit, how can anybody estimate the probabilities?

Give me a design. Hard and fast. Let's see if you can do something other than whine and smear.

Bill, you display the most pathetic understanding of the ganzfeld procedure I have heard for a while, wait no, Ken's is worse.

The judging procedure allows for a big mac to be called a hit when an apple is the target because the judge does not know which target is the actual target and which are the decoys. Thus the hit rate can be compared with chance over successive trials.

Are you really this stupid or are you deliberately winding me up ?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Well, gee, we would records of correspondence, right? From both sides, right? So, how about you stop this smear campaign and cough up some evidence of all these horrid things that might be? Where are the letters from such an applicant and responses from JREF?


Don't be stupid, he's talking about the procedure allowing the possibility of this happening. Just like if there is the possibility of fraud in a parapsychology experiment, that would decrease the credibility of the results. Same principle.

[thaiboxerken]

This is exactly my point. The JREF will not accept tests that try to replicate the scientific evidence for these phenomena, for example ganzfeld ESP, simply because they do not believe the evidence shows anything paranormal.

The ganzfield experiments only show that people can torture numbers to suggest whatever they feel like believing in. No science there.


Therefore the JREF should just stay out of the debate as to the existence of paranormal phenomena. Thats up to the scientific method to decide. The scientific method does deem any topic ouside its scope of investigation because it doesn't pass some biased and silly criteria.

That's your opinion, it's wrong, but you're welcome to it. One doesn't need to have a science research center to point out the obviousm, and the obvious is that there is no such thing as "psi" outside the context of fiction.



I was making sarcastic reference to your own pathetic understanding of paranormal phenomena :rolleyes:

Hardly, you are the one that wants to keep the lines between reality and "paranormal" blurry, that way you can make up any lie and call it evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

Do you know what a ganzfeld judging procedure is ?

The judge has to chose out of four possible targets which they think is the actual target for that trial. The judge does not know which is the correct target. The free response procedure is set up so that any possible ESP signals that produce mentation that is similar to the actual target choice is more likely to result in the correct target choice. This method is in good agreement with how normal psychology works. For example, if you watch a TV program about house fires before you go to sleep, you are likely to dream about things psychologically related to fire such as erupting volcanoes, firemen etc. You do not necessarily dream specifically about house fires.

Do you have anything reasonably intelligent to say ?

That judgement procedure makes the entire process subjective and not objective at all. This is not science, it's garbage. Do you have any real evidence of "psi" at all? I thought not, ladybrook.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


Bill, you display the most pathetic understanding of the ganzfeld procedure I have heard for a while, wait no, Ken's is worse.

The judging procedure allows for a big mac to be called a hit when an apple is the target because the judge does not know which target is the actual target and which are the decoys. Thus the hit rate can be compared with chance over successive trials.

Are you really this stupid or are you deliberately winding me up ?

Really, david? A big mac is a hit? So if the target is an apple, what other subject responses constitute "hits"? Please exhaustively enumerate them.

[edited for clarity -bh]

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Really, david? A big mac is a hit? So if the target is an apple, what other subject responses constitute "hits"? Please exhaustively enumerate them.



Whatever it takes to "prove" there is psi, I guess.

:rolleyes:

It's about as increble as Luci's "ladybrook" evidence of psi. LOL.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Knowledge, the last I looked, doesn't include things that are false. The methods of science are the gating mechanism that screens out the false and lets in the true.

Cheers,

knowl·edge n.

1: The state or fact of knowing.

2: Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.

3: The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.

4: Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.

5: Specific information about something.

6: Carnal knowledge.

Middle English knoulech_: knouen, to know; see know + -leche, n. suff.]

Synonyms: information, learning, erudition, lore, scholarship

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

What I've been trying to say all along, there is nothing false about experiance, experiance is knowledge. People experiance telepathy and empathy and can attest their knowledge of it, producing evidence. Yet this evidence is completely rejected by those whom cannot attest to it, for they have yet the experiance. Like I have said before, there is no proof only perception.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Nivek
What I've been trying to say all along, there is nothing false about experiance, experiance is knowledge. People experiance telepathy and empathy and can attest their knowledge of it, producing evidence. Yet this evidence is completely rejected by those whom cannot attest to it, for they have yet the experiance. Like I have said before, there is no proof only perception.

I outlined the definition used here. Amazing that science makes so much progress given that "there is no proof only perception."

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Nivek
What I've been trying to say all along, there is nothing false about experiance, experiance is knowledge. People experiance telepathy and empathy and can attest their knowledge of it, producing evidence. Yet this evidence is completely rejected by those whom cannot attest to it, for they have yet the experiance. Like I have said before, there is no proof only perception.
When people attest to their experiences, that is anecdotal evidence, which is just fine for parties, talk shows, and books aimed at lowest-common-denominator audiences. When it comes to science, anecdotal evidence isn't good enough. There can be plenty false about experience, and that's why personal experiences are regarded as unreliable and therefore useless evidence.

[Pyrrho]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pyrrho
Then there is this oft-ignored paragraph, which pretty much puts the lie to any nonsensical idea that the JREF Challenge is a scam:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be advised that several claimants have suffered great personal embarrassment after failing these tests. I strongly advise you to conduct proper double-blind tests of any ability you believe you can demonstrate, before attempting to undergo a testing for this prize. This has saved me and many claimants much time and work, by showing that the powers were quite imaginary on the part of the would-be claimant. Please do this, and do not choose to ignore the need for such a precaution.
-- James Randi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

How does it do that?


Well, in my opinion, Randi wouldn't have said this if he were running a scam. In that paragraph, he clearly recommends that people do some scientific tests of their supposed abilities before taking the JREF Challenge. This applies to all potential claimants, including tv psychic mediums.

To take this a bit further, those who don't like the rules for the JREF Challenge should easily be able to have their supposed abilities tested as Randi advises. If their abilities prove to be genuine, the JREF million-dollar-prize would be mere pocket change in comparison to the potential rewards for such genuine abilities. I should explain that by the term "abilities", I include miraculous things such as free energy machines and the like.

If, for example, the girl who claims to see through goggles had done as advised, she and her handlers could have avoided time, expense, and embarrassment.

[LightKnight]

Bill

LK,

Just so you know, under some general guidelines Randi posted to the board a while back, you are now refusing to support your claim. It is an arrogant refusal at that, considering this noblesse oblige feint of yours. Us unwashed masses will melt with this knowledge? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I say: pah! It is more probable your claim will melt under scrutiny.



You would be correct in saying that I refuse to support my claim with a demonstration. I believed I pointed that out in what I said, regardless of how Mr. Randi's guidelines work. Again, I see someone take offense over my words. Please, take care to try and understand them. I point out that while some may not be able to deal with what I share in, I myself am incapable of dealing with situations that other people have no problem with. I am not singling anyone out. I am not saying that all skeptics are weak. You could be someone capable of dealing with it, just as I. I'm just saying that in our individuality, some are more capable than others in certain situations.



I believe I'm beginning to see why no one has ever won this test. For one, it singles out the greedy among us. Nearly all of those that I would consider legitamate would scoff at this test. It would be the equivalent of selling your soul... trading freely given gifts for vast amounts of money. Only those who lack understanding in themselves would seek such a challenge, only those who wish to prove themselves. Anyone who truly understands their gift, who has come far with it learns that there is but one being who we need to prove ourselves to.

While I came here looking for intellectually stimulating discussion, I will leave now, with disgust. The few of you honestly looking for debate are overshadowed by the idocy displayed by your 'peers.'

Tear this apart as you will. I must be running away because I cannot make a legitamate claim. Golly, what a coward I am.

Peace to you all

[thaiboxerken]

You would be correct in saying that I refuse to support my claim with a demonstration.

That's because you're afraid you'll find out that you really don't have superpowers, and your roleplaying would cease.

You could be someone capable of dealing with it, just as I. I'm just saying that in our individuality, some are more capable than others in certain situations.

I think most skeptics could easily deal with such a thing. I know I could. Just show me your superpowers, I would be forced to believe it then.


I believe I'm beginning to see why no one has ever won this test. For one, it singles out the greedy among us.

No one has won the test because people don't have superpowers. That's the point. Oh, and it's false to say that it singles out the greedy, as one can always give the money to charity. You have a superpower, so you claim, that means you have the power to send a million dollars to help feed starving children or other charitable causes.


Nearly all of those that I would consider legitamate would scoff at this test.

I agree.. except instead of scoffing, they are running and avoiding the test. They know it will expose their trickery.

It would be the equivalent of selling your soul... trading freely given gifts for vast amounts of money.

Again, this is false. The money is there and one can do whatever they want with it once they win the money. It would really be enlighting all of us skeptics if someone beat the test. You would be doing humankind a favor by showing the world what powers we all can have and use for good.


Only those who lack understanding in themselves would seek such a challenge, only those who wish to prove themselves.

