Pathfinder

"Spacetime is being very naughty right now."

" So if we accept that these psi phenomena are real, how then can we explain them without throwing out our entire understanding of time and physics?" - Melissa Burkley, Psychology Today  [Popular idea, but at least this time it was stated as a question. (sigh)]

Given that Daryl Bem's article "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect" has been discussed in blogs and the popular press for over three months now, my response is a bit delayed. But I promise that it will contain none of that ever-present blah blah blah (old, boring, tired) debating about the reality of ESP. ;)

My response to Bem's article was more in line with Burkley's question: "If we suspend our beliefs about time and accept that the brain is capable of reaching into the future, the next question becomes 'how does it do this?'" The question in my notes was... What, if any, is/are the neurological, neurochemical, and/or neuroelectrical correlates of the salience of information that has significance in the future? (Note that I didn't say 'information from the future', for good reason.)

If you remember this modest post, you'll understand what I'm getting at with that question and where I hope researchers like Bem will go next. Which brings me to...

Suggestion 1: I would like to see a database of psychological and neurological characteristics for high-performing (and no-effect) subjects. Bem had some psychological data in his results (e.g., stimulus-seeking) but there is room for a much more comprehensive workup involving more-detailed psychological profiles. I would also like to see EEG responses at various points during this testing paradigm. (And, of course, appropriate control data.) With the collection and comparison of appropriate EEG data, it might be possible to isolate an element of the response that indicates the 'path' from the future. Further testing could then see if this element of the EEG response alone could predict a successful trial. [Note: I picked EEG data largely because I am already familiar with EEG and ERP testing paradigms and data collection. And, one might expect to see clean/robust differences in EEG data if differences in 'stimulus-seeking' are involved.]

Suggestion 2: Train subjects with the goal of improving their performance. Ideally, these would be the same subjects from which you have created the aforementioned database, as it would also be interesting to know if/how the aforementioned EEG markers covaried as the brain adapted to using this 'source' of information.

Suggestion 3: Something in Bem's results made me wonder if there wasn't something within the timing of the response to the stimuli which could illuminate the 'path' that this information took. No solid ideas yet, I can't quite shake the notion that there's something there...

Daryl, this post is for you, because I admire the clean and elegant design of your experiments, and I hope you'll follow them up with additional research.

Time Travelers Never Die

I been hit with the future but I don't walk with a limp. (I'm alright.)

"For it is true that we often discover meanings and reasons for things many years after they mattered quite so much to us."

(This one's for the Doctor Who ringtone.)

Some time ago I mentioned that I wanted to talk about information from the future. I've held off on that because the ideas in my head haven't solidified into a coherent picture yet. But what the hell... This post has marinated long enough. Let's cook it up and serve it to the unsuspecting masses. :)

I've tried (in this blog) to create a picture of time that has our conscious experience arising from a struggle between information/influence from the (subjective) past and information/influence from the (subjective) future. I don't know quite how to conceptualize this information/influence... Some have call it a 'wave' (in the quantum sense), and that seems as good a picture as any, for the moment.

In working to create this picture of time and its relationship to experience, I occasionally indulge in bizarre thought experiments like the one that prompted my earlier mention of information from the future...

Thought Experiment: Assume that there is an influence traveling 'back in time' from the subjective future. (This is not an unreasonable assumption; the idea has been out there for a while.) Further assume that consciousness as we experience it is somehow critically tied to that biochemical mass we call the brain. (Not an unreasonable assumption, but certainly not a given either.) Assume that the brain would retain its capacity to produce exactly the same experience of consciousness after a period of cryonic suspension. (I doubt that this is possible, as I believe that a critical portion of our conscious experience arises from a non-local 'entanglement' (if you will) with other minds.)

With all these assumptions in place, it stands to reason that a person who has successfully extended his lifespan via cryonic suspension would also have extended the potential for information from his subjective future to influence him now. What would this person have access to, and how would it affect his behavior in the present? If one can reasonably assume that he would use (though perhaps not consciously) information from the future to enhance his own survival, what would you expect to see him doing now? (Hmmm...)

