All Things Mystical - Real or Not?

by Sirona 131 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Sirona
    Sirona

    Excerpt:

    Electrodermal Presentiments of Future Emotions

    Dean I. Radin, Institute of Noetic Sciences, 101 San Antonion Rd., Petaluma, CA 94952

    In previously reported double-blind experiments, electrodermal activity (EDA) monitored during display of randomly selected photographs showed that EDA was higher before emotional photos than before calm photos (p=0.002). This differential effect, suggestive of precognition, was dubbed '' presentiment. '' Three new double-blind experiments were conducted in an attempt to replicate the original studies using the same basic design, but with new physiological monitoring hardware, software, stimulus photos, subject populations, and testing environments. The three replications involved 109 participants who together contributed 3,709 trials. The new studies again showed higher EDA before emotional photos than before calm photos (p = 0.001). All four experiments combined involved 133 participants and 4,569 trials; the associated weighted mean effect size (per trial) was e = 0.064 6 0.015, over 4 standard errors from a null effect. As a more general test, presentiment predicts a positive correlation between pre-stimulus EDA and independently assessed emotionality ratings of the photo targets. The observed correlation across all four experiments was significantly positive (p = 0.008). Consideration of alternative explanations, including expectation, sensory cues, hardware or software artifacts, inappropriate analyses, and anticipatory strategies, revealed no suitable candidates that could systematically generate the observed results. This series of four experiments, supported by successful replications conducted by other investigators, appears to demonstrate a small magnitude but statistically robust form of precognition in the human autonomic nervous system.

  • Sirona
    Sirona

    Regarding Honorton's Ganzfield experiment:

    Ganzfield Experiments

    Ganzfeld (“total field”) is the most popular extrasensory perception (ESP) experiment undertaken by parapsychologists. The experiment is carried out to study an individual’s ESP levels.

    During the tests the subjects are deprived of their senses by lying on a couch or mattress, wearing halves of ping-pong balls over their eyes while white noise plays in earphones. During this state of deprivation, a sender attempts to psychically send a randomly select target image which is usually a video clip. Later the subject is asked to choose a clip from a selection. By chance the average subject should guess the right target 25% of the time but Edinburgh’s Koestler Parapsychological Unit often achieves 33%.

    http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/node2.html

    Honorton and his research team proceeded to design a new ganzfeld system which met the criteria he and Hyman had specified in their communiqué. This system, and studies using it, are referred to as ``autoganzfeld studies'', as much of the procedure is under automated computer control in order to avoid the problems found in some of the earlier studies. Before Honorton's lab closed in 1989, 11 experimental series, representing 355 sessions, conducted by eight experimenters, had been collected using the autoganzfeld. Honorton et al. [15] published a summary of the autoganzfeld studies and compared them with his earlier meta-analysis. The autoganzfeld sessions yielded overall significant results ( z = 3.89, p = 0.00005), with an obtained hit rate of 34.4 percent (with 25 percent being chance expectancy). The effect sizes by series and by experimenter were both homogeneous. Comparing the autoganzfeld outcomes to those of the 28 studies of the earlier meta-analysis revealed very similar outcomes, with the autoganzfeld showing slightly better ESP scoring than that obtained in the earlier studies (autoganzfeld results by series: effect size or es = .29, earlier 28 meta-analysis studies by experiment: es = .28).

    Hyman, in 1991 [20] commenting upon a presentation of these results by the statistician, Utts [12], concluded that ``Honorton's experiments have produced intriguing results. If, as Utts suggests, independent laboratories can produce similar results with the same relationships and with the same attention to rigorous methodology, then parapsychology may indeed have finally captured its elusive quarry.'' (p. 392). Replications are currently being undertaken at various labs; the only replication using a full autoganzfeld environment which has been reported to date was conducted at the University of Edinburgh [21], where the obtained significant, overall hit rate was 33 percent ( alt). This outcome is consistent with Honorton's autoganzfeld scoring rate of 34.4 percent, and replicates Rosenthal's hit rate estimate based on the earlier ganzfeld studies. The procedure for the Edinburgh study incorporated additional safeguards against subject and experimenter fraud.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    MS, Thanks for your reply.

    The title and opening post (quoting from a book on Qabbalah symbolism!) misled me into thinking that this thread was to be about "mysticism" as I understand that word (and later postings by journey-on, Satanus, james woods, etc. suggest that I was not alone in that understanding).

    Since Sirona did not answer my question I'll take it that her "mysticism" is, or at least includes, parapsychology. It's probably useless to discuss who is right and who is wrong, as we're dealing in the different uses of the same word in different circles.

    On what appears to be the topic, I have little to say (as I'm not particularly familiar with it nor interested in it). Skimming through the "telepathy" experiences, though, made me think of the following, which may or may not be related.

    There's a schoolyard game going on here (originally from the Middle East, I think) which is built on three items: sheet, stone, scissors: the sheet covers the stone, the stone breaks the scissors, the scissors cut the sheet. Every item is stronger than another and weaker than another. Both players have to "show" what they have chosen simultaneously. So apparently it is pure random. But play it and you will soon realise that, when you're concentrated, you win, when you're not, you lose. Why? Because there is a "natural" strategy which consists in picking the item that has just "won," or that which would "win" over it, and a less natural one which consists in picking the item that has just "lost" (but may win next time depending on the other player's strategy). So choosing the right strategy and changing it at the right time is the key. And when you're concentrated the results are always higher than what would be expected from random.

