FREE TAPATALK APP

carlitos · 8th February 2010, 01:06 PM

I won't speak for anyone else, but the admonishment that my IP was being logged caused me not to save your link.

fls · 8th February 2010, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Diploid

Hello,

I found something on another forum that I thought interesting.

First, understand that I'm a hard skeptic. An engineer by profession with a graduate science degree. I don't buy into PSI, but I am open to new evidence. Hence this post.

I put a PDF of the studiy that appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and constructed rigorously on my FTP server. I can't post links so you'll have to cut/paste the URL below to download them:

glitch.tzo.com

My question generally is, if these results could be replicated, would it qualify for the JREF prize? The statistics reported are well above what would be expected by random chance.

Thanks for any comments.

Can you just give us the title and author? It's hard to feel comfortable downloading stuff from a stranger, especially since others have used that method for nefarious purposes here in the past.

Linda

Fnord · 8th February 2010, 01:35 PM

While it is common practice for websites to log the IP of visitors, locking up a web browser when trying to open a document is not.

APPROACH THE OP's WEBSITE AND PDF WITH CAUTION!

sadhatter · 8th February 2010, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

While it is common practice for websites to log the IP of visitors, locking up a web browser when trying to open a document is not.

APPROACH THE OP's WEBSITE AND PDF WITH CAUTION!

Yeah i havn't clicked but this seems like some form of tom foolery. I mean what are the chances we have a first time poster that isn't familiar with how to post information on the net, but has some ground breaking psi paper tucked away.

blutoski · 8th February 2010, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Diploid

Hello,

I found something on another forum that I thought interesting.

First, understand that I'm a hard skeptic. An engineer by profession with a graduate science degree. I don't buy into PSI, but I am open to new evidence. Hence this post.

I put a PDF of the studiy that appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and constructed rigorously on my FTP server. I can't post links so you'll have to cut/paste the URL below to download them:

glitch.tzo.com

My question generally is, if these results could be replicated, would it qualify for the JREF prize? The statistics reported are well above what would be expected by random chance.

Thanks for any comments.

I can't speak for the JREF, but I think yes, provided the protocol gets cleaned up a bit to:

make positive results unamiguous
to clarify statistical power
to provide blinding of the evaluators as well as the subjects (double blinding, rather than just single blinding).

phunk · 8th February 2010, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

I won't speak for anyone else, but the admonishment that my IP was being logged caused me not to save your link.

You should unplug your internet connection then, because every site you visit is logging your IP.

Tricky · 8th February 2010, 01:42 PM

Opening Post moved to Deep Storage until link can be investigated.

Posted By:Tricky

Diploid · 8th February 2010, 01:48 PM

Hi again,

I completely understand your reluctance to access the site. The admonition about logging your IP address is to keep people I don't invite away from my FTP server. Every web site you connect to logs you IP address as a matter of course.

But again, I understand.

Here is the title and some info that may allow you to find it independently through a Google search:

The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine
Volume 11, Number 6, 2005, pp. 955-963

The Title is: "Replicable Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Correlated Brain Signals Between Physically and Sensory Isolated Subjects"

The abstract follows:

"TODD L. RICHARDS, Ph.D.,1 LEILA KOZAK, M.S.,2 L. CLARK JOHNSON, Ph.D.,1
and LEANNA J. STANDISH, N.D., Ph.D.2

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Previous electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiments have suggested that correlated neural signals may be detected in the brains of individuals who are physically and sensorily isolated from each other. Functional MRI and EEG methods were used in the present study in an attempt to replicate these findings.

Design/settings: Subjects were electrically and magnetically shielded because of the characteristic surroundings of the scanner room. During the experiment, the nonstimulated subject was placed in the scanner with sensory isolating goggles covering the subject’s eyes. The stimulated subject was placed 30 feet away and sat in front of a video monitor that presented an alternating schedule of six stimulus-on/stimulus-off conditions. The stimulus-on condition consisted of a flickering checkerboard pattern whereas the stimulus-off condition consisted of a static checkerboard. Stimulus-on/-off conditions were presented in the sequence on/off/on/off/on/off. The duration of these intervals was randomly assigned but consistently provided a total of 150 seconds of flicker and 150 seconds of static. Sessions were repeated twice to assess possible replication of the phenomenon.

Outcome measures: Changes in fMRI brain activation (relating to blood oxygenation) and EEG signals were measured in the nonstimulated subjects. Changes occurring during stimulus-on conditions were statistically compared to changes occurring during the stimulus-off conditions.

Results: Statistically significant changes in fMRI brain activation and EEG signals were observed when comparing the stimulus-on condition to the stimulus-off condition in nonstimulated subjects (p 0.001, corrected for multiple comparisons). For fMRI, these changes were observed in visual brain areas 18 and 19 (Brodmann areas). One of the subjects replicated the results.
Conclusions: These data replicate previous findings suggesting that correlated neural signals may be detected by fMRI and EEG in the brains of subjects who are physically and sensorily isolated from each other."

