Neuroimaging Fails To Demonstrate ESP Is Real

[TZ]

Psychologists at Harvard University have developed a new method to study extrasensory perception that, they argue, can resolve the century-old debate over its existence. According to the authors, their study not only illustrates a new method for studying such phenomena, but also provides the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of extrasensory perception, or ESP.


The research was led by Samuel Moulton, a graduate student in the department of psychology in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University with Stephen Kosslyn, John Lindsley Professor of Psychology at Harvard and was published in the Jan. 2008 issue of the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. The scientists used brain scanning to test whether individuals have knowledge that cannot be explained through normal perceptual processing.

"If any ESP processes exist, then participants' brains should respond differently to ESP and non-ESP stimuli," explains Moulton. "Instead, results showed that participants' brains responded identically to ESP and non-ESP stimuli, despite reacting strongly to differences in how emotional the stimuli were and showing subtle, stimulus-related effects."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103161531.htm

[Solly Mack]

1. I saw this coming

(I slay me)

[scarletwoman]

11. You slay me, too!

:rofl:

:hi:
sw

[Solly Mack]

47. I knew you'd say that

:)

:hi:

[bobthedrummer]

23. Well there's always Laboratories for Fundamental Research/LFR

Edwin May's SAIC spin-off that did over 20 years of STARGATE related psychic spying R&D and other things with all kinds of federal budgets.

They're still looking for participants/recruits

LFR
http://www.lfr.org/

[Solly Mack]

49. I'm gonna hafta pass (volunteering)

but you knew that already :)

[Dorian Gray]

64. LOL...

I do think that people are extra sensitive to their surroundings. They take more notice of everything that surrounds them, and they may have more awareness of small changes in their environments. It's not ESP in that they can tell the future, but they may see things in the physical world more clearly and carefully than others around them, and some people may mistake that for ESP. (I think a lot of mediums are trained to do this... focus on people's reactions and focus on everything about a person to gain some insights about them.)

[hlthe2b]

2. Somehow I doubt this is going to settle anything...

Interesting, though....:)

[TZ]

3. Probably not...

But I thought it was a novel approach to this question. It also is a nice illustration that scientists don't necessarily dismiss these claims out of hand, but try to study them...
Good to see you, btw...:hi:

[papau]

6. I agree - it does not frame the question as information transfer via ESP occurs how - but

that assumps we can do a constant monitor of folks brains and they will tell us when they have a premonition, at which point we check their brains as we also check if there was any thing to the premonition. Then we check the stats.

This study proves just about nada.

[Duer 157099]

4. Here's the straw man that they knocked down:

"If any ESP processes exist, then participants' brains should respond differently to ESP and non-ESP stimuli"

It's an interesting assumption, but an assumption nonetheless.

Talk about crappy science!

[bemildred]

10. Yeah, it's piffle. If it's testable in the first place, it's just like everything else.

Or at least that would be the default assumption, according to William of Occam.

[Occulus]

29. How do they know what an ESP stimulus is if they don't know if ESP exists or not?

Is that process even scientific in the first place?

[PVnRT]

73. So....how does it work, then

If the use of ESP does not affect the brain in any way, what is its mechanism?

[dysfunctional press]

81. well, ghosts and the like don't have physical brains- but are able to have thoughts & communicate...

so i guess that question should be answered by someone who believes in those 'immortal soul' kinds of things.

after all- since our physical bodies rot in the ground(or are cremated)...how does that eternal soul thing have memories and a conscious? :shrug:

and for the record- i don't believe in ANY of the shite- from esp to ghosts to an immortal/mortal soul.

[Duer 157099]

87. First of all, I obviously don't know the definitive answer

But I can detect a weakness in an experimental protocol/hypothesis.

Just as a couple of thoughts:

1) what makes anyone think that today's "state-of-the-art" imaging equipment is the best it can possibly be? Surely nobody is naive enough to think that whatever *can* be detected, *is* being detected by this equipment.

