4 ms·

I have heard about that experiment too and I am now pretty sure it can be explained by chronostasis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostasis https://en.m.wi

• JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Thank you. Ariely started by describing chronostasis, the subjective temporal muddling of sensations. Then he dropped the "and one more thing" shtick to disclose this other experiment as externally validating the precognition. (À la Chiang's "What's expected of us" [1].) He was suggesting to a lay audience the plausibility of superluminal causation on the basis of a single psychology experiment. That's not lying. But it's without scientific integrity. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/436150a https://www.nature.com/articles/436150a
  • fzeindl 3y ago
    I looked it up now. "In the libet Experiment, Libet asked subjects when they felt the intention to move, he asked them to watch the second hand of a clock and report its position when they felt that they had felt the conscious will to move. Libet found that the unconscious brain activity leading up to the conscious decision by the subject to flick their wrist began approximately half a second before the subject consciously felt that they had decided to move." <--- the bug could be chronostasis. They subjects perception of time is warped when looking at the clock.
    • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > he asked them to watch the second hand of a clock and report its position This is chronostasis. It's requesting a subjective read. Ariely claimed folks pushed the button before the event. That's objective foresight. That's superluminal causation.