Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
On 24.10.2012 20:31 meekerdb said the following: On 10/24/2012 5:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? Woo-woo. Small effect sizes which are *statistically* significant are indicative of bias errors. I'd wager a proper Bayesian analysis of the original data will show they *support* the null hypothesis (c.f. Testing Precise Hypotheses Berger Delampady, Stat Sci 1987 v2 no. 3 317-352 and Odds Are It's Wrong Tom Siegfried, Science News 27 Mar 2010). Meta-analyses are notoriously unreliable and should only be considered suggestive at a best. It is a general situations with a statistical treatment. When people like results based on mathematical statistics, as for example correlations in a neurosience, they say that this is a good science. And when people do not like statistical results, they can always say woo-woo. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
On 25 Oct 2012, at 17:55, Alberto G. Corona wrote: But I don not mean such kind of anticipation. such anticipation by gathering information and computation is a fundamental activity of living beings. OK. I refer to adivination. I suppose that a definition of adivination is the anticipation of something for which we have no conscious or unconscious inference possible. To anticipate that a policeman knoking on the door will tell us bad news is not adivination, for example. OK. I am not sure the paper under discussion spoke of adivination, even if the title and some paragraph are not completely clear on this (to attract reader perhaps). Bruno 2012/10/25 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 24 Oct 2012, at 19:31, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I dont believe that such genuine anticipation is possible, for a simple reason: If for quantum or relativistic means the mind or the brain could genuinely anticipate anything, this would be such a huge advantage, that this hability would be inherited genetically by everyone of us, every human plant, animal with the most accurate precission. because it would be so critical. The fact is the we have no such hability. the most we can do is to simulate it with the available data, gatering as much as possible information from the behaviour, faces etc of other human beings and we process it unconsciously. Most of the time even we are not conscious of how much information we gather. I think we anticipate all the time. At every second. When we drive a car, we anticipate the movement and correct it accordingly. There are many picture of object lacking a crucial elements which when shown rapidly to subject makes the subject swearing having seen the lacking elements. When shown more slowly after, the subject is usually astonished to see they were lacking. A part of that anticipation is part of Hobson theory of dream, where the cerebral stem might sent to the cortex quasi random information, and the dreams is the result of the cortex anticipating sense from that crude information. A building of an hypothesis/theory and its momentary admission is also a form of anticipation. Everyone anticipate that tomorrow the sun will rise. If you decide to open your fridge you anticipate the vague shape of what you can see in your fridge. It is far more efficient than analyse the data like if they were new. I don't think there is anything controversial here. Helmholtz theory is usually accepted as a base in pattern recognition, and basic perception. It is rather well tested. More provocative perhaps: I personally would not been so much astonished that evolution itself does make variate sort of anticipation. I would not find this utterly shocking, as genetic algorithm can isolate anticipative programs, like brains are. It would just means that some brain-like mechanism has already appear at the level of the genome, but on a scale which makes it hard to be detected for us. I am not sure at all about this, but I see nothing really magical if such thing was detected. Bruno 2012/10/24 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com 2012/10/24 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 24 Oct 2012, at 14:31, Stephen P. King wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? If verified it might confirms Helmholtz intuition that perception is unconscious anticipation. It would be the Dt of the Bp Dt. It is natural with the finding that when we perceive objects a big deal of information does not come from the data but from the brains (memories, constructions, gap fillings, ...) I struggle with the psicho-slang to ascertain what they really said. From some comentaires: The title and intro leave out the fact that a likely cause -- cited by the highest-quality study -- is the experimental methods. I am curious if any of the experiments attempted to automate both stimulus presentation and data analysis to avoid experimenter effects. It may be a variation of the case of subtle perception of the experimenter intentions by the subjects under test. I remember the case of a Horse that apparently know how to multiply numbers. The horse stopped khocking on the floor when the experimenter moved in a certain way when the number of knocks reached the correct result. The experimenter did not realized that he was sending the signal enough to the horse. This may be a more sophisticated case of the same phenomenon. In this case the signal could be be prepared because we are going to do this or that. Neiter the experimeinte nor the subject of the experiment have to be conscious of that signal. There are a largue number of bad psychological experiments with these flaws. One of the last ones, the subject of these experiment was myself with my otolaryngologist who, to test my audition performance, advised me when I supposedly must hear a weak
