[ExI] Beating on the closed door of SCIENCE
thespike at satx.rr.com
Mon Sep 8 19:54:22 UTC 2008
At 07:16 PM 9/8/2008 +0200, Sondre wrote:
>If the response from the user occurs ahead of time at which the photo is
>displayed, you could potentially replace the randomly generated photo (at
>the split second it's about to be rendered) within the timeframe of the user
>response and record if that actually has some effect, compared to a
>completely random display of photos.
So you're not replacing one unknowable random stimulus with another
random stimulus but with a known determinate stimulus? If you did
this occasionally, I suspect it would just reduce the statistics,
eventually to noise. The point is that variations in physiological
state are always somewhat volatile; you're unlikely to look at a
single instance and say "Woah!"
I once had to wear a Holter monitor for 24 hours, which recorded
cardiac variations; a complex analysis later would decide later that
the fluctuations in my heart signals were within the normal range.
Much the same here. If the Holter mechanism had thrown in a bunch of
extraneous noise, this might have masked the underlying effect, but
wouldn't have proved that my heart was normal or wasn't beating (or whatever).
>If you then record the same stimuli
>with the wrong photo, then the test results would be invalidated? Wouldn't
A much more interesting investigation might consider "remote
viewing," where a complex interpretative process takes place inside
the mind of the "viewer" who attempts to respond to one of, say, four
possible future images/locations that are as orthogonal to each other
as feasible. My model of this process is that s/he goes into a state
where images and affects swirl through the preconscious, and are
sorted, discarded, or retained by whatever this strange process is, a
bit like what happens when we gaze dreamily at patterns in clouds or
on the ceiling. But suppose the allegedly random selection is biased
deliberately (but double-blinded, obviously, so neither experimenter
nor "viewer" knows at the time the weighting of the biases), so that
Option 3 is liable to be chosen as target 90% rather than 25% of the
time. In repeated runs of this test (using different options each
time, of course), will viewers respond to the *more probable* target
most of the time, or to the actual option that will really be chosen?
IIRC, results show a heightened correlation with the actual target,
not the more probable one.
You can all stop rolling your eyes now.
More information about the extropy-chat