Only those with geniune superpowers could win the test. Those that refuse the test are cowards.

Anyone who truly understands their gift, who has come far with it learns that there is but one being who we need to prove ourselves to.

Yea, this is an evasion. You don't have to prove it to anyone because you know you have the power. Yet.. you want to come in here and declare to us that you have the power. Why even tell us that you have superpowers if you aren't going to prove it to us? You are a liar, you don't have superpowers.


While I came here looking for intellectually stimulating discussion, I will leave now, with disgust. The few of you honestly looking for debate are overshadowed by the idocy displayed by your 'peers.'

Good riddance. And if you don't read this, maybe you can telepathically get the message.

[b]
Tear this apart as you will. I must be running away because I cannot make a legitamate claim. Golly, what a coward I am.
[B]

I agree, you are a coward.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by LightKnight
You would be correct in saying that I refuse to support my claim with a demonstration. I believed I pointed that out in what I said, regardless of how Mr. Randi's guidelines work. Again, I see someone take offense over my words.
If you wish to build a home with no foundation, expect it to blow over at the first hint of wind. We didn't even get rocking here. We didn't turn the ignition key. I certainly didn't take offense at your words. I find your pompous arrogance mildly amusing.
Please, take care to try and understand them. I point out that while some may not be able to deal with what I share in, I myself am incapable of dealing with situations that other people have no problem with. I am not singling anyone out. I am not saying that all skeptics are weak. You could be someone capable of dealing with it, just as I. I'm just saying that in our individuality, some are more capable than others in certain situations.
Uh-huh. Whatever. BTW, you mangled your second sentence beyond comprehension. Unless, of course, you mean to say what we already know. Whatever.
I believe I'm beginning to see why no one has ever won this test. For one, it singles out the greedy among us. Nearly all of those that I would consider legitamate would scoff at this test.
Right. Right. Above it all. Yes, that was clear from your "unwashed masses" poppycock, oh gummy guru.
It would be the equivalent of selling your soul... trading freely given gifts for vast amounts of money. Only those who lack understanding in themselves would seek such a challenge, only those who wish to prove themselves. Anyone who truly understands their gift, who has come far with it learns that there is but one being who we need to prove ourselves to.

While I came here looking for intellectually stimulating discussion, I will leave now, with disgust. The few of you honestly looking for debate are overshadowed by the idocy displayed by your 'peers.'

Tear this apart as you will. I must be running away because I cannot make a legitamate claim. Golly, what a coward I am.

Peace to you all
You're a put on, aren't you? Who are you really? Nobody is this big a nitwit. Fess up, dude.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
You're a put on, aren't you? Who are you really? Nobody is this big a nitwit. Fess up, dude.

He's no put on, nor a niwit. Just a person looking for civilized discussion, unfortunately that is hard to find here.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Nivek
He's no put on, nor a niwit. Just a person looking for civilized discussion, unfortunately that is hard to find here.

Try not to speak so rationally Nivek, you might scare the spooks away.

It is far easier to put them on ignore. My only complaint is that there aren't enough spaces on the list for all the pseudo-skeptics (read: "believers of the 2nd kind").

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Try not to speak so rationally Nivek, you might scare the spooks away.

It is far easier to put them on ignore. My only complaint is that there aren't enough spaces on the list for all the pseudo-skeptics (read: "believers of the 2nd kind").

:dl:

Nivek.. rationally.. what a riot!! You should've been a comedian.

[T'ai Chi]

I'm concerned about the argument, not the person. What nivek said in that particular post made sense.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm concerned about the argument, not the person. What nivek said in that particular post made sense.

Interesting.. you hold value in addressing the arguement and not attacking the person, right?

I wonder.. how does this post Try not to speak so rationally Nivek, you might scare the spooks away.

It is far easier to put them on ignore. My only complaint is that there aren't enough spaces on the list for all the pseudo-skeptics (read: "believers of the 2nd kind"). fit into your addressing the arguement values?

You shouldn't be crying ad-hominem when you are doing it yourself.

[T'ai Chi]

Clearly there is a difference Ken. You, and Bill, called out names at a specific person, when I was speaking in general of certain harmful groups and their thinking habits.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm concerned about the argument, not the person. What nivek said in that particular post made sense.
O frapjous day! Then you wouldn't mind defeding your argument that we need to test each and every person before we can say there are no superpowers. Looking forward to it!

Cheers,

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Clearly there is a difference Ken. You, and Bill, called out names at a specific person, when I was speaking in general of certain harmful groups and their thinking habits.


So, ad-hominem is ok if it's directed at groups of people, but not if it's directed at a single person? That clears it up for me.

Go harness chi or something.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Do you have anything reasonably intelligent to say ?

That judgement procedure makes the entire process subjective and not objective at all. This is not science, it's garbage. Do you have any real evidence of "psi" at all? I thought not, ladybrook.

No Ken, the receivers mentation is subjective but the judging procedure is objective because the hit rate is comparable to chance. Like I said, anything intelligent to say ?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Really, david? A big mac is a hit? So if the target is an apple, what other subject responses constitute "hits"? Please exhaustively enumerate them.

[edited for clarity -bh]


You don't have to name them you fool. Thats the whole point of a free response followed by judging protocol. You can compare the hit rate to chance. If the receiver is obtaining any information relevant to the correct target, the judge will chose the correct target more often than 25% of the time.

I don't believe you don't understand this. I think you are just whining because you know you are wrong.

[BillHoyt]

David,

I repeat:

Really, david? A big mac is a hit? So if the target is an apple, what other subject responses constitute "hits"? Please exhaustively enumerate them.

[Pyrrho]

http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Text/Ganzfeld.html

http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Text/Ganzfeld.html#ov

Highlighted in bold are aspects which I find troubling:


The receiver remains in the Ganzfeld setting for about 30 minutes, reporting via a microphone, any mental imagery, thoughts or bodily sensations that they experience. After the impression period, the experimenter reviews the receiver's impressions with them, to remind them of their experiences.

The receiver then removes their eye shields and is shown video-clips via a monitor of four possible targets, one of which is a duplicate of the actual target for the session and the other three being decoys. The receiver and/or an independent judge ranks or rates each of the four targets according to the degree of similarity to the impressions. A successful session is when the actual target receives the highest rating/ranking.

As there is a one out of four chance of "guessing" the right target by chance alone (i.e. 25%), a successful study is one in which the correct target was chosen significantly more often than 25% of the time.


Why is this sort of thing valid at all? First, the experimenter is directly involved with the sender at some point; then, "the targets are rated according to the degree of similarity", which means that "hits" can be ambiguous. Because of the scoring methods and subjective judging, the statement "there is a one in four chance" is just not correct. Hits are counted if the guess is similar to the target but not exactly on target. It's like shooting an arrow at a target, hitting an outer ring, and calling it a bullseye.

Then there's this:


Sending Period: The experimenter then starts the session. First of all, relaxation instructions (heard by both the receiver and the sender) are played. After this, white noise is played over the audio channel for the duration of the session. During this, the sender will be shown the first playing of the computer-selected video clip and will attempt to silently communicate this to the receiver. This target video clip is repeated (typically 9 times) during the 30 minute sending period. The sender can hear the receiver's mentation (i.e. their verbal report of their ongoing thoughts, feelings and impressions)and is instructed to try to mentally reinforce those aspects which relate to the target. During this time, the receiver's mentation is also recorded and a summarised by the experimenter for use during the judging procedure.

Judging Period: At the end of the sending period, the experimenter reviews the mentation with the receiver over the audio link. The receiver is, at this point, allowed to add any further details or thoughts that they might have had. The receiver is then asked to remove the eye shields and watch their monitor. They are then shown four video clips, one at a time, and allowed to comment on each one. They are then asked to assign a rating from 1 to 99 to each clip, this representing the degree of correspondance of each video clip to the mentation. The highest rating is taken to be their first choice, the second highest their second choice, and so on.

Why all the involvement by the experimenter? Why isn't the mentation itself being scored, instead of having the receiver score the video clips as compared to the mentation -- after, it must be noted, discussion with the experimenter? The way this process is designed, the outcome depends upon subjective judgment.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
David,

I repeat:

Really, david? A big mac is a hit? So if the target is an apple, what other subject responses constitute "hits"? Please exhaustively enumerate them.

Do you understand what I just wrote ?

A hit is a hit if the judge choses the correct target. The content of the mentation either contains information that will enable the correct target to be chosen more often than chance or it will not.

So a big mac is a hit only if the apple is the correct target. If the apple was the decoy and it was chosen then the "big mac" would be regarded as a miss.

get it yet ?

Getting back to the original point. The JREF has the power to decide if this protocol is "good enough" for the test.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by davidsmith73



You don't have to name them you fool. Thats the whole point of a free response followed by judging protocol. You can compare the hit rate to chance. If the receiver is obtaining any information relevant to the correct target, the judge will chose the correct target more often than 25% of the time.

