Blog 24/ (Slides 10-12): PRE-CALL AS
A LEARNED SKILL – Affords new union of psi to science, or psychology to space-time.
Three factors therefore suggest that
pre-call learning should be feasible.
First is the general correlation between frequency and mentality, as
observed from close observation of spontaneous psi anecdotes. Second is the pre-call diagram which suggests
that heightened interest in future occurrences should make them more
accessible.
And third is the future half of the
Minkowski diagram, for space-time. From
which so many eminent physicists have concluded that future events are just
waiting for us ‘to come across them’ as our lives proceed. Though never with any further pragmatic
investigation of this possibility !
Given such, it can only be sensible to
assemble more expertise from other more conventional learning feats before
starting, since “learning to learn” may be taken as one definition of
intelligence.
Despite his well-known contention that ‘the common distinction between past, present
future is just an illusion’, about the only pragmatic effort Einstein ever
seems to have made in this direction, was around 1928. This happened when he enquired of Swiss child
psychologist J.Piaget whether our personal sense of time was innate (i.e.
inborn) or learned.
Whereupon - after numerous observations on
the very young - Piaget then concluded
that the latter is more likely to be true.
So that our personal sense of time is probably “learned from our parents through enculturation and language. …..One could almost say that the child begins
as a little relativist, but then grows up as a Newtonian absolutist.”
In
similar vein one may note that Amazon tribes cut off from the modern world - as
also the original inhabitants of Australia - often have no words to distinguish
between past and future, and so lack our clear distinction between the two. Whereas
the Indo-European language family – through which western science has
progressed so rapidly - is especially rich
in tensed refinements, so enforcing commonly held (but often untested)
notions about time.
In
this context S. Freud once concluded that “ the
processes (of the unconscious are timeless…..in fact bear no relation to time
at all.” While his onetime colleague
C.J. Jung went even further: “there is in
the subconscious something like an a priori knowledge, which lacks any causal basis.”
All of which suggests that pre-call may
reasonably be expected to be a highly censored faculty. One can expect that it might best manifest
whenever the conscious mental Censor is relaxed (as in sleep) or otherwise
off-guard. Another conclusion with which
close observation of its spontaneous everyday occurrences also agrees.
In my own case direct pragmatic action along
these lines then shows quite clearly that pre-call can indeed be learned. For by simply deciding to develop a greater
interest - while always wary of the internal Censor - a strong increase in
spontaneous psi manifestations can be attained.
Though, since these can be rather upsetting to one’s sense of temporal
equilibrium, it’s best to concentrate on strictly numerate exercises. Which are one step removed from everyday
activities.
My audience or readers are of course by no
means expected to accept what I report here out of hand. Instead
they’re invited to “Try it and See!” (as
Galileo first said) and reach their own conclusions thereby. While I’ll now furnish sufficient detail in
the next few paragraphs to enable such tests to be tried out.
To learn numerate pre-call – say with the very
simple exercise of ‘guessing’ (sic) playing-cards – therefore firstly requires strong and
continuous application of phenomenology.
A discipline founded by Edmund Husserl over 100 years ago, phenomenology
can be defined as a heightened form of self-awareness Or ‘examination
and description of internal states (of mind)’.
To
which one must add deliberate reproduction of the desired ‘low-noise’ mind-state
which gives positive pre-call results.
And, even more importantly, deliberate suppression of those opposite or ‘high-noise’
mind-states - wherein mistakes are more likely to occur.
As yet of course there exist no words which
might communicate the essence of these opposed mind-states to the wholly
inexperienced. They can however be
circumscribed with familiar adjectives conveying something of their quality.
So that ‘calm, cool, relaxed, happy,
empty-minded’ are all useful descriptions of that desired ‘low-noise’
mind-state which gives positive pre-call results. Whereas ‘worried, hurried, rushed, nervous,
pressurised,’ apply to its ‘high-noise’ opposite.
Given such – again say for the simplest
pre-call exercise of learning to ‘guess’ ordinary playing-cards correctly – the
pre-call procedure is mainly one of trial-and-error repeated on a sufficient
and regular basis. And, as I’ve
mentioned earlier, more detailed instructions on how to do this are available in my recent ebook Future, Memory and Time (2016 – Edn 2).
Further the sensible improvement rate you might
aim for – escalating from near- average results initially – would be about 1%
per 1,000 trials or 5 hours effort. This
is a rate in line with other more conventional learning feats.