If there's anything I can do to put you at ease regarding downloading the PDF, let me know. In any case, I think I've provided enough information for you to find it through a Google search.

BTW, I'm a moderator at another web forum. In our Philosophy forum I'm known as an ardent skeptic and have been there for going on a decade. The thread where this study was made known to me is titled "Why the JREF million dollars remain unclaimed." You can find it here and my posts there are under the same screen name I use here: Diploid

www . shroomery . org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11950520/fpart/all/vc/1

The above is a message board.

Thanks again for any input.

brantc · 8th February 2010, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

While it is common practice for websites to log the IP of visitors, locking up a web browser when trying to open a document is not.

APPROACH THE OP's WEBSITE AND PDF WITH CAUTION!

You guys are worse than conspiracy theorists...

Worked fine for me and my virus protection(antivir). No virus.

Interesting paper.

Conclusions;
<snip>
"To validate the existence of this phenomenon, further replication with a larger sample of subjects is warranted. The underlying mechanism of this phenomenon still remains to be elucidated3 and no theoretical framework has yet been developed that allows incorporating these data into current
neurophysiologic knowledge.8 Some authors have suggested, however, that “quantum entanglement” properties of the human brain may be involved in such phenomena.4,6,7"
<snip>

Hokulele · 8th February 2010, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Diploid

The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine

Free medicine! Woo hoo!

carlitos · 8th February 2010, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by phunk

You should unplug your internet connection then, because every site you visit is logging your IP.

OK, but when I visit JREF I don't see this at the top and bottom. It just seemed a little weird.

Quote:

YOUR IP IS BEING LOGGED. IF YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, PLEASE LEAVE.

ETA - Apologies to the OP for being ~~paranoid~~ overly-cautious.

JoeTheJuggler · 8th February 2010, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Free medicine! Woo hoo!

I thought they just flattered their ~~marks~~ patients before fleecing them.

ETA: Diploid, in case you don't know what we're talking about, I'm pretty sure the journal is the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.

sadhatter · 8th February 2010, 02:03 PM

Today has to be weird message day, i got a lengthy weird page about spamming that started with " our software reckons..." or something of that nature.

And unless my browser is posting multiple copies of anything i post ( accidentally of course) i don't recall spamming.

Diploid · 8th February 2010, 02:10 PM

Good call JoeTheJuggler, that's exactly where it's from.

The title of that journal gives me pause too. I mean, they probably publish homeopathy BS too. But even a fool can be correct and the study's validity is independent of where it was published.

If the data published is accurate (I doubt it is, but I keep an open mind) and if it can be replicated with a larger sample size, it beats chance by a wide margin, no?

blutoski · 8th February 2010, 02:15 PM

I logged in from a proxy.

The original poster is probably just unable to post live links. The link went to: [Replicable Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Correlated Brain Signals Between Physically and Sensory Isolated Subjects] published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine v11, no 6, 2005 pp955-963.

Dean radin discusses an Indian attempt to replicate in 2008: [Telepathy on the brain] He states that as of that writing there were four fMRI studies completed, of which 3 show some sort of effect. He doesn't cite them, though.

Diploid · 8th February 2010, 02:24 PM

The original poster is probably just unable to post live links.

Right. The forum prohibits posting live links until the member has >15 posts. To prevent spam, no doubt.

fls · 8th February 2010, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Diploid

Good call JoeTheJuggler, that's exactly where it's from.

The title of that journal gives me pause too. I mean, they probably publish homeopathy BS too. But even a fool can be correct and the study's validity is independent of where it was published.

On the other hand, this study has nothing to do with Alternative and Complementary medicine, and if valid, should be published in a much higher impact journal. That it has been published in the 'wrong' place makes one suspect that they were unable to get it published in the 'right' place.

Quote:

If the data published is accurate (I doubt it is, but I keep an open mind) and if it can be replicated with a larger sample size, it beats chance by a wide margin, no?

It's typical parapsychology stuff - get messy data, keep dividing it into groups until you find two whose difference is "statistically significant", attribute that difference to psi.

http://pathfinding.org/research/file...cm_dec2005.pdf

Linda

blutoski · 8th February 2010, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Diploid

Good call JoeTheJuggler, that's exactly where it's from.

The title of that journal gives me pause too. I mean, they probably publish homeopathy BS too. But even a fool can be correct and the study's validity is independent of where it was published.

If the data published is accurate (I doubt it is, but I keep an open mind) and if it can be replicated with a larger sample size, it beats chance by a wide margin, no?

I'm not too happy with the protocol in the paper, but the principle of testing for fMRI results in the reciever could be assumed to be unconscious reception. I'd like to build a protocol that produces unambiguous and binary outcomes, has better blinding, and is double-blinded to blind the experimenters.

