Brain Neuroimaging Experiments Find 'Evidence

NEWS AND COMMENT Brain Neuroimaging Experiments Find ‘Evidence against Existence of Psi’ . or Do They? KENDRICK FRAZIER precognition exist. They made minimal paid volunteers, thirty-two people total. assumptions about psi and think they Some were couples, some emotionally Can imaging of the brain help resolve have offered the broadest possible test of close roommates or friends. There was the debate over whether psi exists or not? the psi hypothesis. one mother-son pair, one pair of sisters, Two researchers at Harvard University The researchers used sixteen pairs of and two identical twin pairs. Fourteen think it can, and in fact they have now published neuroimaging results that they say “are the strongest evidence yet ob tained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena.” The researchers note that despite widespread public belief in paranormal mental phenomena such as telepathy or mind-reading, also known as psi, “there is not compelling evidence that psi exists.” Among academic scientists, psychologists especially tend to be skeptical of reports of psi, particularly the anecdotal kind that impress people unaware of all the psychological biases that allow them to so easily misinterpret evidence: the clustering illusion, availability error, confirmation bias, illusion of control, and many others. But if psi processes do exist, they are a mental activity, and there should be some way to detect that activity in the brain by modern neuroimaging techniques. Samuel T. Moulton and Stephen M. Kosslyn of the Harvard Psychology Department feel strongly that with sophisticated neuroimaging techniques, psychology is in a position to advance the psi debate, which in the past “has produced more heat than light.” They set up experiments using functional magnetic imaging (fMRI) of the brain to try to document the existence of psi. They wanted to see if the brain might respond selectively to purported psi stimuli. By “psi stimuli” they mean stimuli presented not through the usual senses but telepathically (mind to mind), clairvoyantly (world to mind), and pre- Can brain neuroimaging help resolve the psi debate? Psi (top) and non-psi (bottom) stimuli evoked cognitively (future to present). They widespread but indistinguishable neuronal responses in the brains of test subjects. Images courtesy of designed the experiment to produce pos- S.T. Moulton and S.M. Kosslyn, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (20:1). itive results if telepathy, clairvoyance, or SKEPTICAL INQUIRER May / June 2008 5 NEWS AND COMMENT were men, eighteen were women. “The results support the null hypoth- study. They praised it, but think psi Each pair designated one of its mem- esis that psi does not exist,” report supporters will readily argue around its bers as “sender” and one as “receiver.” Moulton and Kosslyn in the Journal significance. The test stimuli consisted of 240 pairs of Cognitive Neuroscience (20:1, 2008). “I think this is an interesting ap proach of unique photographs covering a range “The brains of our participants—as a but find it difficult to think that this rep- of content, from emotionally negative group and individually—reacted to psi resents ‘the strongest evidence yet obtained pictures (a snake, a dead body, a violent and non-psi stimuli in a statistically against the existence of paranormal mental scene) to neutral and positive pictures (a indistinguishable manner.” The results phenomena,’” says Richard Wiseman of the tissue box, a wedding, an erotic couple). cannot be explained by a lack of statis- University of Hertfordshire, U.K. “The They randomly assigned each picture to tical power, they say. “Even if the psi procedure used in the study—one person a stimulus category (psi, non-psi) and effect were very transient, as are many looking at a picture and sending it to ensured that across participants each mental events, it should have left a foot- another—does not really map onto some picture was assigned to each category an print that could be detected by fMRI.” of the types of telepathy experiments that equal number of times. The researchers say they went out proponents claim yield reliable evidence The receiver’s head was placed in a of their way to incorporate variables for ESP. In remote-viewing studies, for high-speed magnetic resonance scanner, example, the receivers are usually very and a series of forty-eight trials for each carefully selected on the basis of past volunteer pair began. The sender of each The test stimuli performance, and in ganzfeld studies the pair, in a separate room, was signaled consisted of 240 pairs receivers are placed in a mild altered state to sequentially view the images for ten of consciousness. However, it is an inno- to twenty-two seconds and then to try of unique photographs vative piece of work, and it would be great to “influence the receiver” with the psi covering a range of to see the MRI approach employed to test stimulus (“sending” one image). They