ESP and actual neurobiology

Haunter Haunter at castles.com
Sun Jun 17 21:26:32 EST 2001


On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:09:05 GMT, "Richard Norman"
<rsnorman at mediaone.net> wrote:

>"Haunter" <Haunter at castles.com> wrote in message
>news:3b39459a.973576277 at cnews.newsguy.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:04:06 GMT, "Richard Norman"
>> <rsnorman at mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >There was recently a query about ESP on bionet.neuroscience and
>> >then a lot of flames about trolling and stuff. Then somebody
>> >(I am having trouble tracing the names) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Regarding the issue of technology and ESP, I thought you might find
>> >> the following abstract of interest
>> >>
>> >>EEG AND SPECT DATA OF A SELECTED SUBJECT  DURING PSI TASKS:
>> >>THE DISCOVERY OF A NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL CORRELATE
>> >>
>> >>CHERYL H. ALEXANDER, MICHAEL A. PERSINGER,
>> >>WILLIAM G. ROLL, AND DAVID L. WEBSTER
>> >>
>> >
>> >I have searched the National Library of Medicine (Pub Med).
>> >I find there is an "MA Persinger" who is a fairly prolific researcher
>from
>> >Laurentian University in Ontario, Canada.  His web page is
>> >   http://www.laurentian.ca/neurosci/persinger.html
>> >and his publication list does NOT include anything at all like
>> >what is cited.
>> >
>> >There is a WG Roll who did publish a paper entitled "ESP
>> >and memory" in Int. J. Neuropsychiatry in 1966 but I don't
>> >see anything by him/her since 1977.
>> >
>> >I can't find anything pertinent by CH Alexander or DL Webster.
>> >
>> >Please do NOT submit citations to bionet.neuroscience unless
>> >they are in refereed journals.  If you do want to talk about
>> >"work in progress", please cite the names and institutional
>> >affiliations of the individuals involved so that they can be
>> >verified.
>> >
>> >My own conclusion is that the paper cited is bogus, but I will
>> >be very happy to retract that statement if someone can show
>> >me evidence to the contrary.
>> >
>> >I don't care what is discussed in alt.paranormal, but the subject
>> >matter of bionet.neuroscience is, in fact, science which proceeds
>> >by certain standards and criteria.
>> >
>> Here's the cite...thought I included it.
>> From The Journal of Parapsychology
>> Volume 62/Number 2     June 1998
>>
>> Published by Rhine Research Center
>> since 1937.
>> http://www.rhine.org/jp1.html
>
>Sorry, still not acceptable for bionet.neuroscience.
>
>Even if you would accept the Journal of Parapsychology
>as a peer-reviewed primary research article (which I don't),
>the fact is that the paper cited is an abstract of a paper
>presented at the 41st  Annual Convention of the Parapsychological
>Society.  That is, the particular work is still not peer-reviewed
>and therefore does not rise to the level of primary research.
>
>
That's fine, Richard. I'll assume that b.n. is made up of more than
just yourself and that -someone- may have found it of interest, and
leave it at that. That -is-, after all, what I clearly stated in my
original post...it may be of interest to someone. That you are not
that person, does not concern me.
Cheers:
Patrick

-- 
Knowledge is the antidote for fear

Patrick's Gallery of Dreams and Weirdness
http://www.LegendsMagazine.net/pan/rayn/rpm
Haunter's Ghost Stories
http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/3549/stories.htm




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list