Generally psi protocols just ask the receiver if they got the image (eg: Ganzfeld), but this variation is intended to detect unconscious reception. (How low the bar has moved, eh?)

Diploid · 8th February 2010, 02:34 PM

this variation is intended to detect unconscious reception. (How low the bar has moved, eh?)

Ahaha... so true!

ETA: In fairness to the study, the positive results were generated by algorithmic analysis of the fMRI, not by interpretation by a radiologist, so from that point of view, it was double blinded. The machine computing the results is blind by default. They'd have to be outright cheating to skew the results.

On the other hand, wasn't that what the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research people end up doing when they couldn't produce results fairly?

blutoski · 8th February 2010, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by fls

On the other hand, this study has nothing to do with Alternative and Complementary medicine, and if valid, should be published in a much higher impact journal. That it has been published in the 'wrong' place makes one suspect that they were unable to get it published in the 'right' place.

Well, the CAM people are certainly looking for anything that will shore up intention to heal modalities. You know: the healing techniques that involve the word 'quantum.' Dean Radin's interpretation of the fMRI studies is that it's evidence of quantum entanglement of intention and target. So, there's your link.

Here's Adam Dreamhealer invoking Edgar Mitchell and quantum entanglement to explain his ability to heal at a distance: [Adam Interview and Article Never printed]

Quantum entanglement, healthfraud and UFOs. A skeptical trifecta.

blutoski · 8th February 2010, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Diploid

this variation is intended to detect unconscious reception. (How low the bar has moved, eh?)

Ahaha... so true!

ETA: In fairness to the study, the positive results were generated by algorithmic analysis of the fMRI, not by interpretation by a radiologist, so from that point of view, it was double blinded. The machine computing the results is blind by default. They'd have to be outright cheating to skew the results.

Assuming the factors they chose to use were determined in advance. What we have to be cautious about is whether they ran, say, 400 retrospective analyses and settled on publishing the one that showed significance.

Originally Posted by Diploid

On the other hand, wasn't that what the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research people end up doing when they couldn't produce results fairly?

Yes, Ray Hyman really took a chance with that one and was ultimately vindicated. I'm personally more hesitant and prefer to wait for actual evidence of fraud before specualting openly.

Gord_in_Toronto · 8th February 2010, 02:54 PM

I see nothing in the paper about any attempt to measure or control of high frequency audio leakage from the computer monitor. I could not find a reference to such from Google but I have personally heard such a "whistle" that varied with the pattern displayed on the monitor.

AvalonXQ · 8th February 2010, 02:58 PM

Hey, remember, even a result of .001 significance will randomly occur in 1 study out of 1000 (by definition). I say wait for another study to reproduce the same anomalous result.

fls · 8th February 2010, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Diploid

ETA: In fairness to the study, the positive results were generated by algorithmic analysis of the fMRI, not by interpretation by a radiologist, so from that point of view, it was double blinded. The machine computing the results is blind by default. They'd have to be outright cheating to skew the results.

The outcome to consider significant wasn't chosen blindly. They simply tested all outcomes and picked a few (the outcomes weren't the same between the two experiments) as significant after the analysis was done.

Linda

blutoski · 8th February 2010, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I see nothing in the paper about any attempt to measure or control of high frequency audio leakage from the computer monitor. I could not find a reference to such from Google but I have personally heard such a "whistle" that varied with the pattern displayed on the monitor.

The receiver in the fMRI machine was wearing headphones.

But the authors do admit that sensory leakage from incompletely opaque eye or ear coverings could be worth looking at when replicating.

Diploid · 8th February 2010, 03:08 PM

You know: the healing techniques that involve the word 'quantum.'

Yep. Quantum Entanglement has become such a buzzword and it's used incorrectly so often it's really discouraging. The amount of layperson misunderstanding of what it means is rivaled only by the misunderstanding of superluminal effects that don't convey information and so don't violate causality as so often stated by people who read Popular Mechanics and fancy themselves physicists.

Regarding "high frequency audio leakage from the computer monitor". I hadn't even thought of that. Such leakage could well be below the subjects' conscious detection threshold yet still be strong enough to be detected by the cochlea and influence the fMRI.

Correction: I though I'd read that the headphones were playing a sound to mask room noise. On second reading it looks like they were just passive attenuators so possible sound leakage from the computer monitor was controlled for.

JoeTheJuggler · 8th February 2010, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by blutoski

I'm not too happy with the protocol in the paper, but the principle of testing for fMRI results in the reciever could be assumed to be unconscious reception. I'd like to build a protocol that produces unambiguous and binary outcomes, has better blinding, and is double-blinded to blind the experimenters.

This is also the sort of thing that really should have a good magician on hand to ferret out intentional cheating.

The two subjects have known each other and have been doing this demonstration (I really want to call it a "trick") for years--according to the article.

