Research suggests we react to events up to 10 Seconds BEFORE they happen

[Perspicuo]

Research Suggests We Unconsciously React to Events Up to 10 Seconds Before They Happen
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/03...nsciously-react-events-10-seconds-happen.html

Can your brain detect events before they even occur? That was the stunning conclusion of a 2012 meta-analysis of experiments from seven independent laboratories over the last 35 years, which found that the human body “can apparently detect randomly delivered stimuli occurring 1-10 seconds in the future” (Mossbridge, Tressoldi, & Utts, 2012). In the studies, physiological readings were taken as participants were subjected to unpredictable events designed to activate the sympathetic nervous system (for example, showing provocative imagery) as well as ‘neutral events’ that did not activate the nervous system. These readings showed that the nervous system aligned with the nature of the event (activated/not activated) – and what’s more, the magnitude of the pre-event response corresponded with the magnitude of the post-event response.

 

[NobleSavage]

I totally saw this thread coming 10 seconds before you posted it.

 

[landisragon]

Wow, shades of "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline"!!!!

 

[skepticalbip]

I totally saw this thread coming 10 seconds before you posted it.

Of course you did. The authors even predicted that you would 10 seconds before you did... so 20 seconds before the post was made.

Just can't argue with arguments like this:

 

[Keith&Co.]

Research Suggests We Unconsciously React to Events Up to 10 Seconds Before They Happen

Up TO 10 seconds?
If this was about the ability to perceive through time, wouldn't it be a flat 10 seconds?
My Spidey Sense suggests that it's probably a subconscious processing of clues that don't quite make it to our conscious awareness.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just can't argue with arguments like this:

View attachment 706

I can see how a stick in the water creates a bow wave of water because of displacement.
I can't tell if this picture is saying that i KNOW 'Happy' is about to play on the radio because the DJ's playlist pgramming displaces time or because it displaces my consciousness... And i don't like it, no matter which.

I don't think someone with an FCC license is really qualified to displace time in this manner.
I really don't like to think that Mad Bull Of The Morning has the authority to displace my consciousness.
He should just go back to spinning records, or selecting song files, without messing with time or my head. I'm content to wait ten seconds for my song to come on.

 

[4321lynx]

Just can't argue with arguments like this:

View attachment 706

I can see how a stick in the water creates a bow wave of water because of displacement.
I can't tell if this picture is saying that i KNOW 'Happy' is about to play on the radio because the DJ's playlist pgramming displaces time or because it displaces my consciousness... And i don't like it, no matter which.

I don't think someone with an FCC license is really qualified to displace time in this manner.
I really don't like to think that Mad Bull Of The Morning has the authority to displace my consciousness.
He should just go back to spinning records, or selecting song files, without messing with time or my head. I'm content to wait ten seconds for my song to come on.

What they seem to be suggesting with their analogy is that your mind detects the "bow wave" even before the stick is placed in the water.

What is the correlation between their "response" and the intent of the presenter to display whatever stimulus was used? Or was the stimulus produced randomly by a computer at random time intervals?

What was the "response" if no stimulus was applied for prolonged time-intervals?

Does the paper presented answer my questions? (ie does anybody think it is worth reading? Anyone read it?

 

[Mageth]

A detailed critique of Mossbridge et al.'s meta-analysis:

http://sampendu.wordpress.com/presentimentclarifications/

My favorite bit...emphasis added:

3. The quality of the primary data

A significant result in a meta-analysis is completely meaningless if the data it analyses is of poor quality. In my commentary, I mentioned one of the studies included by Mossbridge and colleagues, a functional MRI experiment claiming to show presentiment effects. As I described, this study commits several major errors that received a lot of attention by the fMRI community in recent years: multiple comparison correction and circular inference (double dipping). Inadequate adjustment for false positives can have dramatic consequences in neuroimaging because it typically performs statistical tests separately for tens of thousands of voxels. One ironic study demonstrated this problem by showing that lax multiple comparison correction reveals significant responses to a cognitive task in a dead fish (I feel a bit uncomfortable mentioning this study in the context of a discussion about psi effects…).

The poster...

******************


GIGO


Edited to add: for completeness:

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00332/full

 

[skepticalbip]

I can see how a stick in the water creates a bow wave of water because of displacement.
I can't tell if this picture is saying that i KNOW 'Happy' is about to play on the radio because the DJ's playlist pgramming displaces time or because it displaces my consciousness... And i don't like it, no matter which.

I don't think someone with an FCC license is really qualified to displace time in this manner.
I really don't like to think that Mad Bull Of The Morning has the authority to displace my consciousness.
He should just go back to spinning records, or selecting song files, without messing with time or my head. I'm content to wait ten seconds for my song to come on.

What they seem to be suggesting with their analogy is that your mind detects the "bow wave" even before the stick is placed in the water.

What is the correlation between their "response" and the intent of the presenter to display whatever stimulus was used? Or was the stimulus produced randomly by a computer at random time intervals?

What was the "response" if no stimulus was applied for prolonged time-intervals?

Does the paper presented answer my questions? (ie does anybody think it is worth reading? Anyone read it?

I didn't so much read the article but did scan it. That is where I got that rather absurd image of their analogy of a stick in a stream. It was an image from the article. I didn't think that the paper itself was worth the time to look it up.

The "analysis" of the authors sounds too much like they are following in the footsteps of Dean Radin's work of writing almost anything that can be sold to the gullable new agers for a nice profit.

 

[Perspicuo]

View attachment 706

I like how the artist depicted the dildo's handle projecting from between the hairless labia. And how he considers this is an important event for her. You don't see such consideration from males these days.

 

[Emily Lake]

Have you ever actually seen a dildo?

 

[Perspicuo]

Apparently, I haven't. LOL