I don't believe you don't understand this. I think you are just whining because you know you are wrong.

LOL. The judge now chooses the target instead of the subject now. Interesting. How does the judge decide what is relative to the target?

The target is an apple. Big Mac is close enough because it's kind of the same shape (if you're a believer). Banana is relevant because it's a fruit. Wagon is red, so it's relevant. Candy is sweet, apples are sweet.. relevant. Jar.. applesauce is stored in jars, so it's relevant.

Can you not see that this judgement procedure is so subjective that any results are unreliable?

Wow, talk about junk-science.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


Getting back to the original point. The JREF has the power to decide if this protocol is "good enough" for the test.

Yes they sure do have that power. It doesn't take much expertise to realize that the Ganzfield protocol is flimsy, flexible and allows for whatever results the "scientists" have predetermined.

It's BS, it's crap, it's junk-science.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yes they sure do have that power. It doesn't take much expertise to realize that the Ganzfield protocol is flimsy, flexible and allows for whatever results the "scientists" have predetermined.

It's BS, it's crap, it's junk-science.
Is it just us, are we somehow not seeing clearly? Maybe we're not smart enough to overthink it enough. It sure looks over-intellectualized to me, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why people would even bother to examine all the statistical procedures when the very structure of these "experiments" is so clearly bogus. The experimenters have more or less created an amorphous "hit field" around each target. No two "hit fields" can be the same size, because each target has a different set of things that might be considered similar, which in turn depends upon what the judge thinks is similar. And that's the key here: it depends upon what the judge thinks is similar, based on what appears to be stream-of-consciousness "mentation" from the receiver.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Text/Ganzfeld.html

http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Text/Ganzfeld.html#ov

Highlighted in bold are aspects which I find troubling:


After the impression period, the experimenter reviews the receiver's impressions with them, to remind them of their experiences.


Nothing wrong here. The experimenter does not know the identity of the target.


The receiver and/or an independent judge ranks or rates each of the four targets according to the degree of similarity to the impressions.


Nothing wrong here. This is a subjective process. Each judge will have different responses to the mentation and will judge differently. However, randomisation of the targets will nullify this subjectivity.


As there is a one out of four chance of "guessing" the right target by chance alone (i.e. 25%), a successful study is one in which the correct target was chosen significantly more often than 25% of the time.


Nothing wrong here. Elementary statistics.


Why is this sort of thing valid at all? First, the experimenter is directly involved with the sender at some point;

before the session is started. The ratings are secured before the sender leaves the room. Thus the sender does not have any contact with anyone from the moment the target is revealed to them and until after the judging has been done.


then, "the targets are rated according to the degree of similarity", which means that "hits" can be ambiguous. Because of the scoring methods and subjective judging, the statement "there is a one in four chance" is just not correct.

yes it is because the targets are randomised.


Hits are counted if the guess is similar to the target but not exactly on target. It's like shooting an arrow at a target, hitting an outer ring, and calling it a bullseye.

That does not matter because randomisation of the targets means that if chance were alone operating then 25% hits would be expected.


The sender can hear the receiver's mentation (i.e. their verbal report of their ongoing thoughts, feelings and impressions)and is instructed to try to mentally reinforce those aspects which relate to the target. During this time, the receiver's mentation is also recorded and a summarised by the experimenter for use during the judging procedure.


Nothing wrong here. The mic is one way. the receiver does not hear anything from the sender. The experimenter does not know the target identity.


At the end of the sending period, the experimenter reviews the mentation with the receiver over the audio link. The receiver is, at this point, allowed to add any further details or thoughts that they might have had.


Nothing wrong here. The experimenter does not know the target identity.


They are then asked to assign a rating from 1 to 99 to each clip, this representing the degree of correspondance of each video clip to the mentation.


Nothing wrong here. The randomisation of targets eliminates the subjective aspect of the judges choice.


Why all the involvement by the experimenter? Why isn't the mentation itself being scored, instead of having the receiver score the video clips as compared to the mentation -- after, it must be noted, discussion with the experimenter?

What would scoring the mentation acheive ? You want to know if the target can be chosen correctly.

Also the experimenter does not know the target identity so discussion with them is fine. I guess its done to try to encourage the receiver to report as much detail as possible.


The way this process is designed, the outcome depends upon subjective judgment.

No it doesn't because the targets are randomised.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken



Can you not see that this judgement procedure is so subjective that any results are unreliable?

Wow, talk about junk-science.


Randomisation of the targets Ken. Talk about not understanding the protocol.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Randomisation of the targets Ken. Talk about not understanding the protocol.
The benefit of randomization is negated by the judging procedure. You're still left with a purely subjective scoring system that renders the "1 in 4 chance" statement incorrect. The final statistical analysis is not done on a 1 in 4 chance of picking a target, it's done on a subjective score of 1 to 99 for similarity to each target. Because of the subjectivity, the true chance is ambiguous.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


Do you understand what I just wrote ?

A hit is a hit if the judge choses the correct target. The content of the mentation either contains information that will enable the correct target to be chosen more often than chance or it will not.

So a big mac is a hit only if the apple is the correct target. If the apple was the decoy and it was chosen then the "big mac" would be regarded as a miss.

get it yet ?

Getting back to the original point. The JREF has the power to decide if this protocol is "good enough" for the test.
doh. doh. doh. Duhh, no, davie, still having just a bit of a problem here. The problem with this totally bogus procedure is exactly the same as it has always been. An apple is the target. The judge gets to call a "Big Mac" "mentation" a hit? No bounds, no rules, no parameters?

You say "its science" and I say "its nonsense",
You say "mentation" and I say "its mental",
let's call the whole thing off.

Give me the rules, clearly definable rules. You CANNOT measure probability with this fuzzy definition. get that yet?

[thaiboxerken]

Nothing wrong here. This is a subjective process. Each judge will have different responses to the mentation and will judge differently. However, randomisation of the targets will nullify this subjectivity.

This is false, random or not, the judge is still subjectively choosing whether the subject's guess is a hit or miss. This makes the test completely illegitimate. This is junk-science, and not matter how much jargon and BS you throw out, it is still junk-science.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

The benefit of randomization is negated by the judging procedure. You're still left with a purely subjective scoring system that renders the "1 in 4 chance" statement incorrect. The final statistical analysis is not done on a 1 in 4 chance of picking a target, it's done on a subjective score of 1 to 99 for similarity to each target. Because of the subjectivity, the true chance is ambiguous.


If the targets are randomised then you would expect to pick the correct target 25% of the time regardless of any subjective biases you have towards particular images. The scoring of 1-99 still means that one image is chosen out of four. If that image has a one in four chance of being selected as the correct target then you would expect it to be a hit one time out of four, in the long run.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

doh. doh. doh. Duhh, no, davie, still having just a bit of a problem here. The problem with this totally bogus procedure is exactly the same as it has always been. An apple is the target. The judge gets to call a "Big Mac" "mentation" a hit? No bounds, no rules, no parameters?

You say "its science" and I say "its nonsense",
You say "mentation" and I say "its mental",
let's call the whole thing off.

Give me the rules, clearly definable rules. You CANNOT measure probability with this fuzzy definition. get that yet?

I find it very ammusing that you still do not understand the ganzfeld protocol.

Actually, now that I think about it, its quite worrying. Are you representative of the standard of "sceptical" intelligence ? I seriously hope not.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


This is false, random or not, the judge is still subjectively choosing whether the subject's guess is a hit or miss. This makes the test completely illegitimate. This is junk-science, and not matter how much jargon and BS you throw out, it is still junk-science.

Of course the judge will be subjective in his choice of target. However, the randomisation of the targets means that any particular image has a one in four chance of being selected as the target. Over an adequate number of trials, there will be a 25% hit rate if information about the correct target is not obtained by the receiver.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


Of course the judge will be subjective in his choice of target. However, the randomisation of the targets means that any particular image has a one in four chance of being selected as the target. Over an adequate number of trials, there will be a 25% hit rate if information about the correct target is not obtained by the receiver.

This is also false, depending upon the subjectivity and how wide the judge decides to make the target, the fields can overlap and a correct hit can be procured for a guess that fits more than one target. It's junk science. Clearly, you do not understand the fallible nature of the protocol.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


This is also false, depending upon the subjectivity and how wide the judge decides to make the target, the fields can overlap and a correct hit can be procured for a guess that fits more than one target. It's junk science. Clearly, you do not understand the fallible nature of the protocol.


what do you mean by "how wide the judge decides to make the target" ? what overlaping fields ?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by davidsmith73



what do you mean by "how wide the judge decides to make the target" ? what overlaping fields ?

Since the judgement is subjective, the targets are wider and can easily overlap.

Target #1 a ball
Target #2 an apple.