Also, from reading the article, I still don't understand how the thing was "random". They followed an on-off-on-off pattern for each trial, and the total value of ons was the same number of seconds throughout. If their randomizer wasn't random, I could see a simple, pre-arranged pattern of a certain number of counts between each change.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th February 2010, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Free medicine! Woo hoo!

Hey, if spell check doesn't catch it it isn't a real gaff.

Seriously.

I'm trying to remember the analogous error that came to my attention the other day, but it isn't coming to me.

fls · 8th February 2010, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by blutoski

Well, the CAM people are certainly looking for anything that will shore up intention to heal modalities. You know: the healing techniques that involve the word 'quantum.' Dean Radin's interpretation of the fMRI studies is that it's evidence of quantum entanglement of intention and target. So, there's your link.

Oh yeah. One need only mention 'quantum' (no need to use it correctly) and one gets a free pass to a peer-reviewed journal.

Radin did admit (during the Q and A after a lecture he gave at some university) that his reference to "quantum entanglement" was metaphorical only. Of course, he was facing an obviously knowledgeable audience in that case. Stuff he writes for other audiences looks like he's trying to get away with claiming it as a real example.

Linda

Professor Yaffle · 8th February 2010, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by fls

The outcome to consider significant wasn't chosen blindly. They simply tested all outcomes and picked a few (the outcomes weren't the same between the two experiments) as significant after the analysis was done.

Linda

The abstract does say that they corrected for multiple comparisons, though.

JoeTheJuggler · 8th February 2010, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by fls

The outcome to consider significant wasn't chosen blindly. They simply tested all outcomes and picked a few (the outcomes weren't the same between the two experiments) as significant after the analysis was done.

Linda

Oh great.

I remember someone describing this being done at the Cayce House (or Museum or whatever it's called). They did a really simple test of all the people in the tour group for ESP. As expected, they got a nice normal curve centered on the number you'd get right/wrong due to chance alone. They told those who scored more than a standard deviation above the mean that they obviously have ESP.

fls · 8th February 2010, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

The abstract does say that they corrected for multiple comparisons, though.

I know. Does that matter?

Linda

Professor Yaffle · 8th February 2010, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by fls

I know. Does that matter?

Linda

Well its better than not correcting.....

(and we've all seen a few of those)

Skeptic Ginger · 8th February 2010, 03:20 PM

Link to the journal abstract directly, which has been posted above.

Not speaking to the quality of the study but the authors are at least associated with legit universities. Bastyr keeps trying but they are not above stretching conclusions in their attempt to legitimize sCAM.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th February 2010, 03:25 PM

Getting to the quality of the study, it sounds like they did this with only one or two people and

Quote:

One of the subjects replicated the results.

That's very UNimpressive.

JoeTheJuggler · 8th February 2010, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Getting to the quality of the study, it sounds like they did this with only one or two people and

That's very UNimpressive.

Two subjects who have known each other for years and have been performing this ~~trick~~ demonstration elsewhere.

blutoski · 9th February 2010, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

This is also the sort of thing that really should have a good magician on hand to ferret out intentional cheating.

The two subjects have known each other and have been doing this demonstration (I really want to call it a "trick") for years--according to the article.

Also, from reading the article, I still don't understand how the thing was "random". They followed an on-off-on-off pattern for each trial, and the total value of ons was the same number of seconds throughout. If their randomizer wasn't random, I could see a simple, pre-arranged pattern of a certain number of counts between each change.

My interpretation was that the on/off durations were themselves random. The attempt was to see if the fMRI change coincided the start times of the stimulus blocks.

mike3 · 9th February 2010, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Diploid

this variation is intended to detect unconscious reception. (How low the bar has moved, eh?)

Ahaha... so true!

Don't you still think it would be an interesting phenomenon if it were rigorously proven to exist?

Originally Posted by Diploid

ETA: In fairness to the study, the positive results were generated by algorithmic analysis of the fMRI, not by interpretation by a radiologist, so from that point of view, it was double blinded. The machine computing the results is blind by default. They'd have to be outright cheating to skew the results.

On the other hand, wasn't that what the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research people end up doing when they couldn't produce results fairly?

Is there anything to suggest it is fabbed? Is there another flaw in the experiment, one which may not be "obvious"?

JoeTheJuggler · 9th February 2010, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by blutoski

My interpretation was that the on/off durations were themselves random. The attempt was to see if the fMRI change coincided the start times of the stimulus blocks.

Yes, that's what the article says, but it doesn't specify how they were made "random". And, IIRC it said each trial was to follow the pattern on, off, on, off, on, off, within a set time limit such that the on and off totals were of equal duration. (I point this out because it doesn't seem that tossing a coin or rolling a die would easily provide a way of randomizing the durations, so I think it's a question that should have been answered in the paper.)