Thinking about the influence of the future brings up other interesting questions as well...

Is time an illusion? How do we experience this influence/information from the future? Is our perception of 'free will' nothing more than an incomplete awareness of the continually shifting balance between the information/influence of the past and that of the future?

What property of the substrate of consciousness creates/enables our awareness of the passage of time? (You want to say 'Memory, duh!', but why should there not also be a corresponding neural/neurochemical structure to harness and/or 'display' information from the future?) Without this property/structure, how would we know about time? What would we know about time? Is our particular kind of temporal perception really nothing more than a reverberation property within the mechanism/substrate of consciousness?

And that's not even the best part...

Now come questions like: How can we deliberately capitalize on our ability to access information from the future? Is our lifespan of moments of conscious experience simply one giant bi-directional temporal computation, such that events in our past can be perceived as having been 'caused' by events (or needs) in our future? Is it possible to willfully use the 'future' in the present to achieve a specific outcome now? In my head, I refer to this as 'borrowing against future entropy', though physicists might have a beef with the way I'm using the word 'entropy'.

I've mentioned things like this before, and I'm slowing solidifying an ontology for... (pick one)

• trans-temporal
• extra-temporal
• bi-directional temporal

... ways of describing and discussing conscious experience and the computations that give rise to it. Who knows what kind of questions such a perspective might answer...

(Crazy thought experiments welcome!)

(P.S. Sorry, 50 - I had to do that.)

The Science of the Craft

"The study of magic is not a science, it is not an art, and it is not a religion. Magic is a craft... This is not to say that we understand magic, in the sense that physicists understand why subatomic particles do whatever it is that they do. Or perhaps they don't understand that yet. I can never remember."

"Anyone with a spark of the research spirit does not need to be exhorted to chase for all he is worth a really promising clue when one is found, dropping for the time being other activities and interests as far as practicable."

"To see what no one has seen before, look where no one has looked before."

(Because your response disappoints, on several levels.)

When I was a bit younger, in a used bookstore I came across a book on spells. Since I was investigating the effects of mind upon matter, I could not resist having a look. I came across a spell for attracting money (or some such), and I can remember thinking "I understand why that works." All the extra 'fluff' - the specific-colored candle (or whatever), etc. - fell away and it was clear how saying/doing whatever the spell 'required' simply created (and released) a specific set of visualizations/expectations/emotions about future outcomes. The 'fluff' is just a reinforcing support structure that works/helps because it taps an associated knowledge structure. (Yes, it works because you believe it works.)

Sounds like a load of 'useless crap' to many scientists. But why?

1) Perspective - It is difficult/unacceptable for the scientific method to make use 'data' that is only accessible from a subjective perspective. What goes on in my head is only really accessible to me. I can tell you about it, but you have no means of verifying anything I've said, other than to attempt to replicate it in your own mind. "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." (q)

2) Evidence - What constitutes 'acceptable evidence' of certain phenomena is, by current scientific definitions, evidence that can be procured under circumstances that specifically discount any collective effect of mind. For example: what can be produced in an environment where one is alone is required to be exactly the same as what can be produced in a room full of skeptical observers. Only then is the phenomenon deemed to be a 'true' phenomenon.

3) Correlations - Scientists are taught to look for correlations. They are also taught that correlation does not equal causation. What they are not taught is to look inside for correlations - to dissect and examine their own mental processes. The assumption is that there is no need to do this - that 'science' stands beyond/above the (non-local) influence of mind.

With the above limitations on what is acceptable 'science', it is no wonder that religious/magical belief systems persist. If data persists, then the search for explanations (and the attempts to harness this knowledge) will also persist, even if it is not/cannot be called 'science'.

4) Replication - Replication of something that requires a specific type of subjective awareness can be achieved, but it involves teaching a naive subject. Then, of course, you have only your word and the word of your pupil. (See #1.) This might be worth something if you had a pupil with the appropriate background, reputation, and integrity... But most people still will not believe a thing like that until they have experienced it themselves. However, narratives like that produced by William H. Keith can be powerful stimuli for people to start/continue their own explorations. "I was well aware that my senses could deceive, that my will to believe could play tricks on my mind, that what I seemed to be experiencing - my subjective reality - might well be different from things as they really were."

