1. The potential anomalous component of Intuition Empirical evidence and an integrated theoretical approach Dick J. Bierman, University of Amsterdam 1

2. Outline 1: Qualitative Model of Intuition –Damasio’s gambling experiment 2:Integrated model –Damasio re-analyzed: presentiment? 3:Violation of causality –Could account for all psi-phenomena 4: Accomodation in Physics –Time Symmetry allowed –The Necker Cube experiment 5: Individual differences –Brain coherence –The fmri meditation experiment on presentiment 2

3. Part I A qualitative model of intuition 3

4. Damasio’s Somatic Marker model Previous problems (selection of move) Somatic Marking Of Decision Somatic Marking Of Decision NC Reduction of Alternatives NC Reduction of Alternatives Actual decision PAST (impl. learning)PRESENT (biased selection) 4

5. Test of SM model (signs of implicit learning, and signs of somatic marker) IOWA Gambling task. Take a card from one of 4 decks. Cards can be losing or winning (the amount of $$ you win or loose is on the other side of the card). 5

6. Damasio’s IOWA gambling procedure time Preparation Draws card Feedback: win or loss Skin Conductance 1.Participants (patients & controls) get initially $2000 2.Two are bad decks (loose in the long run). 3.Skin Conductance is recorded and later averaged 6

7. Results Gambling experiment 1.Implicit learning  Normal subjects take more often from good decks while thinking they are just guessing, they learn the good decks but are not conscious of their learning. 2.Somatic Marker  Before these subjects explicitly formulate the difference between the decks of cards, their body already ‘knows’. This is indicated by larger skin conductance before taking from a bad deck. Patients don’t learn and don’t show a somatic marker. There is criticism on the experiments and the interpretation. 7

8. Part II Integration of anomalous component of intuition 8

9. Previous problem and decision (selection of alternative) Good or Bad outcome Current similar problem Somatic Marking Of Decision Somatic Marking Of Decision NC Reduction of Alternatives NC Reduction of Alternatives Actual decision PAST (impl. learning)PRESENT (biased selection) Causal model 9

10. Integrated model: Driven by the future outcome Actual decision Physiological Response Physiological Response Somatic Marker Somatic Marker PRESENTFUTURE ???????? Presentiment Past outcomes PAST 10

11. Pre-sentiment in IOWA Gambling task? How do we measure presentiment: Future random event (e.g. outcome of decision) Two potential outcomes One good, one bad There are winning and loosing cards in all the decks! So: Do not average SC over bad and good decks but over the winning and loosing cards within the decks! SAME RAW DATA 11

12. Skin Conductance in gambling task split for Winning & Loosing cards Preparation Draws cardFeedback: win or loss Loss Win time Response larger for loss Arousal in past is also larger for future loss! 12

13. CARD!-analysis Damasio’s Gambling experiment t = 1.634; df=117 ; p =0.053 Presentiment effect : 20% of normal effect! 13

14. Part III Al l paranormal phenomena can be explained –Telepathy –Clairvoyance –Precognition –Psychokinesis 14

15. All paranormal effects explained Telepathy, Clairvoyance, Precognition: traditional model: 3 rd eye, selectivity problem. proposed model: backward correlations from later feedback 15 Guess (T,C,P) PRESENTFUTURE

16. Psychokinesis explained 16 Psychokinesis (mind over matter): Normal development of matter 2 nd law of thermodynamics: from structure to disorder Paranormal reversal of time’s arrow: reversal of 2 nd law of thermodynamics: Increase of order in Random Number Generators!

17. Part IV Can Physics accommodate time running backwards 17

18. Time’s arrow in physics: the facts In nearly all physical formalisms: time-symmetry - Most notably in Electro Magnetic theory: –Retarded and Advanced solution Is generally considered a quirk of the mathematics (notable exceptions: Feynman, Wheeler,Cramer) 18

19. Time’s arrow in physics: the hypothesis Advanced solutions do not occur in simple physical systems due to boundary conditions. Processing of information by a complex physical system like the brain supporting consciousness creates totally different boundary conditions under which the ‘advanced solution’ may occur (CIRTS) Added postulate: Coherence of brain state is essential. 19

20. Coherence crucial Coherence is a crucial factor in the boundary considerations Feynman & Wheeler (1945) Conscious visual experience: Binding problem -> coherence 20

21. The role of Emotions In a fundamental physical framework emotions do not play a role therefore: Advanced solutions should not only occur with emotions Emotions may play an indirect role through influence in coherence brain state & through stronger effects in future. Do we see anomalous advanced effects with non emotional tasks? 21

22. Necker Cube 22 Opaque top view

23. Necker Cube 23 Transparent Bi stable views

24. The Necker Cube experiment time First button press Top view is experienced Second button press Change into opaque Top or Bottom view Top view duration 2 future conditions 24

25. Results Necker Cube exp. Conclusion: ‘Retroactive’ interference Emotions are not required Effect size is between 5 - 10% 25 Pilot + Amsterdam + Groningen: 129 millisec difference (t=1.97, N=153, p =0.026)

26. Part V Individual Differences –Coherence is the only parameter in the model 26

27. Meditators vs Controls The effect of meditation experience on presentiment (fMRI study) Standard Presentiment paradigm emotional vs neutral pictures 27

28. Meditators vs Controls Results: More presentiment in meditators during (10) and outside of meditation (13.5) than controls (4.25) Direct measurement of coherence is next step 28

29. Take home message 1.Extended Intuition model can integrate presentiment.  Requires hypothesis that time can ‘run backwards’  Is able to account for individual differences (coherence)  Gives falsifiable predictions 2.Physics can accommodate paranormal phenomena. Time-symmetry & Advanced Solutions Emotions are not essential for paranormal phenomena 29

30. Thanks 30 The University of Amsterdam The University of Groningen Colleagues Steven Scholte (fMRI experiments) Victor Lamme (Support) Jacob Jolij (uni. Groningen: Necker cube) Researchers into paranormal phenomena Bial foundation The audience

31. 31

32. 32