2) consider a wireless router and how it can transmit all the data on your hard drive to another storage devices, perhaps a network drive. What makes us so sure that something comparable does not happen with us? Just think about it for a little while, draw an analogy and see if you can find a weakness.

[Ignis]

86. Good point.

It also doesn't take into account currently prevalent theories regarding the location of the mind/consciousness within the brain. I'd be much more excited to see high-tech, highly funded experiments aimed at exploring the role of gap junctions.

[LucyParsons]

5. no surprise there.

nt

[Akoto]

7. Interesting. That said ...

I believe there are certain things science is not yet equipped to explain, and the full capability of the mind is one of them. Humans use only a fraction of their brains, and we're left to wonder what could be done with the rest if it were all open to us.

[TZ]

8. Actually that is not true

The humans only use a fraction of their brains is a myth.
http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fneuroscience%2Fans_008.html

[JeffR]

17. You haven't been watching the Republican debates, obviously

;-)

[TZ]

35. lol

I think you ought to nominate yourself for a duzy...:D

[AngryAmish]

67. bingo!

[Naturyl]

18. That's actually an urban legend.

The evidence shows that most or all of the brain is used in various funtions. The idea that we only use 10% of our brains (or however it is framed) is a myth.

[nebenaube]

9. nice try, but...

This type of research is not unlike dream research which has never been able to progress past the first level of hypothesis testing.

[New Earth]

12. too bad little scientists can't figure it out

cuz it sure as hell IS real.
as well as many other things people would find unbelievable or impossible.

[Naturyl]

19. Do you have any evidence for those assertions?

Or are you of the school of thought which holds that factual claims do not require evidence?

[Occulus]

27. I'll not state this is proof of anything in particular,

but a number of years ago I saw a show about people's bonds with their pets on the Discovery channel. A woman claimed that her dog was able to tell when she was coming home or some such. It wasn't that the dog had learned her daily routine, mind; she was saying that the dog knew when she was coming home, regardless of any pattern. The dog would be observed by others in the house to inexplicably go to the window and wait, and they figured out that it meant this woman was on her way home. The show decided to put it to a test.

They had the woman go out on the town with a handler, who would themselves decide where they were going to go, and when they were going to come home. I think I remember hearing something about synchronized clocks, but it was quite some time ago and I may be manufacturing memory from whole cloth. In any case, they also placed a video camera near the window and had a person in the house take note of the time the dog went to the window to sit and wait.

As it happened, the dog went to the window at almost the exact moment the handler made the decision to return to the residence. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but in this case, you could see it in action.

In almost every vanishingly credible case of ESP I've ever read (twin studies come to mind), I've seen a pattern of deep emotional connection present in most of the anecdotes I've read or heard about (and, again, there's no cold hard proof). I'm wondering if science isn't looking in the wrong place entirely for the evidence so many seek.

I myself could do without the ability to read minds, or have mine be read. I don't really want to know much about the future, and I don't think it would be possible to "see" the far future in any case; there are simply too many variables beyond a few minutes from now to make controlled precognition useful. Remote viewing might be useful to spies and intelligence agencies, but beyond that, I can't think of even a possible personal use for it. Also, my own ethics would get in the way. Privacy and all.

I also don't much like even the concept of magic- true magic, magic that works- being loosed among the people that currently make up our civilization. Can you picture Al Qaeda with, say, author Terry Goodkind's "Chainfire" spell (a spell that makes a person effectively invisible by making everyone forget that person and everything they are or were, to the extent that they don't even remember them immediately after seeing them)? Can you imagine the US Army in possession of something like the One Ring?

I think there might be very good reason why we can't do these things, or why so many of them seem to be buried so deeply that they manifest so rarely as to be untestable. I've no doubt there's 'something' to it- in my life I've spontaneously thought about calling too many people just before my phone rings with them on the other end for me to think it's pure coincidence- but I very highly doubt it's under anything remotely related to conscious control.

Give us another 10,000 years of evolution, and see what pops up.

[Naturyl]

31. The dog thing would probably qualify for Randi's million

Interesting post. As you admit, what you present is anecdotal evidence, which is worth nothing in terms of the debate. But I appreciate your thoughtful perspective, and you made some interesting points.