Since this field is rife with fraud, poor methodology and easily duped investigators, I wouldn't be surprised if their idea of "random" wasn't to leave it up to the sender who could easily have made a plan with the receiver (they were long-time friends).

So the sender uses a clock or whatever is being used to keep track of the on and off period, while the sender just counts "one mississippi two mississippi" and does something else different that might show up on the fMRI (like the old polygraph trick of jabbing yourself with a concealed thumbtack).

blutoski · 9th February 2010, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Oh great.

I remember someone describing this being done at the Cayce House (or Museum or whatever it's called). They did a really simple test of all the people in the tour group for ESP. As expected, they got a nice normal curve centered on the number you'd get right/wrong due to chance alone. They told those who scored more than a standard deviation above the mean that they obviously have ESP.

This is also part of why a shyness effect or goat effect is evident. Regression to the mean.

Put these outliers back into the test, and best bets are they'll perform average.

'cause that's random chance for ya.

8th February 2010, 01:10 PM	#2
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Diploid Hello, I found something on another forum that I thought interesting. First, understand that I'm a hard skeptic. An engineer by profession with a graduate science degree. I don't buy into PSI, but I am open to new evidence. Hence this post. I put a PDF of the studiy that appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and constructed rigorously on my FTP server. I can't post links so you'll have to cut/paste the URL below to download them: glitch.tzo.com My question generally is, if these results could be replicated, would it qualify for the JREF prize? The statistics reported are well above what would be expected by random chance. Thanks for any comments. Can you just give us the title and author? It's hard to feel comfortable downloading stuff from a stranger, especially since others have used that method for nefarious purposes here in the past. Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

8th February 2010, 01:35 PM	#3
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	While it is common practice for websites to log the IP of visitors, locking up a web browser when trying to open a document is not. APPROACH THE OP's WEBSITE AND PDF WITH CAUTION!
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

8th February 2010, 01:37 PM	#4
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by Fnord While it is common practice for websites to log the IP of visitors, locking up a web browser when trying to open a document is not. APPROACH THE OP's WEBSITE AND PDF WITH CAUTION! Yeah i havn't clicked but this seems like some form of tom foolery. I mean what are the chances we have a first time poster that isn't familiar with how to post information on the net, but has some ground breaking psi paper tucked away.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

8th February 2010, 01:37 PM	#5
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 6,014	Originally Posted by Diploid Hello, I found something on another forum that I thought interesting. First, understand that I'm a hard skeptic. An engineer by profession with a graduate science degree. I don't buy into PSI, but I am open to new evidence. Hence this post. I put a PDF of the studiy that appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and constructed rigorously on my FTP server. I can't post links so you'll have to cut/paste the URL below to download them: glitch.tzo.com My question generally is, if these results could be replicated, would it qualify for the JREF prize? The statistics reported are well above what would be expected by random chance. Thanks for any comments. I can't speak for the JREF, but I think yes, provided the protocol gets cleaned up a bit to: make positive results unamiguous to clarify statistical power to provide blinding of the evaluators as well as the subjects (double blinding, rather than just single blinding).
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

8th February 2010, 01:40 PM	#6
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,951	Originally Posted by carlitos I won't speak for anyone else, but the admonishment that my IP was being logged caused me not to save your link. You should unplug your internet connection then, because every site you visit is logging your IP.
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,951

8th February 2010, 01:06 PM	#1
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,645	I won't speak for anyone else, but the admonishment that my IP was being logged caused me not to save your link.