If the subject guesses, "round", the guess fits both targets. Do you understand now? Why is it so hard for believers to see the problems associated with the 'protocol'?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Since the judgement is subjective, the targets are wider and can easily overlap.

Target #1 a ball
Target #2 an apple.

If the subject guesses, "round", the guess fits both targets. Do you understand now? Why is it so hard for believers to see the problems associated with the 'protocol'?


So what ? If the guess fits both targets then the judge will have to chose either the ball or apple. If the actual target is randomised so that its the ball half the time and the apple the other half the time, the judge will chose the correct target 50% of the time regardless of whether he prefers the apple or the ball.

That is unless the receiver obtains target relevent information in which case the target will be chosen correctly more than 50% of the time.

Why is it so hard for pseudosceptics to see the reasons behind ganzfeld protocol ?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
If the targets are randomised then you would expect to pick the correct target 25% of the time regardless of any subjective biases you have towards particular images. The scoring of 1-99 still means that one image is chosen out of four. If that image has a one in four chance of being selected as the correct target then you would expect it to be a hit one time out of four, in the long run.
No, it doesn't. It means that a guess that is wide of the mark can still be scored as a hit if it falls within a range of similarity subjectively determined by the judge. There is no meaningful way to determine the true statistical chance of this.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

No, it doesn't. It means that a guess that is wide of the mark can still be scored as a hit if it falls within a range of similarity subjectively determined by the judge. There is no meaningful way to determine the true statistical chance of this.


If a guess is wide of the mark but falls within a range of similarity subjectively determined by the judge, he will pick the image that this guess is similar to. That doesn't make it a hit. What makes it a hit is if the judge choses the correct target from the four possible choices. The image that the judge picks as being similar to the guess might not be the actual target. In fact, the image that the judge picks has a one in four chance of being the correct target.

[thaiboxerken]

So what ? If the guess fits both targets then the judge will have to chose either the ball or apple. If the actual target is randomised so that its the ball half the time and the apple the other half the time, the judge will chose the correct target 50% of the time regardless of whether he prefers the apple or the ball.

This makes the test invalid, as it's no longer testing the subject's abilities. Why can't you see that? Is your mind so closed that you can't see the fallibility of the test?

So now you have 1-4 chance changed to 1-4 chance with a 50% chance that the judge will pick the correct guess that the subject is guessing. What's that do for the statistics? You really, really need to get your logic circuits checked.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by davidsmith73



If a guess is wide of the mark but falls within a range of similarity subjectively determined by the judge, he will pick the image that this guess is similar to. That doesn't make it a hit. What makes it a hit is if the judge choses the correct target from the four possible choices. The image that the judge picks as being similar to the guess might not be the actual target. In fact, the image that the judge picks has a one in four chance of being the correct target.

Can't you see that the subject is no longer being tested with this protocol, but the judge is instead? Now, it's not the subject picking the target, but the judge. That's junk-science.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

So what ? If the guess fits both targets then the judge will have to chose either the ball or apple. If the actual target is randomised so that its the ball half the time and the apple the other half the time, the judge will chose the correct target 50% of the time regardless of whether he prefers the apple or the ball.

This makes the test invalid, as it's no longer testing the subject's abilities. Why can't you see that? Is your mind so closed that you can't see the fallibility of the test?

So now you have 1-4 chance changed to 1-4 chance with a 50% chance that the judge will pick the correct guess that the subject is guessing. What's that do for the statistics? You really, really need to get your logic circuits checked.

I was talking about your example with two target choices - the ball and the apple. Two target choices = 50 % chance. 4 target choices = 25% chance. Anyone with even a remote amount if intelligence could have gathered that.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


I was talking about your example with two target choices - the ball and the apple. Two target choices = 50 % chance. 4 target choices = 25% chance. Anyone with even a remote amount if intelligence could have gathered that.

You still don't get it, the vagueness and subjectivity of the test renders any and all of the statistics null. The protocol isn't testing the subject, it's testing the judges ability to make the evidence fit a predetermined conclusion.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
If a guess is wide of the mark but falls within a range of similarity subjectively determined by the judge, he will pick the image that this guess is similar to. That doesn't make it a hit. What makes it a hit is if the judge choses the correct target from the four possible choices. The image that the judge picks as being similar to the guess might not be the actual target. In fact, the image that the judge picks has a one in four chance of being the correct target.
As I understand this, to put it simply, the judge assigns a similarity rating of 1 to 99, and chooses images that have high similarity ratings. If the receiver says "ball", and the target is an apple, the judge would assign a high similarity score, and choose the apple, even though the receiver has not said "apple". If the target is in fact an apple, it is scored as a hit, even though the receiver never guessed "apple".

Now, because the receiver gives more detail than just a simple guess, the scoring system is by default based on fuzzy logic. You still cannot legitimately claim a 1 in 4 chance of choosing a target.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Can't you see that the subject is no longer being tested with this protocol, but the judge is instead? Now, it's not the subject picking the target, but the judge. That's junk-science.

Firstly, the receiver is also allowed to be the judge in which case your above statement is simply BS.

Second, an independent judge uses the receievers mentation as information upon which to make their choice. If ESP is enabling the receiver to obtain information about the target, the judge will be able to use it.

Is there no end to your lack of understanding ?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


Firstly, the receiver is also allowed to be the judge in which case your above statement is simply BS.

Second, an independent judge uses the receievers mentation as information upon which to make their choice. If ESP is enabling the receiver to obtain information about the target, the judge will be able to use it.

Is there no end to your lack of understanding ?

Your belief has really closed your mind to the reality of the situation. The protocol is designed such that it is unreliable, unspecific and unobjective. The judge's subjectivity is introduced into the test no matter what the "randomness" of the targets is. Simply put, they can make up whatever results they like if they really need to. The ganzfield experiments show about as much evidence of psi as Luci's 'ladybrook' claim.

I understand the experiment and how it was conducted, I also understand that it's junk-science.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

As I understand this, to put it simply, the judge assigns a similarity rating of 1 to 99, and chooses images that have high similarity ratings. If the receiver says "ball", and the target is an apple, the judge would assign a high similarity score, and choose the apple, even though the receiver has not said "apple". If the target is in fact an apple, it is scored as a hit, even though the receiver never guessed "apple".

Correct.


Now, because the receiver gives more detail than just a simple guess, the scoring system is by default based on fuzzy logic. You still cannot legitimately claim a 1 in 4 chance of choosing a target.

If the judge is given 4 images, he is not 25% likely to chose one over the other three. Is that what you are saying ?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Your belief has really closed your mind to the reality of the situation. The protocol is designed such that it is unreliable, unspecific and unobjective. The judge's subjectivity is introduced into the test no matter what the "randomness" of the targets is. Simply put, they can make up whatever results they like if they really need to. The ganzfield experiments show about as much evidence of psi as Luci's 'ladybrook' claim.

I understand the experiment and how it was conducted, I also understand that it's junk-science.

You clearly don't understand the experiment. You have not explained in any way how the protocol is unreliable, unspecific and unobjective. You just keep whining like a little child. Got anything intelligent to say on the subject ?

[thaiboxerken]

The fallibility of the protocol has been pointed out throughout this thread. You just refuse to believe it. That's ok, this is why the experiments won't be winning any Nobel prizes. You can believe what you want, but these experiments have not withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community because of the flimsy protocols.

Now, if you have or know anyone with superpowers, feel free to have them demonstrate their powers for the JREF.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Now, if you have or know anyone with superpowers, feel free to have them demonstrate their powers for the JREF.

I thought it wouldn't be long ! If there is real evidence out there deflect attention from it and appeal to the JREF prize !

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Is it just us, are we somehow not seeing clearly?

Quite a coincidence because I was just thinking "is it me, can it possibly be me that's incredibly thick, or is the so called skeptics"?? I absolutely am completely baffled about your criticisms of the ganzfeld procedure. What the hell is your problem with it??? :confused: You say:


Why is this sort of thing valid at all? First, the experimenter is directly involved with the sender at some point;


Yes what's wrong with this?? Obviously the experimenter is clueless as to the correct target, so what on earth is the problem??


then, "the targets are rated according to the degree of similarity", which means that "hits" can be ambiguous.


Oh right, so because ones impressions are not 100% the same as the picture that the sender is attempting to send this means that no anomalous cognition exists whatsoever! :eek:



Because of the scoring methods and subjective judging, the statement "there is a one in four chance" is just not correct.



Er . . .sorry I'm completely flummoxed by this assertion! Er . . . so what is the probability then if it isn't 25%?? 26%, 35%? 50% 95%? Let me know. Normally the chances of getting one target out of 4 is 25%. I'd be interested in your reasoning that it is actually higher than this! :eek:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Yes they sure do have that power. It doesn't take much expertise to realize that the Ganzfield protocol is flimsy, flexible and allows for whatever results the "scientists" have predetermined.

It's BS, it's crap, it's junk-science.