[New Earth]

43. I am sure it will be less than 10,000 years

it's now.

[TZ]

38. just like the poor ignorant scientists

that believe evolution happens, and global warming is a threat, right?
Maybe people find certain thing unbelievable or impossible because they ARE....

[New Earth]

42. nooooo

I am sure that evolution and global warming are real.

But ESP for me is an entirely different story, the one that gets me frustrated with science, because I know how REAL it is.

[Naturyl]

55. Are you sure you "know" that?

Isn't it more likely that you simply believe it? There are very important differences between knowing and believing, and getting the two confused can lead to a lot of trouble.

Creationists "know" that God created the universe in 6 days, too. A lot of people "know" a lot of things that just ain't so. Couldn't this be one of them?

I know you've probably seen all sorts of things that have convinced you. Anyone who believes anything has many reasons for doing so. But that still doesn't mean it's factual. To be able to say that, you need more. You need independently verifiable scientific evidence.

And that is what never appears when it comes to creationism, esp, the soul, pyramid power, aliens, etc.

[Orrex]

13. Okay, everyone whose kneejerk reaction was to dismiss the study outright

Do you believe in ESP? Really? On what possible basis? A hunch? An intuition? Personal experience that you can't substantiate? Some dubious third-party eyewitness testimony? Please describe the elaborate scrutiny by which you declare this alleged phenomenon to exist.

Here's a hint: demands that I prove that so-and-so loved me are irrelevant, because (unlike love) ESP isn't a known phenomenon for which we're demonstrating a particular case; ESP itself has never been demonstrated at all, so the first step is to show that it exists, and then we can get around to discussing this or that particular case.

[RushIsRot]

14. James Randi has had a million dollar challenge up that has yet

to be successfully claimed. I suspect it never will, but that's just me.

http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/

[Naturyl]

21. Randi's million sitting there for more than one day

Would be extremely compelling. If there is anything to esp and similar claims, somebody should have been a millionaire the first day. For the money to sit there for years on end without a single claimant passing even the preliminary tests pretty much speaks for itself.

And no, before anyone tries, claims that the test is rigged or that Randi cheats simply won't wash. Neither will excuses that nobody actually wants the money. And the last resort, the idea that the presence of skeptics or scientists destroys the effect, is totally outside the realm of rational discourse.

There's a million dollars waiting for anyone who can demonstrate even a single instance of "the paranormal" under scientific conditions. It's been sitting there a long time.

[HughMoran]

15. These people can tap into the space-time continuum?

Wow, impressive! :rofl:

[Naturyl]

16. Interesting

I've always been very skeptical, so this is no surprise to me.

Believers will find ways around it, though. That's what believers do.

[greyl]

20. Wow, what an important development! nt

[Naturyl]

22. Actually, I think these studies do have some importance

I'm assuming your post was sarcastic, but do you have any idea how many people are flim-flammed by these sort of claims? It's a billion-dollar industry, and people get suckered out of a lot of money.

Just this morning, I read something here at DU about Steve Irwin's wife trying to contact him on "the other side" through a medium, and people were paying $90 bucks a pop to see it. The money aside, think about how that sort of circus reflects on the memory and legacy of a great man.

[greyl]

24. I'm not concerned with the legacy of 1 celebrity human out of nearly 7 billion. nt

[Naturyl]

25. I'm not saying you should be.

But are you concerened with millions of humans being scammed out of money and led to believe weird things for which there is no evidence?

In case you haven't looked at what religion has been up to lately, that sort of thing has been causing some problems.

[greyl]

26. Yes, friend, I'm concerned with naive humans being scammed by dishonest ones.

"In case you haven't looked at what religion has been up to lately, that sort of thing has been causing some problems"

Right there with you. :)

[Occulus]

28. Don't equate these sorts of things with religion

I think perhaps the thing we call 'ESP' might be nothing more nor less than the brains of some people (hell, maybe all of us) being able to stitch together an aggregate picture, if you will, of very small bits of information into a flashing leap of intuition- say, for example, the 'sense' that someone is watching you when someone is actually watching you. Maybe it's someone who just entered the room completely silently behind you. You're not 'hearing their thoughts', but you are sensing their presence as a 'sixth' sense which represents the sum of several other senses combined with very rapid subconscious analysis.

