In that case you'll definitely need to supply a link. The only 'reports' I can find are in radin's blogs, and they date from 2007 or thereabouts.
There were two types of experiment described :
1. The volunteer presses a button, four seconds later they're shown a picture of a particular emotional content. This is from a standard photo set, though the emotional index is based on average reactions.
2. The volunteer presses a button, and four seconds later there may be a flash, or there may not. The ratio is 50/50.
The flashing light experiment did not involve photos. It involved a light flash or audio tone to both the meditators and non- meditators. It was a relatively calm stimuli that the meditators picked up on just before it was to occur. The non-meditators were unable to do this.
The flashing light experiment did not involve photos. It involved a light flash or audio tone to both the meditators and non- meditators. It was a relatively calm stimuli that the meditators picked up on just before it was to occur. The non-meditators were unable to do this.
I think the matter of the relative calmness of the stimuli was related to the pictures experiment, not the flashing light one.
Not that it matters, since these have nothing to do with dreams which tell the future.
Originally Posted by shankly123
Perhaps because I haven't read every single scientific paper ever written?
I would expect that a huge scientific advance like precognition would have a substantial body of work devoted to it, but this is not the case.
I would still say that there is no accepted scientific evidence for this - it is such an exceptional claim that it requires exceptional proof - not a few obscure articles and papers which show negligible results. Radin's work is discussed at length here http://******************/showthread.php?t=107385 and the findings are less than convincing.
It's not for me to prove that precognition doesn't exist - it's up to the person who proposes it to prove that it does and I see nothing in this work that provides anything like convincing proof.
Comments
The flashing light experiment did not involve photos. It involved a light flash or audio tone to both the meditators and non- meditators. It was a relatively calm stimuli that the meditators picked up on just before it was to occur. The non-meditators were unable to do this.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CD8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bial.com%2Fimagem%2FBolsa16708_19062012.pdf&ei=19PRUuCnI8yshQfwr4HYCw&usg=AFQjCNGd2ifXI7m13D_bJz2rcjQlEJx6gQ&sig2=lLmscHX_wd5CdSh74VIHMQ&bvm=bv.59026428,d.ZG4 [PDF]
Pure coincidence.
Watch your back ;-)
But you at least can roll your eyes. That's a skill of sorts.:D
Yes I can! Haha thanks
I think the matter of the relative calmness of the stimuli was related to the pictures experiment, not the flashing light one.
Not that it matters, since these have nothing to do with dreams which tell the future.
No it wasn't. You have to read the research study. It does make a difference.
Teach Yourself How to Dream David Fontana
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Teach-Yourself-Dream-Unleashing-Subconscious/dp/0811816281
Also, has anyone experienced a lucid dream whereby you know that you are in a dream and then you can start controlling events within it?
How comes your link never worked?
A very interesting experiment but it's far from convincing.
It looks like this forum's autocensor blanks out links to the JREF forum.
Does anyone know why this is? Was there an issue in the past?
Or is it just because it's shite?
I had a look on the JREF forum, but couldn't find anything relevant. Links to sceptics' forums also get blanked out, for some reason.