Posted: Apr 17, 2013 3:09 am
Shrunk wrote:jerome wrote:Sets up the target pool and collates the results.
Here's the thing that I don't get: There are five people involved in this experiment, all interacting in complex ways, as human interactions tend to be. And the hypothesis being tested is that information can be transmitted directly from the mind of the sender to that of the receiver. The claim that this hypothesis has been confirmed is based on the observation that the information seems to have arrived in the mind of the receiver, even though there has been no physical interaction of any sort between him and the sender.
However, there have been physical interactions involving both of them and the three investigators. So the confirmation of the hypothesis is based on there being no possibility of the information having been conveyed thru any of these interactions. And, even if on paper there should not be any direct train of communication between all five individuals (I haven't been able to find a specific enough description of the procedure to determine whether that is the case), in practice I doubt it is possible to ensure that this protocol could have followed with such fidelity that it could not have produced a result of such a small magnitude as has been found in these studies.
IOW, those who say the Ganzfeld provides definitive evidence of psi are saying in effect: "There is no possible way that the information could have 'leaked' thru the investigators to the receiver, not even thru inadvertent unconscious cues. Therefore, the information must have been directly transmitted thru some as yet unknown process." However, it is equally plausible to say "There is no way information can be transmitted between two people who have absolutely no contact with each other. Therefore, the information must have been leaked by the investigators thru mechanisms that cannnot be identified at the time, but which nonetheless are the result of commonplace, direct, interpersonal interactions."Hey, just found this unrelated to psi but interesting in some ways -- http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co. ... ntire.html
Interesting, for sure. And quite relevant to psi, I would say.
If I'm summarizing correctly, you're saying, "There's a problem with their blinds, because the researchers already know the answer to "which one of the four pictures/video clips is the correct answer, and are probably either overtly, or subconsciously through micro-expressions, pushing the "receiver" towards the correct answer."
This is basically saying that there was no blind at all. Although I've read about one of the earlier experiments being blatantly falsified by one of the lead researchers (who would have known the answers using that protocol) entering the room of the "receiver" and interacting with them in some way, which is ruining the blind, and therefore the experiment. However, it's standard that those who administer the choices have no knowledge of which one is correct, to prevent this sort of thing.
This is also made impossible with the later "autoganzfeld" experiments... where both the target choice, and the three other "incorrect" choices, are randomly chosen by a computer program. In this case, none of the researchers themselves even know which choice is the correct one (or even what the choices are), removing that problem.