Jump to content
Avant Labs
liorrh

Neuroscience gears up for duel on the issue of brain versus deity

Recommended Posts

Most of it is bullshit and I doubt our understanding of it is anywhere near correct, but there are quite a few intringuing studies on PubMed that Skepdic convieniently ignores. The feeling of being watched from behind is probably the easiest to study and prove.

 

 

Weird, the studies on that I remember seeing determined that the feeling was no better than random guessing. Of course, though, I cant find said studies now. I'd be interested in seeing whatever you turn up, though.

 

 

The one study/project I havent seen any significant "debunking" of was the project seeing how random number generators were affected by major social events.

 

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird, the studies on that I remember seeing determined that the feeling was no better than random guessing. Of course, though, I cant find said studies now. I'd be interested in seeing whatever you turn up, though.

The one study/project I havent seen any significant "debunking" of was the project seeing how random number generators were affected by major social events.

 

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

 

Man I don't recall where I read that stuff originally, I found this on Google which was interesting though. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._25/ai_71563268 ... it's a criticism of some of the studies against it.

 

http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Staring/JCSpaper1.pdf is a summary of the studies that have been done, pretty much all have shown a +5% trend towards knowing this. I think Sheldrake is smoking crack though with some of his theories. Just because you measure an effect doesn't mean it happens because of your odd theories. It may be this is done using normal sensory clues and the perception of being stared at is manifested from them.

 

But what I find interesting is that some other quantum-level probability studies have measured a ~5% effect on the belief of the observer on the outcome of a "random" event. (I think it was something dealing with electron microscopes, but it's been a while and I'm a little foggy)

 

5% isn't really all that significant I suppose, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd tell you to go get James Randi's million dollars.

 

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

 

I'm not being flip, either. Seriously, go do it. I would love to see the paranormal pass a double blind test.

 

Thanks! I haven't done this stuff in...decades (you do need practice like any other skill). However I do know someone who could easily win the test, I'll have to let him know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd tell you to go get James Randi's million dollars.

 

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

 

I'm not being flip, either. Seriously, go do it. I would love to see the paranormal pass a double blind test.

 

 

Ahh, but that unfairly disadvantages one - we need an experimenter effect.....one of them needs to be psychic! (thats what they say).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×