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
On 24 Oct 2012, at 19:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2012/10/24 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 24 Oct 2012, at 14:31, Stephen P. King wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? If verified it might confirms Helmholtz intuition that perception is unconscious anticipation. It would be the Dt of the Bp Dt. It is natural with the finding that when we perceive objects a big deal of information does not come from the data but from the brains (memories, constructions, gap fillings, ...) I struggle with the psicho-slang to ascertain what they really said. From some comentaires: The title and intro leave out the fact that a likely cause -- cited by the highest-quality study -- is the experimental methods. I am curious if any of the experiments attempted to automate both stimulus presentation and data analysis to avoid experimenter effects. It may be a variation of the case of subtle perception of the experimenter intentions by the subjects under test. I remember the case of a Horse that apparently know how to multiply numbers. The horse stopped khocking on the floor when the experimenter moved in a certain way when the number of knocks reached the correct result. The experimenter did not realized that he was sending the signal enough to the horse. This may be a more sophisticated case of the same phenomenon. In this case the signal could be be prepared because we are going to do this or that. Neiter the experimeinte nor the subject of the experiment have to be conscious of that signal. There are a largue number of bad psychological experiments with these flaws. One of the last ones, the subject of these experiment was myself with my otolaryngologist who, to test my audition performance, advised me when I supposedly must hear a weak sound instead of shut up and wait. Just to be clear, neither Helmholtz, nor me, were saying that the brain anticipates by using some kind of magic, but just by using memories. There other experimental setup which confirms this view. Concerning the present experience, I am not convinced, as far as I understand it, that it shows any more than the usual confirmation that perception is, in great part, a form of anticipation. It is a very efficient strategy, as the sense got a lot of data, and it is normal to analyze them starting from the theories we already have (that is the neural circuits). That is why we can be hallucinated and deluded very easily, or why we can see picture and sense in random structure, etc. Otherwise I agree with your point. Bruno Some comment in your links above seems to confirm this analysis, but I have not really the time to dig deeper. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
On 24 Oct 2012, at 19:31, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I dont believe that such genuine anticipation is possible, for a simple reason: If for quantum or relativistic means the mind or the brain could genuinely anticipate anything, this would be such a huge advantage, that this hability would be inherited genetically by everyone of us, every human plant, animal with the most accurate precission. because it would be so critical. The fact is the we have no such hability. the most we can do is to simulate it with the available data, gatering as much as possible information from the behaviour, faces etc of other human beings and we process it unconsciously. Most of the time even we are not conscious of how much information we gather. I think we anticipate all the time. At every second. When we drive a car, we anticipate the movement and correct it accordingly. There are many picture of object lacking a crucial elements which when shown rapidly to subject makes the subject swearing having seen the lacking elements. When shown more slowly after, the subject is usually astonished to see they were lacking. A part of that anticipation is part of Hobson theory of dream, where the cerebral stem might sent to the cortex quasi random information, and the dreams is the result of the cortex anticipating sense from that crude information. A building of an hypothesis/theory and its momentary admission is also a form of anticipation. Everyone anticipate that tomorrow the sun will rise. If you decide to open your fridge you anticipate the vague shape of what you can see in your fridge. It is far more efficient than analyse the data like if they were new. I don't think there is anything controversial here. Helmholtz theory is usually accepted as a base in pattern recognition, and basic perception. It is rather well tested. More provocative perhaps: I personally would not been so much astonished that evolution itself does make variate sort of anticipation. I would not find this utterly shocking, as genetic algorithm can isolate anticipative programs, like brains are. It would just means that some brain-like mechanism has already appear at the level of the genome, but on a scale which makes it hard to be detected for us. I am not sure at all about this, but I see nothing really magical if such thing was detected. Bruno 2012/10/24 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com 2012/10/24 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 24 Oct 2012, at 14:31, Stephen P. King wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? If verified it might confirms Helmholtz intuition that perception is unconscious anticipation. It would be the Dt of the Bp Dt. It is natural with the finding that when we perceive objects a big deal of information does not come from the data but from the brains (memories, constructions, gap fillings, ...) I struggle with the psicho-slang to ascertain what they really said. From some comentaires: The title and intro leave out the