Damien Broderick wrote:
> Example: of late, some intriguing work is being done as a
> follow-up to studies by Dr Dean Radin, which I reported
> here a year or so back, indicating that subjects make a
> detectable GSR `presponse' to visual targets not shown to
> them until a couple of seconds later. This is a
> statistical effect, as usual, found in concatenated
> results - like most psychophysiological paradigms.
This is how I'm interpreting the experiment (please correct me if I'm wrong): When they saw activity that they considered a 'presponse' they put a little tick in the 'presponse' box, and if they saw no such ativity they put a little tick in the 'no presponse' box, and then added them all up in the end. Actually, I don't see a way you could make this into an experiment. I must be missing something.
> Reported work, and other stuff still in press that I'm not
> at liberty to discuss in detail, suggests that these
> presentiments are weak or non-existent for emotionally
> colorless or `calm' stimuli, stronger for sexually
> arousing images, and strongest of all for violent or
> horrible pictures.
This is better. But the only way I can see the data being pure is to show only one image to each person, otherwise each 'presponse' can be attributed to the previous response.
> If this effect is repeatable, as it now begins to seem to
> be, we have the door opened a tiny crack to magical time-
> bending physics. Dang.
As fun as new physics would be I remain sceptical.