Some stuff I’ve noticed on the Web lately …
Harvard scientists use neuroimaging to debunk ESP.
To study whether or not ESP exists, Moulton and Kosslyn presented participants with two types of visual stimuli: ESP stimuli and non-ESP stimuli. These two types of stimuli were identical with one exception: ESP stimuli were not only presented visually, but also were presented telepathically, clairvoyantly, and precognitively to participants.
To present stimuli telepathically, the researchers showed the photographs to the participants’ identical twin, relative, romantic partner, or friend, who was seated in another room. To present stimuli clairvoyantly, the researchers displayed the photographs on a distant computer screen. And to present stimuli precognitively, the researchers showed participants the photographs again in the future….
"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.”
I’m not sure I follow this. If the brain reacts identically to direct visual stimuli and to "ESP stimuli," wouldn’t this indicate that ESP is real? Or are they saying test subjects were shown a picture at the same time that someone in another room was looking at that same picture? If so, why would the subject be using ESP to access information that’s right in front of him?
It’s unclear. It’s also unclear whether any actual ESP results were obtained or even tested for. If the subjects were asked to concentrate on an image in another room, did they correctly describe that image, or not? In other words, did they score a hit or a miss? If they scored nothing but misses, then no ESP was operating in the first place.
I don’t get it. But let’s move on to something more entertaining …
Bambi Vs. Godzilla! I hadn’t see this classic in years. The blog Hot Air reminded me of its existence today. How long until Michael Bay remakes it as a $250 million CGI epic?
On a more serious note….
Jay Cost is always worth reading for a horse-race analysis of the political scene. Today he sums up Iowa.
And …
I don’t normally follow the travails of Ms. Britney Spears. My sole acquaintance with her work is those Pepsi ads she did a few years ago, which left me with the impression that she was a poor singer and a mediocre dancer. But it now appears that she has suffered some kind of major meltdown, perhaps even worse than that time she shaved herself bald. When they have you under medical observation for 72 hours, it can’t be good.