Feeling the Future - Evidence of Precognition

Earlier today I happened across an interesting article. One interesting enough that I just spent the past few hours getting enough posts so I could share this with ATS, since a search implied that this hasn't been posted yet.

In a study by Daryl J. Bem, a professor of psychology at Cornell University, test subjects were shown to do better on a randomly selected words from a list that they were able to study only AFTER they'd completed the memory test. These "Time-Reversed" experiments are going to be published soon in the APA Journal, but right now you can look at the current report as it stands - though it may differ from the eventual published information.

All the tests deal with retroactive stimulation of information they are tested on prior to studying. The report is ~60 pages long and I haven't gotten through all of it yet, but one of its more distinguishing characteristics is that the experimentation processes follow the scientific method rather strictly, and serve as evidence implying that time might not be linear, or, if it is, precognition may be a possibility.

Feeling Future - Paper by Daryl J. Bem (PDF)
Psychology Today Article

What does ATS think about this? I'll add more posts about my observations once I get a chance to look through them all.

For example, the paper addresses different possibilities that may affect an individual's ability to know the currently unknowable:

1. Precognition or retroactive influence: The participant is, in fact, accessing information
yet to be determined in the future, implying that the direction of the causal arrow has
been reversed.

2. Clairvoyance/remote viewing: The participant is accessing already-determined
information in real time, information that is stored in the computer.

3. Psychokinesis: The participant is actually influencing the RNG’s placements of the
targets.

4. Artifactual correlation: The output from the RNG is inadequately randomized,
containing patterns that fortuitously match participants’ response biases. This produces a
spurious correlation between the participant’s guesses and the computer’s placements of
the target picture.

Haha

Bad things happen.

I'll be waiting for the post

Thank you for the post, OP. I'll have to read through some of the material to see what methodologies were employed but at the very least, it's good to have another piece of scientifically-based evidence that at least considers the concept of precognition.

Best regards,

Mike

Also, if it helps make a 60 page paper less daunting, the references take up a solid 5 pages. I'm really looking forward to people's initial thoughts based on the psychology today article, and the more hardcore folks' views from reading the study report.

Towards the end the report starts getting into the physics of time and how any of these given methods of "knowing the future" would be possible. I think it gives some very interesting insight into the possibilities of how people who may "see the future" might actually go about doing such things.

Okay, having read Dr Burkley's blog on Psychology today that the op linked to and which discusses this research, I feel the following statement she makes is pertinent to all this:

So although humans perceive time as linear, it doesn't necessarily mean it is so. And as good scientists, we shouldn't let out (sic!) preconceived beliefs and biases influence what we study, even if these preconceived beliefs reflect our basic assumptions about how time and space work.

For correctness, I'm repeating the link the OP gave which contains the above. You can read it here.

There seems to be a fair amount of agreement among physicists these days that "time" is a pretty weird and occasionally (no pun intended) rather paradoxical concept. I've read reports over the years where, for example, scientists and mathematicians tried reworking some equations that include a time component, but instead of just "t" they introduced "t1" and "t2". In other words, two different time components. The results they got were not always what they expected. If you start messing around with time, the outcomes can fall outside of our range of preconceived expectations.

I've had personal experiences with precognition and I know for certain that I have at least one case logged in detail here on a thread on ATS. If anyone's that interested then I can dig it up, but the point I'm making is that sometimes, we do seem to get a little peek into the future, if you will. I don't see anything "supernatural" in this. Far from it: I consider that it's more likely simply an ability that many of us have -- if not all of us -- but for the most part in this "modern" and "scientific" world, we discard these events as "coincidence" on the basis that it's impossible to perceive something that from a linear perspective of time, hasn't happened yet. Just because we don't understand how this can occur does not have to make it impossible.

Mike

From time to time, not only I have the feeling about the future events but having some sort of visions (mostly dreams) about them. The hard part is that they would require interpretations. The way these visions and dreams manifest themselves is through using the existing symbols we have already. This can be problematic because we don't know the future and all the players involved and yet they try to convey us the message about the future.

#, I just have a deja vu experience now typing this. Let me finish it.

These symbols can be from the past and a bit simplistic but they represent something about the future. I would avoid adding "feeling" into the equation because, feeling, in this case, is too personal. Is too grounded in your personal experiences. If you feel something about the future, you may not actually feeling the future but your own emotions.

I often blink and flinch before a loud noise, and I often look up at my xbox when it's idle about half a second before I receive a message on it. Does that count?

Im glad to hear that there actually using the words clairvoyance and precognition in a scientific report.
We are told its garbage when people experience it every day.
You cant say you have never gotten dejavu, Im sure you ALL have at one point in time. We only use 10% of our brains so who knows what we can actually do. All this stuff is just us tapping into our minds to unlock what probably once normal for everyone

While the idea of psi may not be controversial here, it is among academic psychologists - who are less likely to believe in the existence of psi than their peers in other fields. In a survey of 1,100 college professors in the United States, 34% of psychologists considered psi impossible. This is number considerably higher than those surveyed outside of psychology, who only had 2% of respondents believing psi to be impossible.