In other words, a 'sixth' sense may well be real, but only as a sum of several of the usual five. Or not- our brain is a pretty mysterious organ, one we definitely don't know everything about.

[TZ]

30. Actually its a lot like religion

There is no solid evidence that either God or ESP exists. The proofs being anaecdoctal evidence of events that somehow skeptics never witness. Both seem to be matters of belief and faith and judging by as someone upthread said, the kneejerk dismissal out of hand of this, the reactions to their beliefs being challanged is just about the same..See the "poor scientist" remark. Which is VERY reminiscent of the remarks I find fundies give to scientists who say evolution is a fact of life. Yes, poor ignorant scientists..challenging dogma gets emotional,irrational responses.

[Naturyl]

33. Yes. The psychological phenomena of faith.

That is where the comparison to religion comes in, and that is where are the danger is.

Faith is highly valued and celebrated in our society, because it makes people's lives seem meaningful and worthwhile in ways nothing else can. But there is a cost for that feeling - a big one. Faith is irrational and dangerous. It flies planes into buildings. It conducts Inquisitions, Crusades, and burnings. People of faith will defend beliefs that make their lives seem meaningful and worthwhile very fiercely - sometimes even to the death.

And that's why I choose to remain miserable a good bit of the time, even though I know that there are any number of faith-based beliefs that might make me feel much better about things. The cost and the danger is just too high.

[LanternWaste]

80. Faith is merely trust in that of which we do not have full knowledge

"Faith is irrational and dangerous"

Faith is merely trust in that of which we do not have full knowledge-- something I'm sure we all practice every day. We have faith the guy in front of us won't slam on his brakes on the highway. We have faith that no one put gasoline in our gas tanks while we're in our offices. Heck, we have faith the chair we're about to sit on won't collapse.

[cgrindley]

32. That's because it doesn't damn well exist

When are people going to throw off the shackles of idiotic belief? A belief in ESP is just as stupid as a belief in an unseen deity or belief in unicorns or goblins or any number of other foolish and childish things people can believe in. We need to end the reign of superstition once and for all.

[Naturyl]

34. It isn't that simple

See my post above. People are always looking for things that make their lives seem worthwhile and meaningful. Religion and other faith-based superstitions do exactly that, and they do it very effectively.

There are all sorts of powerful psychological benefits to be gained from faith, and very few dangers for the individial. The danger is usually to someone else - specifically anyone who threatens or undermines the faith-based beliefs.

In other words, it is often in a person's self-interest to cling to faith-based beliefs. It is other people who usually have to pay the price - like the 3,000 victims on 9/11.

[LanternWaste]

82. But not as effective as movies, game consoles and popular music

"Religion and other faith-based superstitions do exactly that, and they do it very effectively. "

But not as effective as movies, game consoles and popular music. Gaming Consoles-- the new and improved opiate of the masses...

[mwb970]

44. But isn't your non-belief equally unreasonable?

You offer no proof that no form of ESP exists, you just assume this as a given. Then you criticize others who assume its existence as a given. Since we don't actually know, how can either view be valid?

[Naturyl]

59. The burden of proof is on those making the postive assertion.

No one can prove that esp does NOT exist. Proving a negative is logically fallacious. Those who claim that a certain phenomena (such as god, esp, or the bogeyman) exist have the burden of providing evidence to support their claim.

Skeptics are not required to disprove every claim believers make. For example, I can't prove that there is NOT an invisible, non-material dragon in my refrigerator. But since there is no evidence that such a creature exists, there is no reason for me to believe in it.

[mwb970]

69. But what about people who claim it *might* exist and bears investigating?

You seem to scorn these people as well, essentially saying they are wasting their time experimenting with it because it is "obviously" all superstitious nonsense. That sounds like pre-judgment to me. That's all I'm saying.