the claims made by parapsychologists.” were asked to adopt a “playful” attitude, content, from emotionally James Alcock of York University, Tor- maintain an active interest in the stim- onto, was not too optimistic. “Given the uli, and use whatever “sending” tactics negative pictures way that psi has traditionally been defined, they deemed appropriate. (In this they (a snake, a dead body, a as a phenomenon that is not subject to the were following the advice of parapsy- rules that we have discovered for the mate- chology researchers who believe certain violent scene) to neutral rialistic world, then this study does nothing attitudes are conducive to psi.) and positive pictures to provide evidence against the existence of The receiver was presented a pair of psi; it only fails to find evidence to support photos (projected onto a mirror attached (a tissue box, a wedding, its existence. It is not different in principle to a head coil) and then told to press a but- an erotic couple). from a physicist using high-tech equipment ton selecting which one he or she felt was to detect an energy field during a psi exper- the psi stimulus. The receiver then viewed iment. While the physicist might find fail- the psi stimulus a second time to account ure to detect any energy as ‘strong evidence for the possibility of precognition. (biological relatedness of participants, against psi,’ failure to detect the field would One set of results showed the partic- evoca tive stimuli) widely considered by not be surprising to parapsychologists, for ipants performed almost exactly as they parapsychologists to help facilitate psi. this would simply serve to demonstrate would by chance on the guessing task. As such, “the current null results do that psi, if it exists, does not involve known Out of 3,687 recorded responses, the not simply fail to support the psi hypothe- energy fields. receivers correctly guessed the psi stim- sis: They offer strong evidence against it.” “You can’t take a concept like psi, ulus 1,842 times (50.0 percent). Their overall goal was to develop and which is claimed to exist independently But the key results were the comparison test a new way to empirically address the of the physical world—hence, precogni- of brain activation for psi stimuli versus psi hypothesis using the technologies of tion: no fall off of signal strength with non-psi stimuli. The researchers looked modern cognitive neuroscience. They distance, etc.—and then argue that you for anatomical locations across the brain think the method has much to offer have found evidence against it because it that responded differently to these stimuli researchers who wish to investigate fur- doesn’t fit with our knowledge of how for the entire group and for each individ- ther the possible circumstances in which the physical brain works!” ual recipient. Analysis of the group data psi might or might not exist. revealed “no evidence whatsoever of psi.” The SKEPTICAL INQUIRER asked two Kendrick Frazier is editor of the SKEPTICAL Psi and non-psi stimuli evoked widespread noted psychologists who frequently critique INQUIRER. but indistinguishable neuronal responses. psi research about the Moulton/Kosslyn 6 Volume 32, Issue 3 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER NEWS AND COMMENT thinking individuals will see through their Anonymous vs. Scientology charade.” But Anonymous sees strength in numbers. In the last few months, a series of anti-Scien- you, your campaigns of misinforma- The “Internet War,” fought on cyber tology protests have taken place worldwide. tion, your suppression of dissent, your fronts, soon became IRL (Internet slang In an unpredictable sequence of events, the litigious nature, all of these things have for “in real life” or “not online”). February caught our eye. With the leakage of your Church of Scientology has acquired a nem- latest propaganda video into mainstream 10, 2008, became an Anonymous interna- esis: the global, Internet-based “individual circulation, the extent of your malign tional day of protest. This date was signif- collective” known as Anonymous. Scien- influence over those who have come icant as the birthday of Lisa McPherson, tology is adept at silencing its lone critics, to trust you as leaders has been made a Scientologist who died in 1995 while but how will the group tackle a sizeable, clear to us. Anonymous has therefore in the care of Church members. These decided that your organization should ubiquitous, and faceless foe? be destroyed. For the good of your “Scien tology Raids,” a successful marketing Founded by author L. Ron Hubbard, followers, for the good of mankind, and misnomer, were nonviolent protests that Scientology purports to be a religion, but for our own enjoyment, we shall pro- took place in almost one hundred cities many call it a cult. But who or what is ceed to expel you from the Internet and worldwide, including London, Sydney, and Anonymous? With enigmatic slogans such systematically dismantle the Church of New York.

Load more