fact that a likely cause -- cited by the highest-quality study -- is the experimental methods. I am curious if any of the experiments attempted to automate both stimulus presentation and data analysis to avoid experimenter effects. It may be a variation of the case of subtle perception of the experimenter intentions by the subjects under test. I remember the case of a Horse that apparently know how to multiply numbers. The horse stopped khocking on the floor when the experimenter moved in a certain way when the number of knocks reached the correct result. The experimenter did not realized that he was sending the signal enough to the horse. This may be a more sophisticated case of the same phenomenon. In this case the signal could be be prepared because we are going to do this or that. Neiter the experimeinte nor the subject of the experiment have to be conscious of that signal. There are a largue number of bad psychological experiments with these flaws. One of the last ones, the subject of these experiment was myself with my otolaryngologist who, to test my audition performance, advised me when I supposedly must hear a weak sound instead of shut up and wait. Some comment in your links above seems to confirm this analysis, but I have not really the time to dig deeper. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
But I don not mean such kind of anticipation. such anticipation by gathering information and computation is a fundamental activity of living beings. I refer to adivination. I suppose that a definition of adivination is the anticipation of something for which we have no conscious or unconscious inference possible. To anticipate that a policeman knoking on the door will tell us bad news is not adivination, for example. 2012/10/25 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 24 Oct 2012, at 19:31, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I dont believe that such genuine anticipation is possible, for a simple reason: If for quantum or relativistic means the mind or the brain could genuinely anticipate anything, this would be such a huge advantage, that this hability would be inherited genetically by everyone of us, every human plant, animal with the most accurate precission. because it would be so critical. The fact is the we have no such hability. the most we can do is to simulate it with the available data, gatering as much as possible information from the behaviour, faces etc of other human beings and we process it unconsciously. Most of the time even we are not conscious of how much information we gather. I think we anticipate all the time. At every second. When we drive a car, we anticipate the movement and correct it accordingly. There are many picture of object lacking a crucial elements which when shown rapidly to subject makes the subject swearing having seen the lacking elements. When shown more slowly after, the subject is usually astonished to see they were lacking. A part of that anticipation is part of Hobson theory of dream, where the cerebral stem might sent to the cortex quasi random information, and the dreams is the result of the cortex anticipating sense from that crude information. A building of an hypothesis/theory and its momentary admission is also a form of anticipation. Everyone anticipate that tomorrow the sun will rise. If you decide to open your fridge you anticipate the vague shape of what you can see in your fridge. It is far more efficient than analyse the data like if they were new. I don't think there is anything controversial here. Helmholtz theory is usually accepted as a base in pattern recognition, and basic perception. It is rather well tested. More provocative perhaps: I personally would not been so much astonished that evolution itself does make variate sort of anticipation. I would not find this utterly shocking, as genetic algorithm can isolate anticipative programs, like brains are. It would just means that some brain-like mechanism has already appear at the level of the genome, but on a scale which makes it hard to be detected for us. I am not sure at all about this, but I see nothing really magical if such thing was detected. Bruno 2012/10/24 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com 2012/10/24 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 24 Oct 2012, at 14:31, Stephen P. King wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? If verified it might confirms Helmholtz intuition that perception is unconscious anticipation. It would be the Dt of the Bp Dt. It is natural with the finding that when we perceive objects a big deal of information does not come from the data but from the brains (memories, constructions, gap fillings, ...) I struggle with the psicho-slang to ascertain what they really said. From some comentaires: The title and intro leave out the fact that a likely cause -- cited by the highest-quality study -- is the experimental methods. I am curious if any of the experiments attempted to automate both stimulus presentation and data analysis to avoid experimenter effects. It may be a variation of the case of subtle perception of the experimenter intentions by the subjects under test. I remember the case of a Horse that apparently know how to multiply numbers. The horse stopped khocking on the floor when the experimenter moved in a certain way when the number of knocks reached the correct result. The experimenter did not realized that he was sending the signal enough to the horse. This may be a more sophisticated case of the same phenomenon. In this case the signal could be be prepared because we are going to do this or that. Neiter the experimeinte nor the subject of the experiment have to be conscious of that signal. There are a largue number of bad psychological experiments with these flaws. One of the last ones, the subject of these experiment was myself with my otolaryngologist who, to test my audition performance, advised me when I supposedly must hear a weak sound instead of shut up and wait. Some comment in your links above seems to confirm this analysis, but I have not really the time to dig deeper. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