I'm sorry, but from what Pyrrho posted it looks absolutely sound. What on earth is wrong with it??

[Martin]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
If the judge is given 4 images, he is not 25% likely to chose one over the other three. Is that what you are saying ?It should be self-evident that if the images are, say, an apple, a brick, a car, and detailed blueprints of a nuclear reactor, then the probabilities that the receiver's mentations will correspond to each of these are manifestly not equal, psi or no psi.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

The benefit of randomization is negated by the judging procedure. You're still left with a purely subjective scoring system that renders the "1 in 4 chance" statement incorrect. The final statistical analysis is not done on a 1 in 4 chance of picking a target, it's done on a subjective score of 1 to 99 for similarity to each target. Because of the subjectivity, the true chance is ambiguous.

No, the chance must be 1 in 4 if the normally sensory channels are closed off. I mean it must be if there is no anomalous cognition. So is your claim that in fact the normal sensory channels are not completely closed off? If so could you expand on this?

I'm just trying to understand from where you've coming from. To be honest I don't think you're coming from anywhere. But people keep accusing me of being arrogant and not listening to other people.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Martinm
It should be self-evident that if the images are, say, an apple, a brick, a car, and detailed blueprints of a nuclear reactor, then the probabilities that the receiver's mentations will correspond to each of these are manifestly not equal, psi or no psi.

:confused: Even if there is a psychological pre-disposition to prefer certain images to others I cannot understand how the probability could be more than 25% unless these psychologically desirable images were deliberately chosen by somebody as a target. Sorry, I just don't understand. Enlighten me.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, the chance must be 1 in 4 if the normally sensory channels are closed offThat would be true if we were talking about simply guessing which image was the target. But we're not looking at the probability of picking the right target. We're talking about the probability that, given the receiver's mentations and the judge's interpretation of these, the correct image will be chosen. That additional information is there, whether or not psi exists.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Martinm
That would be true if we were talking about simply guessing which image was the target. But we're not looking at the probability of picking the right target. We're talking about the probability that, given the receiver's mentations and the judge's interpretation of these, the correct image will be chosen. That additional information is there, whether or not psi exists.

So if psi doesn't exist what is this "additional information" then? I'm sorry, I still don't understand.

To recap, if the target that the sender will attempt to send is chosen wholly randomly out of the 4 images, then even though psi doesn't exist, and even though there is no sensory leakage whatsoever, then the probability that the judge will choose the right target will in fact be greater than 25% over a large number of trials. This is because of this "additional information".

Now what is this "additional information" precisely?

[thaiboxerken]

No, this is false, it's not a 1 in 4 chance. It's entirely up to the judge, the judge can say.. well close enough and make it virtually impossible to miss. If a bigmac is close enough to being an apple, then the chance of scoring goes well above and beyond 25%.

The nature of this BS experiment is that it's judgement procedure is 100% subjective.

That's not science, it's ********.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Oh right, so because ones impressions are not 100% the same as the picture that the sender is attempting to send this means that no anomalous cognition exists whatsoever! :eek:


Yes. This is true. If a sender is trying to send an image of an apple, but the reciever pictures a Big Mac instead.. there is no psi activity going on here. How hard is that to understand? When Big Macs and apples are "close enough", then the science has been tossed out of the door.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
No, this is false, it's not a 1 in 4 chance. It's entirely up to the judge, the judge can say.. well close enough and make it virtually impossible to miss. If a bigmac is close enough to being an apple, then the chance of scoring goes well above and beyond 25%.

The nature of this BS experiment is that it's judgement procedure is 100% subjective.

That's not science, it's bullsh*t.

Huh?? But the judge doesn't know what the target is! He has the receivers impressions, and he has to choose one of the 4 targets which seems to fit most closely to those impressions. So he has 1 in 4 of a chance assuming no psi and no sensory leakage, right?? The only way it couldn't be was if the initial randomly chosen target was psychologically one which we might tend to choose. But there will be both images which we would psychogically tend to choose, and images which psychologically we would tend to avoid. So therefore over a number of trials, on average, the probability must be 25%, unless there is something wrong with the laws of probability! :eek:

Sorry, but what am I missing?? I repeat. I need 2 questions answered:

a) What is the nature of this additional information?

b) Where does it come from?

[thaiboxerken]

But the judge doesn't know what the target is! He has the receivers impressions, and he has to choose one of the 4 targets which seems to fit most closely to those impressions.

What impression? If the sender is sending an apple, and the reciever picks a big mac, and they say it's close enough.. something is definitely wrong.

[thaiboxerken]

So therefore over a number of trials, on average, the probability must be 25%, unless there is something wrong with the laws of probability

This might be the case in an objective study, but if the judgements are subjective, probabilities get thrown out the door.

[ceptimus]

Both the 'receiver', and the 'independant judge' have no knowledge (other than ESP) about which of the four video clips has been randomly chosen.

The long winded discussion/rating procedure between them is irrelevant - eventually they select one of the four videos.

If the correlation between their chosen video, and the randomly chosen video is better than chance (25%) then something funny is going on.

I would first suspect cheating and/or poor experimental conditions (maybe the judge or the receiver can hear what the sender is doing if the audio screening isn't good enough). However, if there is no cheating involved, and both receiver and judge are ignorant of which video was chosen, then this looks like good evidence for ESP to me, and ought to qualify for the JREF $1 million challenge.

[edited: spelling]

[thaiboxerken]

Bem, D.J., Palmer, J. & Broughton, R.S. (2001). Updating the Ganzfeld database: A victim of its own success? Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 207-218.

" The existence of psi-anomalous processes of information transfer such as telepathy or clairvoyance-continues to be controversial. Earlier meta-analyses of studies using the ganzfeld procedure appeared to provide replicable evidence for psi (D. J. Bern & C. Honorton, 1994), but a follow-up meta-analysis of 30 more recent ganzfeld studies did not (J. Milton & R. Wiseman, 1999). "

Sounds like the results of these Ganzfield tests are inconsistent and unreliable.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

II
But the judge doesn't know what the target is! He has the receivers impressions, and he has to choose one of the 4 targets which seems to fit most closely to those impressions.

TBK

What impression? If the sender is sending an apple, and the reciever picks a big mac, and they say it's close enough.. something is definitely wrong.


Let's say the receiver gets a vague impression through psi of roundness from the sender trying to project the image of an apple, and the receiver says "I am getting an impression of a round object". Now if in the choice of the 4 pics there is an apple and a big mac, and the judge picks a big mac, then that is a miss! So here we have psi operating but it actually counts as a miss. So what are you whining about??

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian



Let's say the receiver gets a vague impression through psi of roundness from the sender trying to project the image of an apple, and the receiver says "I am getting an impression of a round object". Now if in the choice of the 4 pics there is an apple and a big mac, and the judge picks a big mac, then that is a miss! So here we have psi operating but it actually counts as a miss. So what are you whining about??

No, because of the nature of the test, the judge can assign an equal number to both. Remember they assign 1-99 for each item. If the judge places a 80 on 2 of them, then both can be considered a hit by the experimentor. Simply put, they can make the results what they want based on "close enough".

Also, the validity of the Ganzfield experiments have been in question for a while now, as noted in the snapshot above.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Bem, D.J., Palmer, J. & Broughton, R.S. (2001). Updating the Ganzfeld database: A victim of its own success? Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 207-218.

" The existence of psi-anomalous processes of information transfer such as telepathy or clairvoyance-continues to be controversial. Earlier meta-analyses of studies using the ganzfeld procedure appeared to provide replicable evidence for psi (D. J. Bern & C. Honorton, 1994), but a follow-up meta-analysis of 30 more recent ganzfeld studies did not (J. Milton & R. Wiseman, 1999). "

Sounds like the results of these Ganzfield tests are inconsistent and unreliable.

I read something about that I think about a few weeks ago. I think they failed to include the most recent experiments or something, allowing the results to slide into non-significance. There was some other problem with analysis by Milton as well I think, but unable to recall or even remember where I saw it.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I read something about that I think about a few weeks ago. I think they failed to include the most recent experiments or something, allowing the results to slide into non-significance. There was some other problem with analysis by Milton as well I think, but unable to recall or even remember where I saw it.

There were 10 more experiments done after the Miltoin analysis. These other experiments shows much less signficant results. Other analysts included many early experiments which were already shown to be unreliable. To put it in perspective, there are those in the paranormal research world that are out there to prove that psi exists, not to see if it really does exist.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


No, because of the nature of the test, the judge can assign an equal number to both. Remember they assign 1-99 for each item. If the judge places a 80 on 2 of them, then both can be considered a hit by the experimentor. Simply put, they can make the results what they want based on "close enough".



Well I find it difficult to believe this happens. I would have thought that the judge would be required to put them into a definite order. But obviously if they didn't that would seem to me to be a cheat, yes. Perhaps DavidSmith can confirm your assertion??