8th February 2010, 01:48 PM	#8
Diploid New Blood Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Rabbit Hole Posts: 8	Hi again, I completely understand your reluctance to access the site. The admonition about logging your IP address is to keep people I don't invite away from my FTP server. Every web site you connect to logs you IP address as a matter of course. But again, I understand. Here is the title and some info that may allow you to find it independently through a Google search: The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine Volume 11, Number 6, 2005, pp. 955-963 The Title is: "Replicable Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Correlated Brain Signals Between Physically and Sensory Isolated Subjects" The abstract follows: "TODD L. RICHARDS, Ph.D.,1 LEILA KOZAK, M.S.,2 L. CLARK JOHNSON, Ph.D.,1 and LEANNA J. STANDISH, N.D., Ph.D.2 ABSTRACT Objectives: Previous electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiments have suggested that correlated neural signals may be detected in the brains of individuals who are physically and sensorily isolated from each other. Functional MRI and EEG methods were used in the present study in an attempt to replicate these findings. Design/settings: Subjects were electrically and magnetically shielded because of the characteristic surroundings of the scanner room. During the experiment, the nonstimulated subject was placed in the scanner with sensory isolating goggles covering the subject’s eyes. The stimulated subject was placed 30 feet away and sat in front of a video monitor that presented an alternating schedule of six stimulus-on/stimulus-off conditions. The stimulus-on condition consisted of a flickering checkerboard pattern whereas the stimulus-off condition consisted of a static checkerboard. Stimulus-on/-off conditions were presented in the sequence on/off/on/off/on/off. The duration of these intervals was randomly assigned but consistently provided a total of 150 seconds of flicker and 150 seconds of static. Sessions were repeated twice to assess possible replication of the phenomenon. Outcome measures: Changes in fMRI brain activation (relating to blood oxygenation) and EEG signals were measured in the nonstimulated subjects. Changes occurring during stimulus-on conditions were statistically compared to changes occurring during the stimulus-off conditions. Results: Statistically significant changes in fMRI brain activation and EEG signals were observed when comparing the stimulus-on condition to the stimulus-off condition in nonstimulated subjects (p 0.001, corrected for multiple comparisons). For fMRI, these changes were observed in visual brain areas 18 and 19 (Brodmann areas). One of the subjects replicated the results. Conclusions: These data replicate previous findings suggesting that correlated neural signals may be detected by fMRI and EEG in the brains of subjects who are physically and sensorily isolated from each other." If there's anything I can do to put you at ease regarding downloading the PDF, let me know. In any case, I think I've provided enough information for you to find it through a Google search. BTW, I'm a moderator at another web forum. In our Philosophy forum I'm known as an ardent skeptic and have been there for going on a decade. The thread where this study was made known to me is titled "Why the JREF million dollars remain unclaimed." You can find it here and my posts there are under the same screen name I use here: Diploid www . shroomery . org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11950520/fpart/all/vc/1 The above is a message board. Thanks again for any input.
	Last edited by Diploid; 8th February 2010 at 02:15 PM.

8th February 2010, 01:50 PM	#9
brantc Muse Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 541	Originally Posted by Fnord While it is common practice for websites to log the IP of visitors, locking up a web browser when trying to open a document is not. APPROACH THE OP's WEBSITE AND PDF WITH CAUTION! You guys are worse than conspiracy theorists... Worked fine for me and my virus protection(antivir). No virus. Interesting paper. Conclusions; <snip> "To validate the existence of this phenomenon, further replication with a larger sample of subjects is warranted. The underlying mechanism of this phenomenon still remains to be elucidated3 and no theoretical framework has yet been developed that allows incorporating these data into current neurophysiologic knowledge.8 Some authors have suggested, however, that “quantum entanglement” properties of the human brain may be involved in such phenomena.4,6,7" <snip>
brantc Muse Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 541

8th February 2010, 01:52 PM	#10
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,349	Originally Posted by Diploid The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine Free medicine! Woo hoo!
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

8th February 2010, 01:53 PM	#11
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,645	Originally Posted by phunk You should unplug your internet connection then, because every site you visit is logging your IP. OK, but when I visit JREF I don't see this at the top and bottom. It just seemed a little weird. Quote: YOUR IP IS BEING LOGGED. IF YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, PLEASE LEAVE. ETA - Apologies to the OP for being ~~paranoid~~ overly-cautious.
	Last edited by carlitos; 8th February 2010 at 01:55 PM.

8th February 2010, 01:59 PM	#12
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,173	Originally Posted by Hokulele Free medicine! Woo hoo! I thought they just flattered their ~~marks~~ patients before fleecing them. ETA: Diploid, in case you don't know what we're talking about, I'm pretty sure the journal is the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 8th February 2010 at 02:01 PM.

8th February 2010, 02:03 PM	#13
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Today has to be weird message day, i got a lengthy weird page about spamming that started with " our software reckons..." or something of that nature. And unless my browser is posting multiple copies of anything i post ( accidentally of course) i don't recall spamming.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

8th February 2010, 02:10 PM	#14
Diploid New Blood Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Rabbit Hole Posts: 8	Good call JoeTheJuggler, that's exactly where it's from. The title of that journal gives me pause too. I mean, they probably publish homeopathy BS too. But even a fool can be correct and the study's validity is independent of where it was published. If the data published is accurate (I doubt it is, but I keep an open mind) and if it can be replicated with a larger sample size, it beats chance by a wide margin, no?

8th February 2010, 02:15 PM	#15
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 6,014	I logged in from a proxy. The original poster is probably just unable to post live links. The link went to: [Replicable Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Correlated Brain Signals Between Physically and Sensory Isolated Subjects] published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine v11, no 6, 2005 pp955-963. Dean radin discusses an Indian attempt to replicate in 2008: [Telepathy on the brain] He states that as of that writing there were four fMRI studies completed, of which 3 show some sort of effect. He doesn't cite them, though.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

8th February 2010, 02:24 PM	#16
Diploid New Blood Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Rabbit Hole Posts: 8	The original poster is probably just unable to post live links. Right. The forum prohibits posting live links until the member has >15 posts. To prevent spam, no doubt.