On 10/25/2012 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Oct 2012, at 19:31, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I dont believe that such genuine anticipation is possible, for a simple reason: If for quantum or relativistic means the mind or the brain could genuinely anticipate anything, this would be such a huge advantage, that this hability would be inherited genetically by everyone of us, every human plant, animal with the most accurate precission. because it would be so critical. The fact is the we have no such hability. the most we can do is to simulate it with the available data, gatering as much as possible information from the behaviour, faces etc of other human beings and we process it unconsciously. Most of the time even we are not conscious of how much information we gather. I think we anticipate all the time. At every second. When we drive a car, we anticipate the movement and correct it accordingly. There are many picture of object lacking a crucial elements which when shown rapidly to subject makes the subject swearing having seen the lacking elements. When shown more slowly after, the subject is usually astonished to see they were lacking. A part of that anticipation is part of Hobson theory of dream, where the cerebral stem might sent to the cortex quasi random information, and the dreams is the result of the cortex anticipating sense from that crude information. A building of an hypothesis/theory and its momentary admission is also a form of anticipation. Everyone anticipate that tomorrow the sun will rise. If you decide to open your fridge you anticipate the vague shape of what you can see in your fridge. It is far more efficient than analyse the data like if they were new. I don't think there is anything controversial here. Helmholtz theory is usually accepted as a base in pattern recognition, and basic perception. It is rather well tested. More provocative perhaps: I personally would not been so much astonished that evolution itself does make variate sort of anticipation. I would not find this utterly shocking, as genetic algorithm can isolate anticipative programs, like brains are. It would just means that some brain-like mechanism has already appear at the level of the genome, but on a scale which makes it hard to be detected for us. I am not sure at all about this, but I see nothing really magical if such thing was detected. Bruno Dear Bruno and Alberto, I agree some what with both of you. As to the idea of a genetic algorithm can isolate anticipative programs, I think that anticipation is the analogue of inertia for computations, as Mach saw inertia. It is a relation between any one and the class of computations that it belongs to such that any incomplete string has a completion in the collections of others like it. This is like an error correction or compression mechanism. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
On 10/25/2012 11:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: But I don not mean such kind of anticipation. such anticipation by gathering information and computation is a fundamental activity of living beings. I refer to adivination. I suppose that a definition of adivination is the anticipation of something for which we have no conscious or unconscious inference possible. To anticipate that a policeman knoking on the door will tell us bad news is not adivination, for example. Dear Alberto, It seems that you are not considering the situation where all entities have this ability, all living things can adivinate the behavior of each other and so the ability is, in general a wash - it cancels out because of the symmetry - except for the occasional statistical outlier that locally breaks the symmetry. This might explain how co-evolution of multiple co-habitating organism is so successful in spite of the fact that most mutations are harmful or fatal. Nature might be exploiting the global entanglement of physical systems to load the dice of chance just a tiny bit. The threshold of this effect is that multiple possible outcomes are always involved - it never occurs in isolated and binary cases, it is as if Nature requires a form of plausible deniability to maintain the appearance of classical level causality. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
At the risk of beating a dead horse, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics TIQM, a 4th possible interpetation of QM, requires waves coming back from the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation More recently he [Cramer] has also argued TIQM to be consistent with the Afshar experiment, while claiming that the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation are not.[3] [3] ^ A Farewell to Copenhagen?, by John Cramer. Analog, December 2005. Feynman used waves coming back from the future to solve his Quantum Electrodynamics QED, the most experimentally accurate physics theory extant, which in my mind lends TIQM credence. Such teteological effects are expanded on for living systems in Terrence Deacon's book Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. Is evidence of anticipatory effects possibly evidence for TIQM? I should add that my extension of ordinary superstring theory, and in particular the properties of the compactified dimensions, provides a mechanism for TIQM. The conjecture of my extension is that the compact particles or monads react instantly to the entire universe because of its exterior to interior mapping, as Brian Greene showed in a 2-D approximation. Richard On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