Also, the validity of the Ganzfield experiments have been in question for a while now, as noted in the snapshot above. [/B]

I don't think your quote demonstrates this. You'll need to provide details to back your allegation up.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Yes. This is true. If a sender is trying to send an image of an apple, but the reciever pictures a Big Mac instead.. there is no psi activity going on here.



I suspect it wouldn't be as definite as that. I suspect that the receiver is more likely to get an impression of roundness. But let's suppose you are correct. Yes there will be times when a guess is scored as a hit even though no psi is operating.

But this is why we can only conclude psi if the scores are consistently above 25% rather than simply consistently above 0%!!

[Interesting Ian]

Right we've had one skeptic (ceptimus) who agrees with me and DavidSmith. That is to say that in the absence of any sensory leakage (and of course psi), the target should only be selected 25% of the time. Now do any other skeptics agree with this, or are the rest of you still maintaining that even though there is no psi and no sensory leakage, the target, on average, will be chosen more than 25% of the time?

If so then then what is this "additional information"?

To recap, all skeptics apart from ceptimus are stating that if the target that the sender will attempt to send is chosen wholly randomly out of the 4 images, then even though psi doesn't exist, and even though there is no sensory leakage whatsoever, then the probability that the judge will choose the right target will in fact be greater than 25% over a large number of trials. This is because of some "additional information".

Now what is this "additional information" precisely?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


I find it very ammusing that you still do not understand the ganzfeld protocol.

Actually, now that I think about it, its quite worrying. Are you representative of the standard of "sceptical" intelligence ? I seriously hope not.
Oh, I understand it perfectly. It is patent nonsense. Others have already pointed out its many flaws. The absence of sensory leakage is a sham when the judge steps in to judge the results. The a priori probability claims are also a sham with such an incredibly loose protocol.

If you cannot construct a tight ganzfeld, then the probability that ganzfeld is real is vanishingly small. If you cannot tell me, a prior what mumblings can be translated into what objects, then the priorities cannot be stated up front.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
To recap, all skeptics apart from ceptimus are stating that if the target that the sender will attempt to send is chosen wholly randomly out of the 4 images, then even though psi doesn't exist, and even though there is no sensory leakage whatsoever, then the probability that the judge will choose the right target will in fact be greater than 25% over a large number of trials. This is because of some "additional information"I never said anything about a large number of trials. I'm still trying to work this through in my head, incidentally. I'm rather confused as to whether or not we have to make some assumptions about the nature of the targets to guarantee a 25% hit rate over a large number of trials. Either way, the subjective nature of the judging and the possibility that some targets are in some sense more appealing than others suggest to me that the results should be very variable. Which, in fact, they are.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Martinm
To recap, all skeptics apart from ceptimus are stating that if the target that the sender will attempt to send is chosen wholly randomly out of the 4 images, then even though psi doesn't exist, and even though there is no sensory leakage whatsoever, then the probability that the judge will choose the right target will in fact be greater than 25% over a large number of trials. This is because of some "additional information"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said anything about a large number of trials.



Well, if you have in mind one single trial, and by chance a relatively psychologically desirable image (relative to the other 3) is randomly selected for the sender to send, then it would seem there will be a greater than 25% of a chance it will be chosen by the judge (even assuming no psi and sensory leakage). But even here the chance is only 25% before that image was randomly selected. Remember, there is also an equal chance that a relatively psychologically undesirable image will be randomly selected for the sender to attempt to send. But anyway, obviously we would have to have a fair number of trials before even the most tentative conclusions about any anomolous cognition could be drawn.




I'm still trying to work this through in my head, incidentally. I'm rather confused as to whether or not we have to make some assumptions about the nature of the targets to guarantee a 25% hit rate over a large number of trials.



Well let's think about this. First of all let's assume that psi doesn't exist and there is no sensory leakage. Now if all 4 images are all roughly of equal psychological appeal, then there is not much problem. But let's suppose that 1 image is of extreme psychological appeal and the other 3 images the absolute converse. Let's suppose the desirable image is randomly selected for the sender to attempt to send. The receiver obviously picks up nothing because psi doesn't exist. Nevertheless, psychologically s/he might be more disposed to feel the image is a pleasant one in nature and will therefore will say some appropriate comments reflecting this. The judge might then, on the whole, feel more disposed to pick the pleasant (ie correct) image. Thus if the pleasant image had been randomly selected, then a fair case can be made that from the moment after the random selection, the chance of picking the correct target will be greater than 25%.

But here is the crucial point. Assuming that the image is properly randomly selected at the beginning of the trial, it will be 3 times more likely that an unpleasant image will be the target. Obviously (given psi doesn't exist), the reciever will say the same things, and the judge will be more likely to pick the pleasant image (ie the wrong one). Conversely the chances of picking the correct target will now be less than 25%! Provided the original image is properly randomly selected it really doesn't matter about the nature of the images because it will even itself out so that the chances of picking the target will be 25%. This will be so even for a single trial before the image is initially randomly selected. And if you think about it, the chance must be 25% unless there is some leakage of information, or some additional information is available to the receiver/judge.



Either way, the subjective nature of the judging and the possibility that some targets are in some sense more appealing than others suggest to me that the results should be very variable. Which, in fact, they are.

Well I think I have refuted this just above, but let me know what you think.

Of course if psi does exist then it certainly seems to me the results will vary. So if for example all 4 images are of all large round objects then I would expect the judge to eventually pick the correct target than if all 4 images were radically different. But it must be 25% assuming no PSI or sensory leakage.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now do any other skeptics agree with this, or are the rest of you still maintaining that even though there is no psi and no sensory leakage, the target, on average, will be chosen more than 25% of the time?This thread has quietened down a lot since this post. Where has everyone gone? Oh well, I suppose it was during the weekend...

[Ipecac]

What amazes me is that the same people who support this Ganzfeld procedure are the ones who complain that the JREF Challenge is biased.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Ipecac
What amazes me is that the same people who support this Ganzfeld procedure are the ones who complain that the JREF Challenge is biased.

They also happen to be believers of the paranormal. The Ganzfield experiments didn't convince them, they were already convinced, they see something that looks scientific and they have to cling on it so they can show something to skeptics and say "see it really is true". The fact is, the Ganzfield experiments are designed that the results have been unreliable. Oh well, thus is the mind of a believer, they'll cling onto anything that supports their beliefs including junk-science.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
They also happen to be believers of the paranormal. The Ganzfield experiments didn't convince them, they were already convinced, they see something that looks scientific and they have to cling on it so they can show something to skeptics and say "see it really is true". The fact is, the Ganzfield experiments are designed that the results have been unreliable. Oh well, thus is the mind of a believer, they'll cling onto anything that supports their beliefs including junk-science.

Of course you're right. Perhaps "amazes me" wasn't the correct expression. :)

[ceptimus]

I don't believe in the paranormal. I don't believe that properly conducted ganzfeld protocols would show any better (or worse) results than those predicted by chance (25% in the version discussed here).

I also don't believe you have explained where is the 'flaw' in the experiments described. Just why would you expect better than 25% 'hits' just because two people, niether of whom know which target was chosen, go through some arcane process before making their selection?

That the ganzfeld protocol is unnecessarily complex seems to me beyond doubt, but I have not yet seen a convincing explanation of how it is unfair.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The fact is, the Ganzfield experiments are designed that the results have been unreliable.

Well I keep asking the skeptics but they keep ignoring me :confused: I repeat:

Right we've had one skeptic (ceptimus) who agrees with me and DavidSmith. That is to say that in the absence of any sensory leakage (and of course psi), the target should only be selected 25% of the time. Now do any other skeptics agree with this, or are the rest of you still maintaining that even though there is no psi and no sensory leakage, the target, on average, will be chosen more than 25% of the time?

If so then then what is this "additional information"?

To recap, all skeptics apart from ceptimus are stating that if the target that the sender will attempt to send is chosen wholly randomly out of the 4 images, then even though psi doesn't exist, and even though there is no sensory leakage whatsoever, then the probability that the judge will choose the right target will in fact be greater than 25% over a large number of trials. This is because of some "additional information".

Now what is this "additional information" precisely?

[thaiboxerken]

Milton, J. & Wiseman, R. (2001). Does Psi Exist? Reply to Storm and Ertel (2001). Psychological Bulletin, 127, 434-438.

The authors recently published a nonsignificant meta-analysis of 30 extrasensory perception ganzfeld studies. all conducted after the 1986 publication of important methodological guidelines aimed at reducing sources of artifact noted in earlier studies. In response, L. Storm and S. Ertel (2001) presented a meta-analysis of 79 studies published between 1974 and 1996. They argued that the positive and highly statistically significant overall outcome indicates a replicable paranormal effect. In doing so, they ignored the well-documented and widely recognized methodological problems in the early studies, which make it impossible to interpret the results as evidence of extrasensory perception. In addition, Storm and Ertel's meta-analysis is not an accurate quantitative summary of ganzfeld research because of methodological problems such as their use of an inconsistent method for calculating study outcomes and inconsistent inclusion criteria.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Martinm
It should be self-evident that if the images are, say, an apple, a brick, a car, and detailed blueprints of a nuclear reactor, then the probabilities that the receiver's mentations will correspond to each of these are manifestly not equal, psi or no psi.