[Naturyl]

74. Then you're wrong about that.

It's perfectly okay to suggest that it should be studied. And it HAS been studied many times. The trouble is, every study concludes that there is no evidence for it. Believers don'tlike that, so they keep demanding new studies and claiming that skeptics are biased.

[TZ]

85. no its called the null hypothesis

And thats what a lot of science is based on...You start from a certain assumption and try to prove/disprove it.
In this case the null hypothesis would be that ESP is not a genuine biological trait and they are trying to disprove that theory.
Alternatively you can start with the assumption that ESP is genuine and try to disprove it.

[RebelOne]

48. I'm an atheist and believe in ESP because

I have had many ESP experiences.

[New Earth]

51. good

:)
me too. (the experiences part, not the atheist part)

[Naturyl]

63. How do you know they were "esp experiences?"

You may be committing a logical fallacy known as "begging the question." It's like saying "I know the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true." in addition, if you presuppose the existence of "esp experiences," you can retrofit the data to match the preconceieved notion.

[LanternWaste]

84. Or belief in the goodness of man?

Or belief in the goodness of man? One of the most idiotic, yet enduring beliefs of all...

[Perry Logan]

36. There's actually a fairly poor correlation between brain activity and mind activity.

People have reported dreams during comas, for example, which shouldn't happen if the brain causes dreams.

[TZ]

37. Umm not quite

Coma does not equal brain death! And thanks to the study of cat scans MRI's and studies of stroke victims, scientists have gotten a pretty clear picture of what parts of the brain control what functions (speech, function, movement)
Also by studying patterns of depressives they have been able to see how chemical imbalances in certain parts of the brain can lead to depressive patterns of thought. I think maybe the biggest flaw in this study is since no one has ever had a scientifically proven psychic study, you wouldn't know exactly what part of the brain MIGHT show activity, nor what stimulus might be a "true psychic stimulus". However, by looking at the entire neurograph you can get a decent idea of what is going on to with the entire brain. So as far as what data they have to look at, its a fair start. Although obviously more study would be helpful

[Perry Logan]

39. Very interesting. Thanks for the information.

[Naturyl]

40. Wtach out, you might say too much

I find that people often don't want to know too much about neuroscience. Part of the reason might be that after studying the brain, very few credible neuroscientists believe in things like esp, the soul, or free will. Ouch!

A lot of sacred cows get slaughtered when you really look at how the human brain functions.

[Perry Logan]

41. Nevertheless, I have read that people report mental activity during comas, which shouldn't happen.

[Naturyl]

52. Why shouldn't it happen? (n/t)

[electron_blue]

65. Interesting. What I've read about free will from neuroscientists and physicists

(in New Scientist) raises really interesting points.

[Naturyl]

72. Have you read a lot of material supporting it?

I haven't. Sure, there are always going to be some supporters, but the overall consensus (especially among neuroscientists) is that it ain't there.

And it's important to remember that even scientists can be prone to wishful thinking and interpreting data to fit their pet beliefs. I think a lot of the free will support that does exist is related to that. Scientists are human beings with typical psychological motivations.

[electron_blue]

78. What I've read lately says there ain't any free will. Or, rather, not as much of it as

we'd like to think there is.

[DRoseDARs]

45. I know this "end all" notion to be crap, but soldier on with your research grants...

I've experienced it, I've no way of proving or explaining it, and I don't care to convince others of that which I can neither prove nor explain. I only know that I've experienced it and hope one day some scientist somewhere in a legitimate peer-reviewed science journal can. It's not critical that I see it proved or explained in my lifetime, and it certainly has never been of any useful purpose in my life thus far, but it would be nice to find out why.

[Naturyl]

53. Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't "know" that.

You may *believe* it with total certainty, but that's a very different thing. You are entitled to your beliefs, but if you can neither prove it or explain it, then to label it "knowledge" implies a definition of "knowing" which is inconsistent with the concensus of almost all epistemologists.