5) Falsification - "No amount of experimentation can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." (That's Einstein, not Keith.) Yes, we're still looking for that magical experiment that could prove this picture of reality to be wrong. (With a less-pedantic approach to things, you could be useful there. Skippy's best (though perhaps unintentional) contribution was simply asking the question 'Where does the entropy go?')

No doubt submitting this idea to peer-review in a journal would point out all these things, and more. But these are big enough problems to overcome, and we are already well-aware of them. If you can contribute nothing more than yet another 'burden of proof' argument, then you really don't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there and you should probably move on/back to some 'real' science. Best,

N

The Art of Scientific Investigation

(This blog post is a spontaneous act of creation - because creating is fun, and wordplay while creating is double (entendre) the fun. ;)

"Those who wish to be
Must put aside the alienation
Get on with the fascination,
the real relation, the underlying theme."

"What is more important - knowing, or being known for knowing?"

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."

And from The Art of Scientific Investigation, by W.I.B. Beveridge (revised edition - 1957)...

"It is the duty of every scientist to give generously whatever advice and ideas he can and usually formal acknowledgement should not be demanded for such help."

"The chief incentives of research are to satisfy curiosity, to satisfy the creative instinct, the desire to know whether one's conjecture has led to new knowledge and the desire for the feeling of importance by gaining recognition."

You'd get the impression from some scientists that that last bit is their top incentive. And perhaps it is a powerful motivator to do research and to put great effort into explaining that research... But I would argue that the first three 'incentives' are in a different (and, IMHO, a far more rewarding and productive) class than the last one.

"If it becomes a standard procedure to use somebody else's work without mentioning it's not our own, in the end nobody will see the point of creating anything themselves." (q) So not true. People create because there is joy in the creative process. People create because there is satisfaction in knowing that you were the first to do a thing, and that others liked it well enough to use it. Or that what you did was better than whatever else was available, or whatever the other person could have created themselves. And in the end, only those who are willing to create matter anyway - they are the only ones who really challenge you/us to be better.

I'm not saying that recognition doesn't matter... I'm only saying that obsessing over recognition detracts from fully engaging in the process/joy of discovery/creation. Best,

N

(h/t WB, for our conversation about this most-excellent book)

Expecting Synchronicity

"For a true magician there is no very clear line between what lies inside the mind and what lies outside it. If you desire something, it will become substance. If you despise it, you will see it destroyed. A master magician is not much different from a child or a madman in that respect. It takes a very clear head and a very strong will to operate once you are in that place. And you will find out very quickly whether or not you have that clarity and strength."

"When we do magic, we do not wish and we do not pray. We rely upon our will and our knowledge and our skill to make a specific change to the world."

(I know, I'm on vacation... What can I say? When the spirit moves you, you gotta go with the flow. ;)

Just a quick post to say 'hi' to a new 5-dimensional friend. Welcome to the super-elite club!

Of course welcoming you to the super-elite club also means that I'm going to talk about your interpretation of the 5th dimension. As your interpretation bears a striking resemblance to my own, I'm just going to insert a key quote from your article before we move on to the part wherein we fight - er, politely disagree.

"Any situation that you have not yourself observed actually exists as a collection of possible outcomes in the Fourier realm... These things are undetermined , and until you experience them, there are many possible outcomes for each. The many possible outcomes of your future are what make up the fifth dimension." (my emphasis)

Well said. But now your article swings into something called Spiritual Mind Treatment (?), and you equate the Fourier realm with God. I'm not sure why. Don't get me wrong... I don't believe that I have complete conscious control over my trajectory through this realm, but my versions of the Higher Power(s) (that explain why I don't have complete control) are the Power of the Collective (the effects of other observers) and the Power of the Future (retrocausal influence of information/events in the subjective future). (FWIW, here's my two cents on free will.)

