(2018-09-07, 04:57 PM)Chris Wrote: On her blog, Caroline Watt posts some more details about the conference, and in particular about the contributions from her own department:Thanks for this Chris - encouraging stuff!
"There will be two papers reporting latest KPU work (precognition research using the ganzfeld method, and studies replicating Walach and von Lucadou’s Correlation Matrix Method)."
https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/2018/...ciousness/
She includes a poster for the conference, from which we learn that David Luke is "sometimes regarded as the rockstar of psychedelic research" and Bernardo Kastrup is "a proflic author on philosophical issues". (I think we know what they mean.)
https://koestlerunit.files.wordpress.com....jpg?w=640
There is also a detailed programme here:
https://www.spr.ac.uk/sites/spr.ac.uk/fi...GRAMME.pdf
[Edit: wrong URL corrected]
Going back to the Edinburgh contributions, with the help of the titles in the programme, it was possible to find recent abstracts of related work at the "Edinburgh Research Explorer" portal, as copied below. Sometimes one gets the impression that the message coming from Edinburgh is "it's all very interesting whether there's anything real behind it or not". The message of these two studies seems to be "it looks as though there's something real behind it".
(1) Ganzfeld
Caroline Watt, Emily Dawson, Alisdair Tullo, Abby Pooley, Holly Rice.
Testing Precognition and Altered State of Consciousness With Selected Participants in the Ganzfeld. A Pre-Registered Study.
A paper with the same title was presented by Caroline Watt at the 61st Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association in August:
The present study was the first to contribute to a registration-based prospective meta-analysis of ganzfeld ESP studies ...
We sought to maximise the anticipated psi effect size by selecting participants ...
Results. Twenty-two direct hits were obtained out of 60 trials, corresponding to a statistically significant 36.67% hit-rate. Therefore our hypothesis that the randomly selected future target would be identified to a greater than chance degree was supported.
https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/...66a3).html
(2) Correlation Matrix Method
Ana Flores, Ian Tierney & Caroline Watt.
Studying Mind-Matter Interaction Through Non-Local Entangled Correlations.
A paper entitled "Where mind connects with matter: Replicating the correlation matrix method" was presented by the same authors at the 61st Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association in August:
This article describes two experimental replications of a new methodological paradigm called Correlation Matrix Method ...
In both experiments the number of significant correlations produced between participant influence and values produced by random number generator were very significantly more than the ones produced by the control method. Limitations in the method, and in the analyses are discussed, also suggestions for further experiments are explored.
https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/...cbd5).html
A related Research Note by the same authors is also in press in the Journal of Parapsychology:
https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/...9ed5).html
Whats interesting is that Caroline Watt is a skeptic, and keeps getting positive results. I think they could get a better hit rate if they used a stricter selection criteria for participants as well, but 36% is pretty good!
Which of the two experiments do you feel has better results?