Reply to comment
Some questions about your post
April 2, 2006 by walls, 3 years 31 weeks ago
Comment id: 1535
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
You are talking about predicting the future by accessing the great hologram of reality, right? You are suggesting that functional MRI and EEGs can detect changes in brain metabolism and electrical activity that are dependent on a stimulus BEFORE THAT STIMULUS IS PROVIDED. Right?
Are you serious on your webpage (http://www.mauritsvandennoort.com/main.php?lang=EN&page=22 that what ) that what is interesting about a technology that can predict the future is that it would be ..."in particular of great importance since it could lead to the development of a terrorist attack warning system."? On its face, that seems crass in the extreme.
Strange, I am having difficulty finding your referenced article in volume 39 of the International Journal of Psychology at http://www.journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/(525kkdqikqdj15qsfqwodvre)/app/home/journal.asp. Although I can find your 2003 Neuroimage article in Medline, I cannot find a reference to this article in Medline.
Can you tell us why McCraty did not publish after 2004 and why the enigmatically suggested Part 3 (that would "explain(s) how the body receives" information before it is sent!) did not materialize?
Why do I get a sort of too-good-to-be-true/"cold fusion" sort of a feel from this post?