On 24 Oct 2012, at 14:31, Stephen P. King wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? If verified it might confirms Helmholtz intuition that perception is unconscious anticipation. It would be the Dt of the Bp Dt. It is natural with the finding that when we perceive objects a big deal of information does not come from the data but from the brains (memories, constructions, gap fillings, ...) Some comment in your links above seems to confirm this analysis, but I have not really the time to dig deeper. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
2012/10/24 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 24 Oct 2012, at 14:31, Stephen P. King wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/**Perception_Science/10.3389/** fpsyg.2012.00390/abstracthttp://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? If verified it might confirms Helmholtz intuition that perception is unconscious anticipation. It would be the Dt of the Bp Dt. It is natural with the finding that when we perceive objects a big deal of information does not come from the data but from the brains (memories, constructions, gap fillings, ...) I struggle with the psicho-slang to ascertain what they really said. From some comentaires: The title and intro leave out the fact that a likely cause -- cited by the highest-quality study -- is the experimental methods. I am curious if any of the experiments attempted to automate both stimulus presentation and data analysis to avoid experimenter effects. - It may be a variation of the case of subtle perception of the experimenter intentions by the subjects under test. I remember the case of a Horse that apparently know how to multiply numbers. The horse stopped khocking on the floor when the experimenter moved in a certain way when the number of knocks reached the correct result. The experimenter did not realized that he was sending the signal enough to the horse. This may be a more sophisticated case of the same phenomenon. In this case the signal could be be prepared because we are going to do this or that. Neiter the experimeinte nor the subject of the experiment have to be conscious of that signal. There are a largue number of bad psychological experiments with these flaws. One of the last ones, the subject of these experiment was myself with my otolaryngologist who, to test my audition performance, advised me when I supposedly must hear a weak sound instead of shut up and wait. Some comment in your links above seems to confirm this analysis, but I have not really the time to dig deeper. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
I dont believe that such genuine anticipation is possible, for a simple reason: If for quantum or relativistic means the mind or the brain could genuinely anticipate anything, this would be such a huge advantage, that this hability would be inherited genetically by everyone of us, every human plant, animal with the most accurate precission. because it would be so critical. The fact is the we have no such hability. the most we can do is to simulate it with the available data, gatering as much as possible information from the behaviour, faces etc of other human beings and we process it unconsciously. Most of the time even we are not conscious of how much information we gather. 2012/10/24 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com 2012/10/24 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 24 Oct 2012, at 14:31, Stephen P. King wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/**Perception_Science/10.3389/** fpsyg.2012.00390/abstracthttp://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? If verified it might confirms Helmholtz intuition that perception is unconscious anticipation. It would be the Dt of the Bp Dt. It is natural with the finding that when we perceive objects a big deal of information does not come from the data but from the brains (memories, constructions, gap fillings, ...) I struggle with the psicho-slang to ascertain what they really said. From some comentaires: The title and intro leave out the fact that a likely cause -- cited by the highest-quality study -- is the experimental methods. I am curious if any of the experiments attempted to automate both stimulus presentation and data analysis to avoid experimenter effects. - It may be a variation of the case of subtle perception of the experimenter intentions by the subjects under test. I remember the case of a Horse that apparently know how to multiply numbers. The horse stopped khocking on the floor when the experimenter moved in a certain way when the number of knocks reached the correct result. The experimenter did not realized that he was sending the signal enough to the horse. This may be a more sophisticated case of the same phenomenon. In this case the signal could be be prepared because we are going to do this or that. Neiter the experimeinte nor the subject of the experiment have to be conscious of that signal. There are a largue number of bad psychological experiments with these flaws. One of the last ones, the subject of these experiment was myself with my otolaryngologist who, to test my audition performance, advised me when I supposedly must hear a weak sound instead of shut up and wait. Some comment in your links above seems to confirm this analysis, but I have not really the time to dig deeper. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