Absolutely. I have said this all along. But the randomisation of the targets nullifies this subjectivity.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well I keep asking the skeptics but they keep ignoring me :confused: I repeat:

Right we've had one skeptic (ceptimus) who agrees with me and DavidSmith. That is to say that in the absence of any sensory leakage (and of course psi), the target should only be selected 25% of the time. Now do any other skeptics agree with this, or are the rest of you still maintaining that even though there is no psi and no sensory leakage, the target, on average, will be chosen more than 25% of the time?

If so then then what is this "additional information"?

To recap, all skeptics apart from ceptimus are stating that if the target that the sender will attempt to send is chosen wholly randomly out of the 4 images, then even though psi doesn't exist, and even though there is no sensory leakage whatsoever, then the probability that the judge will choose the right target will in fact be greater than 25% over a large number of trials. This is because of some "additional information".

Now what is this "additional information" precisely?

I somehow doubt that either Ken or Bill Hoyt will give us an answer. They still clearly do not grasp the reasoning behind the ganzfeld protocol. I'm still holding out for Pyrrho to tell me what he mean't by his fuzzy logic thing though. Also, thanks ceptimus for speaking up against fellow sceptics, now there's a rarity !

But I have one objection to something ceptimus said:

"That the ganzfeld protocol is unnecessarily complex seems to me beyond doubt"


I don't see how the protocol is unnecessarily complex at all. Which particular part do you feel is unnecessarily complex ?

The free response element of the protocol enables the receiever to let their mind wander and report aloud any thoughts or images that they may receive via ESP. If the ESP signal is weak then it follows that it will be weakly incorporated into normal internal imagination. This weak interaction may be expressed as an increase in target relevant mentation rather than an exact description of the target. It just makes sense to use a free response protocol.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


I somehow doubt that either Ken or Bill Hoyt will give us an answer. They still clearly do not grasp the reasoning behind the ganzfeld protocol. I'm still holding out for Pyrrho to tell me what he mean't by his fuzzy logic thing though. Also, thanks ceptimus for speaking up against fellow sceptics, now there's a rarity !

But I have one objection to something ceptimus said:

"That the ganzfeld protocol is unnecessarily complex seems to me beyond doubt"


I don't see how the protocol is unnecessarily complex at all. Which particular part do you feel is unnecessarily complex ?I don't really see why the 'judge' is needed at all. Why not just let the 'receiver' choose the video, or image that seems the best fit to the 'impressions (s)he received?

[thaiboxerken]

The free response element of the protocol enables the receiever to let their mind wander and report aloud any thoughts or images that they may receive via ESP. If the ESP signal is weak then it follows that it will be weakly incorporated into normal internal imagination. This weak interaction may be expressed as an increase in target relevant mentation rather than an exact description of the target. It just makes sense to use a free response protocol.

LOL. It's alot of BS that give wiggling room to the judgement procedure. The assignment of the numbers 1-99 for each choice also gives more wiggling room. One of 4 targets is selected, but the results could also include the 2nd target chosen if it was close in proximity to the chosen target.

Target one recieves 99
Target 2 recieves 90.

Target 2 was the actual target, so they say it's still kind of a hit because it's close enough. I have to wonder if these "near misses" are included in the results. If not, why the 1-99 system in the first place?

That is the nature of these types of tests, it's complete and utter BS.


Why is the judge picking the targets, and not the reciever anyway?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by ceptimus
I don't really see why the 'judge' is needed at all. Why not just let the 'receiver' choose the video, or image that seems the best fit to the 'impressions (s)he received?

That is sometimes what happens. To me, it seems better for the receiver to do the judging because they have a much clearer idea of thier own conscious impressions. Perhaps an independent judge is sometimes used to test whether this makes any significant difference to the hit rate. Either way, it doesn't make the protocol any more complex surely ? No statistics have changed or anything.

[ceptimus]

Fair enough. I'm still waiting for an explanation from thaiboxerken or Ipecac or BillHoyt or Pyrrho as to why they think this protocol is so 'flawed'.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's alot of BS that give wiggling room to the judgement procedure. The assignment of the numbers 1-99 for each choice also gives more wiggling room. One of 4 targets is selected, but the results could also include the 2nd target chosen if it was close in proximity to the chosen target.If the experimenters actually did this then I agree that their results are worthless. Can you site any examples of such cheating?

Don't misunderstand me - if the experimenters got positive results confirming PSI, then I would first expect that they were either cheating, or somehow deluding themselves with a defective procedure. However, the protocol as described seems fair enough to me. I would like to see properly controlled tests carried out using this protocol (as long as someone else pays). I would expect negative results, of course. If the results turned out positive then, hey!, something new for science to explain.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by ceptimus
If the experimenters actually did this then I agree that their results are worthless. Can you site any examples of such cheating?


I've posted the results of a couple studies done on the Ganzfield experiments. It seems the experiments aren't faring so well when reviewed by the scientific community.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I've posted the results of a couple studies done on the Ganzfield experiments. It seems the experiments aren't faring so well when reviewed by the scientific community.

So do you agree that the protocol does not contain any subjective "wiggle room" ?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by ceptimus
If the experimenters actually did this then I agree that their results are worthless. Can you site any examples of such cheating?


I do not think that the dozen or so independent experimenters deliberately fixed the analysis in this way. Including second guesses as hits is not mentioned in any of the papers I have read.


Don't misunderstand me - if the experimenters got positive results confirming PSI, then I would first expect that they were either cheating, or somehow deluding themselves with a defective procedure. However, the protocol as described seems fair enough to me. I would like to see properly controlled tests carried out using this protocol (as long as someone else pays). I would expect negative results, of course. If the results turned out positive then, hey!, something new for science to explain.

Why have you assumed that cheating or defective procedures were involved in the ganzfeld experiments done so far ? Who would conduct your proposed replication study ? Would it be have to be experimenters openly sceptical to the existence of psi ? and why would you accept the results of those experiments (positive or negative) but not the ones done so far since the exact same protocol would apply ?

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Why have you assumed that cheating or defective procedures were involved in the ganzfeld experiments done so far ? Who would conduct your proposed replication study ? Would it be have to be experimenters openly sceptical to the existence of psi ? and why would you accept the results of those experiments (positive or negative) but not the ones done so far since the exact same protocol would apply ? Perhaps I'm just too skeptical. What are (for me) amazing claims demand very convincing proof. I will take the time to look through the literature and see whether the experiments carried out so far convince me.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


So do you agree that the protocol does not contain any subjective "wiggle room" ?

How in the hell did read that from I've posted the results of a couple studies done on the Ganzfield experiments. It seems the experiments aren't faring so well when reviewed by the scientific community. ?

Wow, beleivers really do see what they believe and not what's real.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


How in the hell did read that from I've posted the results of a couple studies done on the Ganzfield experiments. It seems the experiments aren't faring so well when reviewed by the scientific community. ?

Wow, beleivers really do see what they believe and not what's real.

Are they not faring so well because (or partially because) they do not realise the judge on average will pick the correct target more than 25% of the time in spite of the fact that the orignial image selected for the sender to send was wholly random, and there is no sensory leakage, and psi doesn't exist?? I ask again how it can be more than 25%? Where is your reasoning?? How can parapsychologists improve their protocol if you refuse to explain their error. I mean normally the chance of picking a target out of 4 possibilities is 1/4 or 25%. So why isn't it in this case??

This is after all the point which has been debated over the past couple of pages or so. And many peoiple have agreed with you that the chance is greater than 25%, yet no-one yet has explained why! :eek:

Why is that I wonder??

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And many peoiple have agreed with you that the chance is greater than 25%, yet no-one yet has explained why! :eek:

Why is that I wonder??
Originally posted by ceptimus
I also don't believe you have explained where is the 'flaw' in the experiments described. Just why would you expect better than 25% 'hits' just because two people, niether of whom know which target was chosen, go through some arcane process before making their selection?
Originally posted by davidsmith73
I somehow doubt that either Ken or Bill Hoyt will give us an answer. They still clearly do not grasp the reasoning behind the ganzfeld protocol. I'm still holding out for Pyrrho to tell me what he mean't by his fuzzy logic thing though.Looks like nobody wants to admit they made a mistake? Or maybe we are all just stupid, and they can't be bothered to try and explain our error to us?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Are they not faring so well because (or partially because) they do not realise the judge on average will pick the correct target more than 25% of the time in spite of the fact that the orignial image selected for the sender to send was wholly random, and there is no sensory leakage, and psi doesn't exist?? I ask again how it can be more than 25%? Where is your reasoning?? How can parapsychologists improve their protocol if you refuse to explain their error. I mean normally the chance of picking a target out of 4 possibilities is 1/4 or 25%. So why isn't it in this case??