    Of course most children do not analyse the trick that way, but they play it very well. And good players will "show" the same items many times in a row, as the real difficulty lies in differentiating the rhythm of strategy shifts.

    My personal conclusion, fwiw: as soon as there is a mind, or several, involved, there is no such thing as random. And, imho, this has little to do with telepathic communication (let alone with quantum physics).

  • Terry
    Terry

    Tests such as the ones cited here don't prove things.

    Interpretations create things which are said to prove things.

    Seeing that difference is rather important.

    What I haven't seen yet---I haven't seen yet.

    Anticipation of what I am about to see is not the same as the actual act of seeing.

    Realizing the anticipation as an emotionally charged event APART FROM the seeing itself seems rather obvious.

    To be an interpreter of these data sets is not unlike being a shaman casting animal knuckle-bones on the ground and reading future events in them.

    Tsk tsk tsk.

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch

    Narkissos

    I've experienced that very exact result with rock, scissors, paper! Its a great example actually of how the mind tries to anticipate in order to keep ahead. From an evolutionary perspective its a huge beneficial trait. Nothing paranormal about it, but I'm awed at how good this ordered collection of cells has gotten at making predictions.

    Maybe an awe thats sort of like what a mystic has when they experience a different perception of things. They often feel it as going beyond themselves, losing themselves and connecting to a greater reality, but I wonder if neurologically all they're experiencing is a kind of meta-awareness of all the processing of inputs that happens in the pre-cerebellum portions of the brain. Immersion inward to the brain constructs that in reality are a level closer to reality, So in a sense they are more directly connected to everything else. And if that makes them more conscientious of others and the environment then thats great. Instead of EMP weapons for machines, maybe the Americans should work on a weapon that triggers those kinds of experiences.

    Terry

    Realizing the anticipation as an emotionally charged event APART FROM the seeing itself seems rather obvious.

    Sure, but I believe the experiment tried to take that into account when looking at the results.

    To be an interpreter of these data sets is not unlike being a shaman casting animal knuckle-bones on the ground and reading future events in them

    I can appreciate how that applies if one were to read way too much into this particular experiment or others like it and shape it to express what one hopes see. Thats why I said earlier that with such weak effects one can't over extrapolate. I'm not advocating this experiment as proof of something along the lines of a "spidey sense". Although it would be damn useful.

    I'd say that we're all making interpretations of everything we see. The perception of sight is very much a construct of sensory inputs collected and processed by different structures of the CNS. Thats kind of like an interpretation of the data, to me at least. Just that most of it is done at the preconscious level.

    Why I'm curious about the repeatability of the difference in EPA levels is that it may give us some other angles to pursue in studying what may be behind "intuition". You're likely more well read than me on prosaic explanations for "intuition".(i.e. brain uses non verbal cues, previous experiences, etc on a subconscious level then spits out a "hunch"). Side studies could give us a bit more insight into how our brains work.

  • Sirona
    Sirona
    Since Sirona did not answer my question I'll take it that her "mysticism" is, or at least includes, parapsychology. It's probably useless to discuss who is right and who is wrong, as we're dealing in the different uses of the same word in different circles.

    Narkissos, Im sorry, I didn't realise you asked me a question.

    In the original post I was referring to mysticism (a transcendence of consciousness) but comments on the thread started to discuss anything considered paranormal. I used the experimental details to highlight that people who consider ESP to be fact are not all idiots and that there are experiments which produce significant results.

    Your rock, paper, scissors analogy is inaccurate in this context because "guessing right" and chance were eliminated by scientific controls.

    Sirona

  • Sirona
    Sirona

    Terry

    Anticipation of what I am about to see is not the same as the actual act of seeing.
    Realizing the anticipation as an emotionally charged event APART FROM the seeing itself seems rather obvious.

    Did you actually read the details of the experiment? The experiment didn't prove just anticipation of a picture. It wasn't an experiment which said that participants knew the picture was going to appear.

    Rather, the experiment showed a difference in the type of picture which was going to appear. The physiological changes occured when the picture about to be shown was going to be in the category of "emotional". Consistently and with a significant scientific result, participants knew which pictures were going to be emotional ones before they appeared. Consistently they did not react to "non emotional" pictures.

    To be an interpreter of these data sets is not unlike being a shaman casting animal knuckle-bones on the ground and reading future events in them.

    Tsk tsk tsk.

    Tsk tsk tsk indeed. An experiment conducted using established controls and numerous trials is not like shamanistic bone throwing.

    Good try.

    Sirona

  • Rapunzel
    Rapunzel

    Hi Narkissos - It seems that the game to which you refer may have had its origins in the Far East, not the Levant.

    http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/35748

    http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/35748

  • Rapunzel
    Rapunzel

    Hi Sirona - In your very first post, you quote Gareth Knight on the impossibility of communicating a "mystical" experience in words. As Joseph Campbell mentions in Myths To LiveBy, the same could be said of any experience whatsoever - "In fact, as I think everyone must surely have discovered in his lifetime, it is actually impossible to communicate through speech any experience whatsoever, unless to someone who has himself enjoyed an equivalent experience of his own...Moreover, thoughts and definitions may annul one's own experiences even before they have been taken in..."

  • Sunnygal41
    Sunnygal41

    i believe that ":mystical experiences" happen to us, whether or not we believe in them........and, when we are ready to explore past our own preconceptions, we will awaken..........

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit