Log in

View Full Version : New study may show evidence of precognition



Zostrianos
11th November 2012, 06:18
Some interesting new research published in the Frontiers of Perception journal

http://www.livescience.com/24479-bodies-predict-the-future.html
People's bodies know a big event is coming just before it happens, at least according to a new study.
If true, the research, published Oct. 17 in the journal Frontiers of Perception, suggests something fundamental about the laws of nature has yet to be discovered.
"The claim is that events can be predicted without any cues," said Julia Mossbridge, a Northwestern University neuroscientist who co-authored the study. "This evidence suggests the effect is real but small. So the question is: How does it work?"

Other scientists are skeptical of this interpretation, however. They suggest some bias in which studies get published could play a role in seeing an effect where there is none.
Real effect?
Many studies have shown that physical responses including heart rate, pupil dilation and brain activity change between one and 10 seconds before people see a scary image (like a slithering snake (http://www.livescience.com/4183-fear-snakes-drove-pre-human-evolution.html)). In most of these experiments, frightening pictures were randomly interspersed with more-neutral ones, so that in theory participants didn't have any clues about which photo would pop up next. But because the finding seemed so unnatural, those studies were understandably met with skepticism.
To see whether the effect was real, Mossbridge and her team analyzed over two dozen of these studies. As part of the analysis, they threw out any experiments in which they saw bias or flaws.
They still found a "presentiment" effect, in which measures of physiological excitement changed seconds before an event. The finding suggests that people's bodies subconsciously sense the future when something important is about to happen, even if the people don't know it.
For instance, if you were a day-trader betting lots of money on one stock, "10 seconds beforehand you might predict your stock tanking," Mossbridge told LiveScience.
The paper doesn't claim that people are psychic or have supernatural or paranormal powers (http://www.livescience.com/9547-loneliness-breeds-belief-supernatural.html). Instead, the authors believe presentiment is a real, physical effect that obeys natural laws — just ones that nobody understands, Mossbridge said. [Infographic: Belief in the Paranormal (http://www.livescience.com/16748-americans-beliefs-paranormal-infographic.html)]
Researchers skeptical
But others doubt presentiment exists at all.
While the statistical methods used in the study are sound, that doesn't mean presentiment is real, said Rufin VanRullen, a cognitive scientist at the Center for Research on the Brain and Cognition, in an email.
"All it means is that there is a statistical trend for scientists who search for these so-called presentiment effects to actually find them," wrote VanRullen, who was not involved in the study.
Instead, it's more likely that the experiments are biased (http://www.livescience.com/8365-dark-side-medical-research-widespread-bias-omissions.html), perhaps unintentionally, in a way the study authors missed, Kyle Elliott Mathewson, a researcher at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said via email.
It's also possible that scores of researchers looked for this result, failed to find it and forgot all about it, added Mathewson, who like VanRullen wasn't involved in the study. Those studies would never be published, he said, so the overall effect in the published studies would be biased.
According to the researchers, in order for such bias to explain their results, at least 87 other unpublished studies would need to show no effect.
"Between psychology labs and parapsychology investigations, I can imagine this many failed experiments that go unreported easily," Mathewson wrote.

This is the original paper detailing the results:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/full

Danielle Ni Dhighe
11th November 2012, 06:22
I'm skeptical, but further research is warranted.

Kenco Smooth
11th November 2012, 07:34
Almost definitely a case of publication bias. Every time something like this pops up any replications fail hard.

ÑóẊîöʼn
12th November 2012, 05:59
I'm pretty sure that displaying physical reactions before consciously perceiving them is evidence of subconscious reflexes, rather than precognition.


In most of these experiments, frightening pictures were randomly interspersed with more-neutral ones, so that in theory participants didn't have any clues about which photo would pop up next.

This seems poorly-designed. Surely if a subject has already seen at least one frightening picture in the course of a test, then any subsequent "pre-reactions" can be put down to anticipation?

Also, changes in "heart rate, pupil dilation and brain activity" can be down to perception of images which are not frightening, but which produce other reactions in a subject. A picture which a subject finds interesting for reasons other than fear would, I imagine, cause measurable changes in pupil dilation and brain activity. If the image is reminiscent of emotionally-charged experiences in the subject's life then that would likely produce changes in heart-rate as well.

Kenco Smooth
12th November 2012, 09:28
This seems poorly-designed. Surely if a subject has already seen at least one frightening picture in the course of a test, then any subsequent "pre-reactions" can be put down to anticipation?

Also, changes in "heart rate, pupil dilation and brain activity" can be down to perception of images which are not frightening, but which produce other reactions in a subject. A picture which a subject finds interesting for reasons other than fear would, I imagine, cause measurable changes in pupil dilation and brain activity. If the image is reminiscent of emotionally-charged experiences in the subject's life then that would likely produce changes in heart-rate as well.

But all these reactions would be random and not systematic across participants, likewise for anticipation. I'd wager that the design is fine (god knows enough of these have been run to get it right by now...) but them just lucking in on the pattern of random outcomes.

ÑóẊîöʼn
12th November 2012, 09:41
But all these reactions would be random and not systematic across participants, likewise for anticipation.

How would anticipation be random? Surely it would be present after the first image but not before? That's not a random set of circumstances.


I'd wager that the design is fine (god knows enough of these have been run to get it right by now...) but them just lucking in on the pattern of random outcomes.

I'm also skeptical because the "precognition" explanation posits that the human body violates causality without suggesting anything like a remotely plausible physical mechanism for how the human body would actually be able to do that.

Also, if there really was a mechanism for seeing into the future that biological organisms could evolve to exploit, then why do we not observe creatures that use their precognitive abilities to avoid predators? In fact precognition would be a universally useful trait for organisms to have.

Kenco Smooth
12th November 2012, 10:44
How would anticipation be random? Surely it would be present after the first image but not before? That's not a random set of circumstances.

Well not random with respect to the first/after first true. But after that it'd be (presumably) a random effect which would cover up any systematic differences after the first image.



I'm also skeptical because the "precognition" explanation posits that the human body violates causality without suggesting anything like a remotely plausible physical mechanism for how the human body would actually be able to do that.

Also, if there really was a mechanism for seeing into the future that biological organisms could evolve to exploit, then why do we not observe creatures that use their precognitive abilities to avoid predators? In fact precognition would be a universally useful trait for organisms to have.

I actually fall on the sides of the parapsychologists here. If there is really good data suggesting pre-cognition then regardless of the availability of plausible mechanisms it warrants investigation. Plenty of initial investigations have lacked convincing mechanisms (Darwinian evolution comes to mind). As far as not observing it in animals It's fully possible that if it were a subtle effect we would miss it. Hereditary epigenetics for example remained hidden for decades because of it's relative rarity and difficulty to identify.

All that said I'm not convinced by this data at all. But I'm willing to accept the possibility of such data being found.