In the following posts I will provide a summary of each experiment and its results----

Experiment 1: Precognitive Detection of Erotic Stimuli
Experiment 2: Precognitive Avoidance of Negative Stimuli Method
Experiment 3: Retroactive Priming I
Experiment 4: Retroactive Priming II
Experiment 5: Retroactive Habituation I
Experiment 6: Retroactive Habituation II
Experiment 7: Retroactive Induction of Boredom
Experiment 8: Retroactive Facilitation of Recall I
Experiment 9: Retroactive Facilitation of Recall II

Note: I am not trying to flood this thread with posts, rather I am trying to provide ATS with solid evidence that precognitive abilities may exist. While I do not personally have a stance as to whether or not precognition is possible, I'm under the impression that many here on ATS would find this information informative and helpful, although dense.

Experiment 1: Precognitive Detection of Erotic Stimuli
- consisted of 100 Cornell undergraduates divided evenly by gender
- participants informed purpose of experiment was to test for ESP
- experiment run entirely by a computer
- images mostly contained explicit erotic content (consensual sexual acts)

Process:
Computer asks user a series of questions to determine their level of stimulus seeking(psi), followed by a 3 minute relaxation period before the participant began 36 trials. During each trial the screen displays two curtains, one of which has an image behind it. After selecting a curtain, the program reveals which curtain the image was behind.

Results: (averages)
Erotic images hit rate of 53.1%
Nonerotic images hit rate of 49.8%
- neutral pictures 49.6%
- negative pictures 51.3%
- positive pictures 49.4%
- romantic (nonerotic) pictures 50.2%

Accuracy based on stimulus/psi score –
High Score:
- Erotic trials: 57.6%
- Nonerotic trials: 49.9%
Low Score:
- Erotic trials: 49.9%
- Nonerotic trials: 49.9%

Those who had high stimulus seeking scores on the pre-trial test had a significantly higher accuracy than others on determining the future picture positions during erotic trials. Those with high psi scores did not score out average ranges on nonerotic trials. Those with low stimulus seeking scores did not score above chance on either the erotic or nonerotic trials. Also, 71% of participants had higher hit rates on erotic trials than nonerotic trials.

What this means:
Certain imagery that provides a strong instinctual response (in this case the imagery is erotic) is nearly 10% more likely to be accurately selected than chance should allow in individuals with strong psi levels. A 10% difference is a HUGE difference, and that's just the average.

This Test Has Been Conducted Multiple Times With Similar Results.
Attempts to artificially mimic these results using computers (instead of people) have all failed to produce anomalies similar to those in the human tests.

Experiment 2: Precognitive Avoidance of Negative Stimuli Method
- Initial test consisted of 150 Cornell undergraduates (107 females, 43 males) selected using automated recruiting program. Testers did not know or choose participants.
- participants informed purpose of experiment was to test for ESP
- experiment run entirely by computer
- experiment takes approx. 15 minutes

Process:
The participant asked to respond to two items on stimulus seeking scale, then takes a 3min relaxation period before beginning 36 trials. Each trial shows the participant a neutral, low-arousal picture and its mirror image side by side and asked to press a key indicating which image the participant prefers. After selecting their preferred image, the computer flashes a masked picture on the screen. After the user selects their preferred image the computer randomly selects which of the two images will be the target picture. If the participant selected the target-to-be image, the computer flashed a positive picture subliminally on the screen 3 times.

Results:
High stimulus seekers achieved an psi score more than 2x as large as the full sample (where the overall group Phi coefficient average across participants was .034, but .079 in high stimulus seekers).
Low stimulus seekers did not depart significantly from chance: 50.7% - 50.8%
High Stimulus seekers departed mildly from chance: 53.5%

What this Means:
Individuals with or without high psi scores are not very likely to be capable of using precognitive abilities to avoid negative stimuli. However, those with high psi scores are able to avoid negative subliminal imagery slightly more than average.

Personal Verdict: Test was Inconclusive.

Evidence favors the belief that precognitive abilities do not affect an individual's ability to avoid negative stimuli.

I have feelings of things that may happen but they sometimes just exist as a thought so I cannot always differentiate them from my real thoughts if my mind happened to be too busy. Being able to tell is something I feel is useful so I have warnings.

Experiments 3 & 4: Retroactive Priming
- participants 100 Cornell undergraduates (3: 69 females, 31 males; 4: 57 females, 43 males)
- same formal protocol followed as in previous experiments

Process:
Participants shown 64 trials, in which they were asked to press one of two keys as quickly as possible, indicating the image was either pleasant or unpleasant. For the first 32 trials, the word would be flashed on the screen after they judged the picture. For the last 32 trials the word would be flashed Prior to being shown the image. The participant was informed of when the word would appear relative to the image they were judging. The word beautiful or ugly was flashed across the screen for experiment 3, and luscious or bitter for experiment 4. The dependent variable was the participant’s response time, where faster responses are counted positively when the displayed image and word are both either positive or negative. The same numbers of positive and negative pictures were shown for each set of trials.

