1. Presentiment The retro-causality debate Experimental approaches And Theory Dick Bierman, University of Amsterdam Towards a science of Consciousness, Stockholm, May 3-7, 2011

2. Synopsis of this talk The experimental precursor ‘Presentiment’ – Method & Results Bems approach – Method & Results, example retroactive facilitation of recall – Criticism Statistical Ontological CIRTS – Consciousness Induced Restoration of Time Symmetry New experiments – Necker Cube: retroactive interference – Retroactive recognition Bem, D. (2011). Feeling the future, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407-425. 9 experiments suggesting retrocausal effects.

3. Presentiment a feeling about an event in the future …

4. Emotion Study (1999) Skin Conductance time 6850 msec Blank Screen 150 msec Globisch, J., Hamm, A.O., Estevez, F., and Ehman, A. (1999). Psychophysiology, 36, pp. 66-75. Fixation stimulus 7 sec anticipation response

5. Published Results Erotic Calm Baseline had been set at stimulus-onset All signals are clamped to 0 there.

6. Results re-analysis raw data Anomaly Erotic Calm Baseline set at -7 seconds

7. Presentiment Anticipatory physiology triggered by ‘future’? Simple stimulus response paradigm Comparing physiology within subjects between conditions e.g. anticipation of picture, random emotional or neutral

8. Presentiment variables Dependent Variables – Skin Conductance – HR – EEG, CNV – BOLD – Blinks, pupil dilation, eye movement Independent Variables – Pictures, sounds, shocks, slotmachine

9. Presentiment Meta-analysis 37 studies, 15 different main authors Mean effect size: 0.29 Combined p <10^-9 Filedrawer fail safe: 670 Gambler’s fallacy Mossbridge et al (2011). In press.

10. Bem’s approach Behavioral measures – No physiology because of global replication Reversed standard Psychological Paradigms – Manipulation after the measurement Decision making Habituation Affective Priming Retroactive memory facilitation

11. Retroactive Facilitation Recall “It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards” (The white Queen in Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Caroll, 2006, p. 164)

12. To which category belongs Carpenter 3. Practice exercise To which category belongs …........................ 2.Surprise Free Recall Procedure retroactive facilitation of recall Carpenter 1.Visualize words Random subsample of words

13. Results Bem studies Hypothesis Retroactive Facilitation of Memory – Improved recall performance on words that got later extra exercise. Results Retroactive Facilitation of Memory – (N=150) mean effect size: 0.30 (p<0.01) Results all 9 studies – All Bem studies mean effect size: 0.22 (p<10^-10)

14. Criticism Statistical – Using Bayesian stats the null hypothesis is still to be preferred (Wagenmakers et al, 2011)….. – Over-analyses are not corrected for…. – Combination of experimental results is not allowed…. Theoretical – Temporal Causality violation is not allowed……

15. CIRTS Consciousness Induced Restoration of Time Symmetry Symmetries in physics In EM theory – Retarded and Advanced Solution – Initial & Boundary conditions » Conscious information processing as boundary condition restores time symmetry Coherence to account for individual differences

16. Carpenter Hammer Trousers …. Carpenter Hammer Trousers …. 4. Extra exercise Learn these words Carpenter Did you see this word before? 3. Recognition Test.. 2.Filler task Procedure retroactive facilitation of recognition Carpenter 1.Attention task Random subsample of words

17. Retro-recognition results

18. Necker Cube study: retroactive interference

19. The Necker Cube experiment time First button press Top view is experienced Second button press when experience switches Change randomly into opaque Top or Bottom view Top view duration 19 interference

20. Retroactive interference Results (difference = 129, p<0.03) Effectsize = 0.17 Followed by: N=153

21. Results split for experiment

22. The paradoxes Formally RetroCausality equivalent with bw time travel. Formally Time Symmetry predicted But ……. philosophical ‘grandfather like’ paradoxes – Synchronicity protection postulate (Hawkins) Never allow time travel near grandfather Never allow psi to become useable.

23. Conclusion Retrocausality is physically not impossible – See also Helmut Schmidt in Foundations of Physics Empirical evidence needs independent replication. – But replication runs against the ‘Synchronicity Protection’ Experiments have to be set up to avoid paradoxes (can’t use the information from the future)

24. Thanks The Amsterdam & Groningen Universities Bial Foundation Eva Lobach, Stephen Whitmarsh, Jacob Jolij, Victor Lamme and many students