You state: "I don't believe we can control or manipulate the Fourier realm." At all? I would urge you to re-examine that belief in light of a range of data about human experience. Review psi experiments, the Global Consciousness Project, magick, or even a modest book on prayer called The Isaiah Effect, which deals with specific techniques for praying 'successfully'. Even your own descriptions of 'expecting' synchronicity bear closer examination. Just what is 'expectation', why is it critical, and are you really monitoring how your expectations are constantly changing?

"For me, prayer is a dance with physics, a give and take that allows me to guide my car with certainty to an 'as yet unknown' parking spot, appropriate for me." For me, it's no longer necessary to call this practice 'prayer'. 'Letting go and letting God' has another name - one that's well-known in the psi literature: 'release of effort'. Similar 'release' practices are discussed in magickal literature. Calling it 'God' at this stage of the game just seems to confuse things.

I enjoyed your article, and I hope that you, as a physicist, will find your way to taking that next step towards ownership of this natural aspect of the human condition. Namaste.

When the Sleeper Wakes

"We have a rule... we never free a mind once it reaches a certain age. It's dangerous, and the mind has trouble letting go."

"It is not good to overwhelm another person with argument even when he is wrong and you are right. Yet it is also not right to give up easily, saying 'I am wrong,' when you have every reason to believe you are right. The best way is to drop the argument naturally, without pressing the other person or falsely admitting that you are wrong. If you don't listen to his arguments and don't let them bother you, he will do the same and not become angry. This is something to watch carefully."

"Do not try to satisfy your vanity by teaching a great many things. Awaken people's curiosity. It is enough to open minds: do not overload them. Put there just a spark. If there is some good inflammable stuff, it will catch fire."

(For T, who keeps trying to understand this all because it's me who's doing it.)

Had a wonderful conversation yesterday about consciousness, the nature of reality, and modeling experience in 5 dimensions. By 'wonderful conversation' I don't mean that I 'won the day', but rather that it was gratifying to engage someone who was willing to challenge his (fairly well-entrenched) ideas about the universe. Mind you, this person watched The Primacy of Consciousness talk that I mentioned earlier, and concluded "I've decided that I believe in an objective reality." Okay.

How interesting to come upon you now reading Reading the Enemy's Mind, which is a substantial tome about the Stargate remote viewing project. The seeds of many previous conversations are germinating, perhaps, eh?

The major challenge for this person (and, I assume, for a great many others) is reconciling these ideas with the Bible. [Editorial Aside: You cannot productively engage a person of religious faith about things which appear to challenge that faith unless you are familiar with the faith and its doctrines.] Fortunately for this conversation, abilities like this are discussed in the Bible, so we are not sidetracked by disputing the reality of the abilities (according to the Bible), and are free to move onto the implications of such abilities. What do these things tell us about the nature of God, the nature of time, the nature of the universe?, etc. Though irrationality (in the form of accepting the Bible as primary/absolute truth) was present, the conversation was ultimately more productive than what one could have with a die-hard skeptic, whose irrationality is failing to see the implications of the records of these abilities that have existed throughout human history. Neither party has (presumably) had direct experience with such phenomena, but based on a few words in an old book, one of them is willing to engage the idea, while the other clings to dogma of a different kind...

I decided long ago that, for my own sanity, this would have to be a Johnny-Appleseed endeavor. Plant a seed if the ground appears fertile, foster it if the opportunity presents itself, but move on if nothing appears to be growing. Sometimes something does take hold, and blossoms when you least expect it.

The Primacy of Consciousness

"Among scientists are collectors, classifiers, and compulsive tidiers-up; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers; some are artists and others artisans. There are poet-scientists and philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics."

With the current level of chatter on paradigm shifts, artificial brains/AI, etc. being what it is, it seems like a good time to throw this excellent talk into the mix. It was originally given at a Physics of Consciousness conference in 2004. (How did I miss that one?) It's worth watching in its entirety; don't cut corners and watch the edited versions. ;).

Go on and watch it. I'll update this post with discussion points later.