8th February 2010, 02:30 PM	#17
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Diploid Good call JoeTheJuggler, that's exactly where it's from. The title of that journal gives me pause too. I mean, they probably publish homeopathy BS too. But even a fool can be correct and the study's validity is independent of where it was published. On the other hand, this study has nothing to do with Alternative and Complementary medicine, and if valid, should be published in a much higher impact journal. That it has been published in the 'wrong' place makes one suspect that they were unable to get it published in the 'right' place. Quote: If the data published is accurate (I doubt it is, but I keep an open mind) and if it can be replicated with a larger sample size, it beats chance by a wide margin, no? It's typical parapsychology stuff - get messy data, keep dividing it into groups until you find two whose difference is "statistically significant", attribute that difference to psi. http://pathfinding.org/research/file...cm_dec2005.pdf Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

8th February 2010, 02:31 PM	#18
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 6,014	Originally Posted by Diploid Good call JoeTheJuggler, that's exactly where it's from. The title of that journal gives me pause too. I mean, they probably publish homeopathy BS too. But even a fool can be correct and the study's validity is independent of where it was published. If the data published is accurate (I doubt it is, but I keep an open mind) and if it can be replicated with a larger sample size, it beats chance by a wide margin, no? I'm not too happy with the protocol in the paper, but the principle of testing for fMRI results in the reciever could be assumed to be unconscious reception. I'd like to build a protocol that produces unambiguous and binary outcomes, has better blinding, and is double-blinded to blind the experimenters. Generally psi protocols just ask the receiver if they got the image (eg: Ganzfeld), but this variation is intended to detect unconscious reception. (How low the bar has moved, eh?)
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

8th February 2010, 02:34 PM	#19
Diploid New Blood Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Rabbit Hole Posts: 8	this variation is intended to detect unconscious reception. (How low the bar has moved, eh?) Ahaha... so true! ETA: In fairness to the study, the positive results were generated by algorithmic analysis of the fMRI, not by interpretation by a radiologist, so from that point of view, it was double blinded. The machine computing the results is blind by default. They'd have to be outright cheating to skew the results. On the other hand, wasn't that what the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research people end up doing when they couldn't produce results fairly?
	Last edited by Diploid; 8th February 2010 at 02:39 PM.

8th February 2010, 02:48 PM	#20
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 6,014	Originally Posted by fls On the other hand, this study has nothing to do with Alternative and Complementary medicine, and if valid, should be published in a much higher impact journal. That it has been published in the 'wrong' place makes one suspect that they were unable to get it published in the 'right' place. Well, the CAM people are certainly looking for anything that will shore up intention to heal modalities. You know: the healing techniques that involve the word 'quantum.' Dean Radin's interpretation of the fMRI studies is that it's evidence of quantum entanglement of intention and target. So, there's your link. Here's Adam Dreamhealer invoking Edgar Mitchell and quantum entanglement to explain his ability to heal at a distance: [Adam Interview and Article Never printed] Quantum entanglement, healthfraud and UFOs. A skeptical trifecta.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

8th February 2010, 02:53 PM	#21
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 6,014	Originally Posted by Diploid this variation is intended to detect unconscious reception. (How low the bar has moved, eh?) Ahaha... so true! ETA: In fairness to the study, the positive results were generated by algorithmic analysis of the fMRI, not by interpretation by a radiologist, so from that point of view, it was double blinded. The machine computing the results is blind by default. They'd have to be outright cheating to skew the results. Assuming the factors they chose to use were determined in advance. What we have to be cautious about is whether they ran, say, 400 retrospective analyses and settled on publishing the one that showed significance. Originally Posted by Diploid On the other hand, wasn't that what the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research people end up doing when they couldn't produce results fairly? Yes, Ray Hyman really took a chance with that one and was ultimately vindicated. I'm personally more hesitant and prefer to wait for actual evidence of fraud before specualting openly.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

8th February 2010, 02:54 PM	#22
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,424	I see nothing in the paper about any attempt to measure or control of high frequency audio leakage from the computer monitor. I could not find a reference to such from Google but I have personally heard such a "whistle" that varied with the pattern displayed on the monitor.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

8th February 2010, 02:58 PM	#23
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Hey, remember, even a result of .001 significance will randomly occur in 1 study out of 1000 (by definition). I say wait for another study to reproduce the same anomalous result.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

8th February 2010, 03:00 PM	#24
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Diploid ETA: In fairness to the study, the positive results were generated by algorithmic analysis of the fMRI, not by interpretation by a radiologist, so from that point of view, it was double blinded. The machine computing the results is blind by default. They'd have to be outright cheating to skew the results. The outcome to consider significant wasn't chosen blindly. They simply tested all outcomes and picked a few (the outcomes weren't the same between the two experiments) as significant after the analysis was done. Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

8th February 2010, 03:01 PM	#25
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 6,014	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto I see nothing in the paper about any attempt to measure or control of high frequency audio leakage from the computer monitor. I could not find a reference to such from Google but I have personally heard such a "whistle" that varied with the pattern displayed on the monitor. The receiver in the fMRI machine was wearing headphones. But the authors do admit that sensory leakage from incompletely opaque eye or ear coverings could be worth looking at when replicating.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