Sorry to bust out the philosophical terms, but like someone said,"it ain't what you know, it's what you know that ain't so."

[DRoseDARs]

79. Actually, I'm pretty sure you are in no position to tell me what I have and have not experienced.

Condescend all you like, makes no difference to me.

[rucky]

46. Or it's just mislabled.

:shrug:

I say this as a skeptic, not a believer.

[Le Taz Hot]

50. Could we just settle this once and for all?

Skeptics don't believe in the paranormal.

Believers believe in the paranormal.

The End. :eyes:

[Naturyl]

54. Sure, but "the end" just isn't true.

Beliefs have consequences. Ideas lead to actions. Thoughts create things.

It matters a great deal what people believe or do not believe. Everything we do is based on it.

[Le Taz Hot]

57. Think

ontological argument. 5,000 years of splitting a gnat's ass. Am I getting through here?

[Naturyl]

61. Yes, but I still think there's a difference

Many philosophers now agree that metaphysical issues are meaningless and should simply be thrown out. To a large extent, I agree with them. But ESP is not a metaphysical matter. It is a claim about a phenomena which allegedly has effects in physical reality. That's a horse of another color. This isn't about debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's about determining whether or not it is rational to believe in claims for which there is no vaild evidence.

[librechik]

70. And scientists don't believe in belief (or it's rigid companion, non-belief)

It might take awhile to design an experiment for ESP. Good that they're thinking about it at least, as it were.

[SpiralHawk]

56. rational tools are inadquate to measure transrational phenomena

D'oh. Not that this basic fact will deter materialists...

[Naturyl]

60. That is a self-defeating argument.

If the the phenomena in question transcends rationality, then absolutely nothing can be said about it. To say that it is "trans-rational" is the equivalent of saying "MU" or something equally meaningless. It is a statement which signifies nothing because it denies relevance to the basis upon which meaningful statements can be made (that basis being rationality).

Trust me on this one. I've studied a lot of Zen. And "trans-rational" is exactly how Zen sees the nature of reality itself, which is why meaningless koans with no logical answer are used to point directly to pre-conceptual experience (such as the famous "one hand clapping"). Trans-rationality is a very important element in Eastern philosophical thought.

[SpiralHawk]

68. Mu is actually the name of the continent frequently spoken of as Lemuria

And its hardly meaningless...consequently, I am incapable of trusting you on this...I will instead trust my own knowing, rational, transrational, and otherwse...

[Naturyl]

75. Hehe... best answer ever.

:)

[ozone_man]

58. Good, now let's take a closer look at prayer.

And then for the final exam, dispel the existence of God. :)

[Naturyl]

62. Oh, that's far from the final exam.

Dropping god is child's play in comparison to the real deal-breaker: free will.

There no logical or scientific reason to believe that "free will" is anything but a superstitious fiction. But don't try putting that over without an asbestos helmet on. Even atheists will balk.

As for prayer, I like to say that nothing works like a prayer... exactly like it. :)

[LanternWaste]

83. I once asked why God never answered my prayers.

I once asked why God never answered my prayers. I was told He probably did more often than not, but sometimes the answer was no. Other times the answer was 'not right now'. Many times there was no answer.

Sorry. I'm not as clever as you are. :)

[librechik]

66. yup. And 100 years ago we didn't know about quarks

and the state of the art testing equipment at the time could never detect such things, therefore Evidence Against!

Thanks for the non-news, reporting scientists.

[PVnRT]

71. The idea of a quark is a result of particle physics research in the 1950's

It wasn't like there was a small group of people claiming that they existed before then. A scientific theory (quantum physics) was refined and quarks arose from it.

ESP, on the other hand, is simply claimed already to exist; it is not the result of any neuroscience theory. People just claim it's real, and refuse any evidence to the contrary.

[Naturyl]

77. More accurately, they refuse to provide any evidence for it

And when scientific studies find no evidence either, they reject the studies as flawed, biased, or meaningless.

[Emit]

76. My chidren think my ESP is real.

So I remain unconcerned. ;)