Note: For Experiment 4 the word may contradict the image associated with it. Hits are still calculated regardless of the image, so long as the user’s perception of the image matched the word flashed.

reaction = how quickly the participant pressed the button

Experiment 3 Results: (average)
- Forward Priming Hits: 63.9% (faster reaction) 64.9% (slower reaction)
- Retroactive Priming Hits: 60.8% (faster reaction) 56.7% (slower reaction)

Experiment 4 Results: (average)
- Forward Priming Hits: 59.6% (faster reaction) 59.6% (slower reaction)
- Retroactive Priming Hits: 58.6% (faster reaction) 61.6% (slower reaction)

What this Means:
The hit correlation between forward and retroactive priming is not significant enough to imply retroactive priming increases response time on a given task according to the professor. However, the inconclusivity seems to be more the result of the nature of this type of test being flawed. To me it seems like it’s the wrong test for learning about the effects of retroactive priming. The type of test in and of itself seems to have an inconclusive nature.

Understanding these two experiments and their implications was significantly harder for me than the previous experiments, and I have done the most accurate job of explaining the implications of the resulting data gathered. I have difficulty seeing the value of both of these experiments - please contribute any information I may have missed!

My first thought regarding the experiment was that the random number generator used somehow was causing unexpected results due to our mind's capability to recognize patterns, even subtle ones, but it appears that the experiment handles my concerns and the results still seem to hold.

The repercussions for physics seem pretty intense, as it seems to affirm some thoughts on quantum physics if I'm not mistaken. It may also point to the possibility of time travel (as, energy of some kind is being accessed from the past or sent back in time. If matter and energy could be interchanged through some process associated with our precognition, this would allow us to time travel or at the very least substantiate matter form the future using our minds).

The human mind and the true secrets of the universe will continue to evade and fascinate us.

This blows my mind, especially since I took a test tonight and I'm wondering if I should be studying now for it! ;-)

reply to post by FinalSonicX

Exactly! The scientific implications of the first experiment are really quite crazy - especially since this is repeatable. Haha, perhaps this is the sort of dense info that would rile up the science folk more than the philosophical/metaphysical community.

I'd be really interested to see how variables beyond the presentation of boredom (which is addressed in the paper) affect a given individuals "psi" rating. Sleep deprivation in particular would be very interesting. In most cases a lack of sleep hinders performance, but since people run more on a subconscious level when they're exhausted it would be interesting to see if this would be an exception to the standard.

From what I can tell from going through the paper so far is that experiment 1 seems to be the most mind-blowing result wise (well, its mind blowing to an empiricist like myself). If precognition is possible, it supports a lot of theories in quantum physics, not to mention more-or-less validating the possibility of time travel (both forward and backward). While a lot of studies have been done over the theory of time travel, to my knowledge (I don't know much on the subject) I'm not sure how many experiments returned actual evidence of time travel to the past beyond an experiment on human brains in the 1970s (I think?).

Since the psychology today article mentions the experiments regarding retroactive facilitation of recall, I'm hoping the tests conducted are more substantial than the ones on retroactive priming.

reply to post by zelaar


I have a little theory on why your theory may be a little skewed. We can assume the same test with a coin. 50/50 chance. (Two curtains showing an erotic and non-erotic photo; two faces of the coin)

If I flip the coin 50 times you might guess right or wrong majority of the time. But if you actually try to think about previous outcomes your accuracy may improve due to probability. Knowing the probability of heads or tails coming out three times in a row is unlikely, so you guess the other way.

Just my .02

In another study, Bem examined whether the well-known priming effect could also be reversed. In a typical priming study, people are shown a photo and they have to quickly indicate if the photo represents a negative or positive image. If the photo is of a cuddly kitten, you press the "positive" button and if the photo is of maggots on rotting meat, you press the "negative" button. A wealth of research has examined how subliminal priming can speed up your ability to categorize these photos. Subliminal priming occurs when a word is flashed on the computer screen so quickly that your conscious brain doesn't recognize what you saw, but your nonconscious brain does. So you just see a flash, and if I asked you to tell me what you saw, you wouldn't be able to. But deep down, your nonconscious brain saw the word and processed it. In priming studies, we consistently find that people who are primed with a word consistent with the valence of the photo will categorize it quicker. So if I quickly flash the word "happy" before the kitten picture, you will click the "positive" button even quicker, but if I instead flash the word "ugly" before it, you will take longer to respond. This is because priming you with the word "happy" gets your mind ready to see happy things.

So based on this... does that mean that this video is correct?