EXPERIMENTAL FACILITATION OF THE SENSED PRESENCE IS PREDICTED BY THE SPECIFIC PATTERNS OF THE APPLIED MAGNETIC FIELDS, NOT BY SUGGESTIBILITY: RE-ANALYSES OF 19 EXPERIMENTS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If all experiences are generated by brain activity, then experiences of God and spirits should also be produced by the appropriate cerebral stimulation. During the last 15 years experiments have shown that the sensed presence of a "Sentient Being" can be reliably evoked by very specific temporal patterns of weak (<1 microT) transcerebral magnetic fields applied across the temporoparietal region of the two hemispheres. Recently Granqvist et al. (2005) attributed these effects to suggestibility and exotic beliefs. Re-analyses with additional data for 407 subjects (19 experiments) showed that the magnetic configurations, not the subjects' exotic beliefs or suggestibility, were responsible for the experimental facilitation of sensing a presence. On the other hand, the subjects' histories of sensed presences before exposure to the experimental setting were moderately correlated with exotic beliefs and temporal lobe sensitivity. Several recent experiments have shown that the side attributed to the presence at the time of the experience is sensitive to the temporal parameters of the fields, the hemisphere to which they are maximized, and the person's a priori beliefs. The importance of verifying the specific timing and temporal pattern of the software-generated fields and following an effective protocol is emphasized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it