On 10/24/2012 10:04 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: At the risk of beating a dead horse, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics TIQM, a 4th possible interpetation of QM, requires waves coming back from the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation More recently he [Cramer] has also argued TIQM to be consistent with the Afshar experiment, while claiming that the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation are not.[3] [3] ^ A Farewell to Copenhagen?, by John Cramer. Analog, December 2005. Feynman used waves coming back from the future to solve his Quantum Electrodynamics QED, the most experimentally accurate physics theory extant, which in my mind lends TIQM credence. Such teteological effects are expanded on for living systems in Terrence Deacon's book Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. Is evidence of anticipatory effects possibly evidence for TIQM? Hi Richard, The advanced wave aspect is bounded in the future, just as the retarded waves are bounded in the past within a finite duration that is related to the Hamiltonian of the system in question. The best picture of this is to think of a standing wave bouncing between a pair of zero phase nodes. This is how normal QM works, the bra and ket of Dirac's formalism is just another version of this, but it does not take relativity (relative motions of objects 'in' space-time) into account. The anticipatory effect is a bit different as it involves a component of information that seems to be outside the causal light cone. This is an concept that requires new thinking about what causality is! I should add that my extension of ordinary superstring theory, and in particular the properties of the compactified dimensions, provides a mechanism for TIQM. The conjecture of my extension is that the compact particles or monads react instantly to the entire universe because of its exterior to interior mapping, as Brian Greene showed in a 2-D approximation. Superstrings are not helpful here as they assume a flat space-time background and are just fibrations of that space-time. I don't know of any discussion of a variability of the compactified manifolds or whatever that would give us an explanation. The internal dimensions of the manifolds have no relation what so ever to the dimensions of space-time. They are orthogonal and thus completely independent. Richard On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
On 10/24/2012 5:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? Woo-woo. Small effect sizes which are *statistically* significant are indicative of bias errors. I'd wager a proper Bayesian analysis of the original data will show they *support* the null hypothesis (c.f. Testing Precise Hypotheses Berger Delampady, Stat Sci 1987 v2 no. 3 317-352 and Odds Are It's Wrong Tom Siegfried, Science News 27 Mar 2010). Meta-analyses are notoriously unreliable and should only be considered suggestive at a best. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 10/24/2012 10:04 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: At the risk of beating a dead horse, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics TIQM, a 4th possible interpetation of QM, requires waves coming back from the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation More recently he [Cramer] has also argued TIQM to be consistent with the Afshar experiment, while claiming that the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation are not.[3] [3] ^ A Farewell to Copenhagen?, by John Cramer. Analog, December 2005. Feynman used waves coming back from the future to solve his Quantum Electrodynamics QED, the most experimentally accurate physics theory extant, which in my mind lends TIQM credence. Such teteological effects are expanded on for living systems in Terrence Deacon's book Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. Is evidence of anticipatory effects possibly evidence for TIQM? Hi Richard, The advanced wave aspect is bounded in the future, just as the retarded waves are bounded in the past within a finite duration that is related to the Hamiltonian of the system in question. The best picture of this is to think of a standing wave bouncing between a pair of zero phase nodes. This is how normal QM works, the bra and ket of Dirac's formalism is just another version of this, but it does not take relativity (relative motions of objects 'in' space-time) into account. The anticipatory effect is a bit different as it involves a component of information that seems to be outside the causal light cone. This is an concept that requires new thinking about what causality is! I should add that my extension of ordinary superstring theory, and in particular the properties of the compactified dimensions, provides a mechanism for TIQM. The conjecture of my extension is that the compact particles or monads react instantly to the entire universe because of its exterior to interior mapping, as Brian Greene showed in a 2-D approximation. Superstrings are not helpful here as they assume a flat space-time background and are just fibrations of that space-time. I don't know of any discussion of a variability of the compactified manifolds or whatever that would give us an explanation. The internal dimensions of the manifolds have no relation what so ever to the dimensions of space-time. They are orthogonal and thus completely independent. I do not understand what you are saying here. The compact manifolds are 10^90/cc, 1000 Planck-length, 6-d particles in a 3-D space. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold#Calabi-Yau_manifolds_in_string_theory . How can those 6d dimensions be orthogonal to 3D space? I admit that it is a conjecture that each particle maps the universe instantly. So if you have a means to falsify that conjecture I would like to hear about it. Richard On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract Comments? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