This is after all the point which has been debated over the past couple of pages or so. And many peoiple have agreed with you that the chance is greater than 25%, yet no-one yet has explained why! :eek:

Why is that I wonder??

Apparently you are unaware of the reported differences between "static targets" and "dynamic targets"? You see, ganzfeld experiments done with dynamic targets yield higher hit rates than static targets. Psi guys usually conclude the greater sensory "richness" of dynamic targets cause the increase.

I think not.

The results get skewed by the targets and the number of things allowed to count as hits. It is no longer 25% when the target's "dynamics" come into the picture. How many images the judge may map to a dynamic target becomes the very important and very skewing issue here.

[Ossai]

davidsmith73
The free response element of the protocol enables the receiever to let their mind wander and report aloud any thoughts or images that they may receive via ESP. If the ESP signal is weak then it follows that it will be weakly incorporated into normal internal imagination. This weak interaction may be expressed as an increase in target relevant mentation rather than an exact description of the target. It just makes sense to use a free response protocol.
I'll ask again. Where are the controls?
Do the receiver and the judge interact?
Does the judge and/or receiver interact with the person running the video clips?
Who chooses the clips?
Are the clips different enough that the hit zones do not overlap? Who judges this?
Why are guesses rated on a scale of 1 to 99 instead of 1 positive and 3 negatives?
If ESP existed why aren't the receivers and senders shielded or in some manner isolated?
What would be the range?
Does the sender select the images sent or are they randomly selected beforehand?
Does the sender know of the other images in the set, or the other images that are to be sent?

Ossai

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


The results get skewed by the targets and the number of things allowed to count as hits.



The fact that the targets are dynamic rather than static matters not one iota to my argument. If dynamic targets get greater hits this is suggestive that psi is responsible, especially as this would be what we might expect from our experience of psi anyway.



It is no longer 25% when the target's "dynamics" come into the picture.



How so?




How many images the judge may map to a dynamic target becomes the very important and very skewing issue here.

I think that the judge must put the images, videos or whatever in a definite order. If he chooses the wrong one it's a miss, it's as simple as that.

Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Ossai
davidsmith73

I'll ask again. Where are the controls?

The experimental sessions hit rate is most often compared to that expected by chance. In addition, if the receivers mentation is recorded it is sometimes re-judged at a later date with a mismatched set of targets, ie. 3 decoys and a second selected target. In this condition the psi mediated mentation should not be relevent since it should be relevant to the first target. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that the receiver is obtaining information about the control target simply because we do not know much about how psi operates. For this reason, I think a re-judging control analysis should not be performed. Its better just to compare to theoretical chance.


Do the receiver and the judge interact?

The receiver is sometimes the judge as well. If he is not then I don't know if they interact. If they did, it would not be a problem because the judge nor the receiver knows the target identity. It is made clear that the judge is allowed no contact with anyone who knows the target identity.


Does the judge and/or receiver interact with the person running the video clips?

Yes, through a two way mic. The experimenter selects the video clips at random from his room. However, they are not shown to the experimenter, only to the sender.


Who chooses the clips?

The experimenter


Are the clips different enough that the hit zones do not overlap?

Don't understand. If you mean that the clips are selected to be very different from one another then yes.

Who judges this?

The parapsychologists, taking information from normal psychology studies I guess.


Why are guesses rated on a scale of 1 to 99 instead of 1 positive and 3 negatives?

Don't really know. I suppose its to motivate the receiver to think carefully about their choice. Again, probably a technique borrowed from normal psychology.


If ESP existed why aren't the receivers and senders shielded or in some manner isolated?

They are. Read the Edinburgh parapsychology link posted here.


What would be the range?

There's a schematic of the laboratory in that link, I think.


Does the sender select the images sent or are they randomly selected beforehand?

randomly selected.


Does the sender know of the other images in the set, or the other images that are to be sent?


Most people participate only one. Sometimes twice. I think there are about 100 images in the pool. not sure though.

[thaiboxerken]

http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/

If you click on "psi" in the frame. Then ESP on the top frame, you'll see a link for Ganzfield and "findings". If you read the findings, you'll find out that the results of these Ganzfield experiments are inconclusive at the most.

[Ossai]

davidsmith73
The experimental sessions hit rate is most often compared to that expected by chance.
(bold mine) At what point would it not be compared to chance?

In addition, if the receivers mentation is recorded it is sometimes re-judged at a later date with a mismatched set of targets, ie. 3 decoys and a second selected target. Why, what purpose does this serve?

In this condition the psi mediated mentation should not be relevent since it should be relevant to the first target. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that the receiver is obtaining information about the control target simply because we do not know much about how psi operates. Actually the hit rate should again equal change because of the dynamic targeting and judging process.

For this reason, I think a re-judging control analysis should not be performed. Its better just to compare to theoretical chance. Actually simply reevaluating in that manner should illustrate the absurdity of the test to begin with.

The receiver is sometimes the judge as well. If he is not then I don't know if they interact. I thought the judge was supposed impartially rate the item selected. This isn't possible if the receiver and the judge are the same person. Either separate the positions or remove the judge position entirely.

It is made clear that the judge is allowed no contact with anyone who knows the target identity. OK.

Yes, through a two way mic. The experimenter selects the video clips at random from his room. However, they are not shown to the experimenter, only to the sender. So the clips aren't randomly selected. Are there safeguards in place to ensure that the receiver/judge does not interact with the experimenter outside the setting? Knowledge of the experimenter could influence how the judge selects the item.

Don't really know. I suppose its to motivate the receiver to think carefully about their choice. Again, probably a technique borrowed from normal psychology. If the receiver is also the judge then there will be one positive answer and three negative answers. I know someone with a degree in psychology and I'll ask them for clarification later.

They are. Read the Edinburgh parapsychology link posted here.
What would be the range?
There's a schematic of the laboratory in that link, I think.
Link, it doesn't appear in the post.

Does the sender know of the other images in the set, or the other images that are to be sent?
Most people participate only one. Sometimes twice. I think there are about 100 images in the pool. not sure though. Slight clarification to my question. Does the sender and or the receiver know of the pool of images and what the targets are?


Ossai

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Ossai
davidsmith73

(bold mine) At what point would it not be compared to chance?

Its always compared to chance


Why, what purpose does this serve?

The second analysis would serve as a further control if you assumed that the receiver is not receiving information about the second "pseudo" target. Since you can't rule that out I would advise against it. It's rarely done anyway I think.

Actually the hit rate should again equal change because of the dynamic targeting and judging process.

How so ? We've already established that the judging process doesn't introduce any bias to the hit rate.

Actually simply reevaluating in that manner should illustrate the absurdity of the test to begin with.

If you think that, fine. I disagree.

I thought the judge was supposed impartially rate the item selected. This isn't possible if the receiver and the judge are the same person. Either separate the positions or remove the judge position entirely.

The judge rates the images on the basis of the receivers recorded mentation. If the receiver is the judge they have their mentation recorded in the form of memory and perhaps what they wrote/spoke about. There's no need to separate any "position".



So the clips aren't randomly selected.

they are randomly selected. Thats what I wrote originally wasn't it ?

Are there safeguards in place to ensure that the receiver/judge does not interact with the experimenter outside the setting? Knowledge of the experimenter could influence how the judge selects the item.

Since the experimenter does not know the identity of the target, this doesn't seem a problem to me. What are you getting at ?


Link, it doesn't appear in the post.

http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Ganzfeld_H.html

Slight clarification to my question. Does the sender and or the receiver know of the pool of images and what the targets are?

Not that I am aware of.

[Pyrrho]

Here's the flaw, as I see it:

For each target there is a set of possible similarities. The judge (who can also be the receiver, according to what I've read, but we'll assume this is an independent judge) is potentially capable of identifying any given similarity in that set. For an equal chance of 25% for the choosing of one of four targets, the ability of the judge to identify similarities between target and mentation must be equal for all targets.

Ideally, the judge is capable of identifying any and all similarities in the set; realistically, he is capable of identifying only a subset of all possible similarities to a given target, human memory being fallible, and because an individual's life experience is limited. It is possible that a judge may be able to know and identify all possible similarities between a single target and a mentation, but it is unlikely, and it is even more unlikely that a judge would be able to know and identify all possible similarities between all targets and all mentations.

This means that the set of similarities that a judge can identify is different for each target/mentation. The true set of similarties that the judge can identify is unknown, as is the total set of possible similarities. Therefore, the statement that there is an equal 25% chance that a given target will be chosen is incorrect. The true chance cannot be calculated.

If, over many trials, the set of targets used tends tow