8th February 2010, 03:08 PM	#26
Diploid New Blood Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Rabbit Hole Posts: 8	You know: the healing techniques that involve the word 'quantum.' Yep. Quantum Entanglement has become such a buzzword and it's used incorrectly so often it's really discouraging. The amount of layperson misunderstanding of what it means is rivaled only by the misunderstanding of superluminal effects that don't convey information and so don't violate causality as so often stated by people who read Popular Mechanics and fancy themselves physicists. Regarding "high frequency audio leakage from the computer monitor". I hadn't even thought of that. Such leakage could well be below the subjects' conscious detection threshold yet still be strong enough to be detected by the cochlea and influence the fMRI. Correction: I though I'd read that the headphones were playing a sound to mask room noise. On second reading it looks like they were just passive attenuators so possible sound leakage from the computer monitor was controlled for.
	Last edited by Diploid; 8th February 2010 at 03:25 PM. Reason: Correction

8th February 2010, 03:12 PM	#27
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,173	Originally Posted by blutoski I'm not too happy with the protocol in the paper, but the principle of testing for fMRI results in the reciever could be assumed to be unconscious reception. I'd like to build a protocol that produces unambiguous and binary outcomes, has better blinding, and is double-blinded to blind the experimenters. This is also the sort of thing that really should have a good magician on hand to ferret out intentional cheating. The two subjects have known each other and have been doing this demonstration (I really want to call it a "trick") for years--according to the article. Also, from reading the article, I still don't understand how the thing was "random". They followed an on-off-on-off pattern for each trial, and the total value of ons was the same number of seconds throughout. If their randomizer wasn't random, I could see a simple, pre-arranged pattern of a certain number of counts between each change.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

8th February 2010, 03:12 PM	#28
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by Hokulele Free medicine! Woo hoo! Hey, if spell check doesn't catch it it isn't a real gaff. Seriously. I'm trying to remember the analogous error that came to my attention the other day, but it isn't coming to me.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 8th February 2010 at 03:13 PM.*

8th February 2010, 03:13 PM	#29
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by blutoski Well, the CAM people are certainly looking for anything that will shore up intention to heal modalities. You know: the healing techniques that involve the word 'quantum.' Dean Radin's interpretation of the fMRI studies is that it's evidence of quantum entanglement of intention and target. So, there's your link. Oh yeah. One need only mention 'quantum' (no need to use it correctly) and one gets a free pass to a peer-reviewed journal. Radin did admit (during the Q and A after a lecture he gave at some university) that his reference to "quantum entanglement" was metaphorical only. Of course, he was facing an obviously knowledgeable audience in that case. Stuff he writes for other audiences looks like he's trying to get away with claiming it as a real example. Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

8th February 2010, 03:13 PM	#30
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,450	Originally Posted by fls The outcome to consider significant wasn't chosen blindly. They simply tested all outcomes and picked a few (the outcomes weren't the same between the two experiments) as significant after the analysis was done. Linda The abstract does say that they corrected for multiple comparisons, though.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

8th February 2010, 03:15 PM	#31
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,173	Originally Posted by fls The outcome to consider significant wasn't chosen blindly. They simply tested all outcomes and picked a few (the outcomes weren't the same between the two experiments) as significant after the analysis was done. Linda Oh great. I remember someone describing this being done at the Cayce House (or Museum or whatever it's called). They did a really simple test of all the people in the tour group for ESP. As expected, they got a nice normal curve centered on the number you'd get right/wrong due to chance alone. They told those who scored more than a standard deviation above the mean that they obviously have ESP.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

8th February 2010, 03:16 PM	#32
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle The abstract does say that they corrected for multiple comparisons, though. I know. Does that matter? Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

8th February 2010, 03:19 PM	#33
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,450	Originally Posted by fls I know. Does that matter? Linda Well its better than not correcting..... (and we've all seen a few of those)
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat Last edited by Professor Yaffle; 8th February 2010 at 03:22 PM.

8th February 2010, 03:20 PM	#34
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Link to the journal abstract directly, which has been posted above. Not speaking to the quality of the study but the authors are at least associated with legit universities. Bastyr keeps trying but they are not above stretching conclusions in their attempt to legitimize sCAM.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 8th February 2010 at 03:27 PM.*

8th February 2010, 03:25 PM	#35
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Getting to the quality of the study, it sounds like they did this with only one or two people and Quote: One of the subjects replicated the results. That's very UNimpressive.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th February 2010, 04:22 PM	#36
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,173	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Getting to the quality of the study, it sounds like they did this with only one or two people and That's very UNimpressive. Two subjects who have known each other for years and have been performing this ~~trick~~ demonstration elsewhere.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons