2004 EEG study by Kittenis et al.

About NeuroQuantology... It's no surprise that it's classified as such, since it posted papers related to quantum biology way before quantum biology was mildly accepted as it is now (especially in relation to the brain).

About NeuroQuantology... It's no surprise that it's classified as such, since it posted papers related to quantum biology way before quantum biology was mildly accepted as it is now (especially in relation to the brain).

Thanks. I just thought I'd include that note of caution - though "has been accused of sceptics of being" doesn't by any means equate in my view to "is". 

Thanks also for the other link, which I'll add to my list. Though as you can see I'm not impressed by Persinger's work so far.

Try this one on the follow-up, it's short but straight to the point: https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/viewFile/499/521

I had a look at this, but it seems to be a kind of editorial summary of the remaining papers in that number of the journal. Unfortunately, the EEG studies are covered by two papers running to nearly 50 pages between them. I started to look at the first, but again, there seemed to be a forest of different measurements, only a relatively small number of which were significant. I think I'm going to have to plead lack of time on Persinger's work.

Here are links to the two papers, in case anyone else wants to look at them:
(1) http://www.excesscorrelation.net/assets/...n%20of.pdf
(2) http://www.excesscorrelation.net/assets/...n%20of.pdf

I'm not very clear about what the authors did next after this study. I can't find any more published papers by them along the same lines, but there's an abstract of Kittenis's thesis (degree awarded 2008) here:
http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=1...hos.653483
It refers to two studies which showed significant effects, but then mentions a third study in which "a variation of the experimental paradigm was adopted in order to increase the overall sample size", and says no effect was found in that study. But what the variation of the experimental paradigm was, I don't know.

In case anyone is interested to look at Kittenis's thesis, it's now available at the Edinburgh Research Archive:
https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/29200

Here's a video of a presentation given by Marios Kittenis (with co-authors Bob Morris, Dick Bierman, Peter Caryl and Paul Stevens), entitled "Investigating EEG correlations between physically isolated participants." I'm not sure where or when it was given, but it's been made available by the SPR:

I must confess that I'd never found the time to look at Kittenis's thesis, to which I posted a link above.

It all seems a bit puzzling to me. That talk covers the first two experiments included in the thesis. The first, with white flashes, produced an apparently statistically significant result, for which in the "receiver" there was more activity just after the "sender" saw the randomly timed flash. In the second, with green flashes interspersed with fewer red flashes, produced a statistically significant result for the green, but not for the red. But this time there was more activity just before the flash than just after it - the effect was in the opposite direction.

The third study reported in the thesis essentially repeated the first, with a modified protocol and a larger number of subjects, but didn't produce a significant result. One modification that might conceivably have made a difference was that instead of having one "sender" and one "receiver," each of the participants was exposed to random flashes while the other was not, and the response of the other was analysed. To this layperson with no knowledge of EEG, that sounds as though it might produce more noise. But judging by Figure 4.10 in the thesis it doesn't seem to.

Another modification was that - because in the first two studies there was sometimes more activity before the flash and sometimes more after, in the third study the periods immediately before and after were added together for comparison with a longer composite control period extending further before and after. Obviously that would also affect the statistics, though I think more detailed analysis would be needed to work out how.

Kittenis suggests that the first two studies may just have been too small, and that they may have produced spurious results dominated by a few participants (because the population was inhomogeneous). Maybe a closer look at the thesis would shed some light on that possibility, but given the contradictory nature of the results it seems plausible.

I briefly skimmed experiment 3 in his thesis earlier, but it was such a different experiment using brown noise instead of a drum beat, and as you point out, both of the matched partners received visual stimulation - which just seems so incompatible with the type of transmitter/receiver studies, and anecdotal stories we've heard of before.

My OBE was whilst I was asleep... most precognitive stuff is before waking up... If there is anything to ganzfeld, it uses a separate receiver/transmitter role... classic hospitalised NDE's occur with the experient in a particular relaxed state... hypnotism occurs with one person guiding another... and past brain states affect future brain states... etc. etc..

Anyway he's moved on... no money in it... one has to find funding, and pay one's bills...

Money can only be earned from an exchange... thus money is primarily earned from sharing in the objective world... so funding mainly comes from third parties who have earned money from sharing... and research can only really be turned into some practical money earning idea if it's research about the shared objective world... because only shared objective applications for research allow money to be earned from exchange.

Our concept of money seems to stack the odds in favour of objective results... as opposed to subjective results.

Not sure if this is a totally valid idea... but it seems like it may have some merit.

I recall the Sony Esper studies author said that they [Sony] had shown that telepathy was real... but couldn't do anything with their discovery, couldn't see how they could use it... i.e. monetize it.

Thanks. On that final experiment, they did both drumming (as in the first two) and brown noise, but unfortunately both conditions produced non-significant results.