Otherwise the main requirement for learned
pre-call are interest, motivation and above all strong and continuous
application of will-power. For, as psychologists have lately begun to
realise, will-power is quite a limited resource in our everyday routines.
So that you could hardly undertake
deliberate pre-call throughout a full working day. About 1 or at most 2 hours daily will be quite
enough.
Successful pre-call can then result in new
harmony between psychology and physics, a new psycho-physical attitude more in
conformity with those otherwise puzzling implications from the future of
Minkowski space-time.
I’ve recommended ‘guessing’ (sic)
playing-cards here as the simplest pre-call exercise. It should suffice for anyone wishing to
validate (or falsify) my general conclusions on the psychology of
space-time. But once success is
attained in this simplest mode, there are many others in which pre-call can be
found to operate.
For these others the procedures are much
the same as with the initial card pre-call exercise, while realising that one
must largely ‘start all over again’ for each new learning feat.
Or, ‘learning to learn’ from more familiar routines
once again, one can note that good competence on the piano will not immediately
guarantee similar performance on the violin.
At best one could expect to be a little better than one who is totally
inexperienced musically.
And so it is also when one starts out on
new pre-call learning feats.
Though
long experienced in some half-dozen varied pre-call routines, I will only stress 2 here. First is my conclusion that a quantum
generator can be pre-called much as with croupier-thrown roulette, mechanical
randomisers. and electronic RNGs. This quantum
conclusion replicates a finding reported by Helmut Schmidt from the Rhine
Laboratory almost 50 years ago.
If such can then be confirmed by others, it
would falsify the Copenhagen Dictum underlying those various aspects of ‘quantum weirdness’ so prevalent currently.
Second I’ll highlight an intriguing little pre-call
exercise which I still carry out almost every day. This has to do with moving vehicles, And their drivers can all be described as ‘randomly
numbered people’ – because of their vehicle’s licence-plate that’s designed for
everyone to see.
So
that to be able to pre-call what vehicle number you will encounter – say at the next static
traffic-light 2 minutes ahead in time and I miles further on in space – is by
far the most convincing proof of space-time’s
reality.
Unfortunately this mode no longer applies
in modern Britain, because random-digit licence-plates were there abandoned
years ago. But in most countries elsewhere
randomised licence plates still hold.
And again my readers and audience are
invited to “Try and See!” at their
own convenience, this being the easiest and most informative pre-call exercise
of all.
What all this affords is therefore a sixth example of ‘naïve impressions replaced by scientific knowledge’ – though only
for pre-call adepts so far. For naïve
impressions hold that random future events could never possibly be predicted:
pre-call conversely clarifies that at least many of them can.
And the result is a new psycho-physical
isomorph (= same shape) between psychology and physics – as the next diagram
shows. This was the objective when
quantum pioneer W.Pauli allied with psychologist C.G.Jung for their nebulous
notion of Synchronicity.
It
further resolves that problem noted by Paul Davies when he deplored the ‘glaring mismatch’ between subjective and
objective time. Likewise concluding
‘Einstein’s unfinished revolution’ to at least a first degree.
In this section I’ll report on a first collaborative
attempt by me to partially pre-call UK Lotto, at the kind invitation of Dr.
David Vernon, senior lecturer in psychology at Canterbury University.
When considering this first ever Lotto
attempt by myself, it’s important to remember M.Gell-Mann’s observation that
first experiments are “often messy” and seldom perfect.
As for example with two I’ve already
mentioned: Eddington’s first proof of
Einstein’s General Relativity Theory (GRT - 1919) and the Hafele-Keating ‘flying clocks’
experiment (1971). To which one may add
the first experimental flight of the Wright Brothers (1903) which lasted for
120 feet - just slightly longer than one
wing of a Jumbo jet nowadays.
In any case UK Lotto has two weekly draws (8.30pm
every Wednesday and Saturday) – when 6 out of a total 59 numbered balls tumble
out of a mechanical randomising device. (With the 7th bonus ball
here ignored.)
Our agreed
procedure was that I should text just 3 pre-call selections (even though there
are 6 possible outcomes) to Dr. Vernon
around 12.30 pm each Wednesday. And then
inspect the actual Lotto results after 8.30pm that same night.
Saturday draws were not included, and texting
was replaced by Gmail after Day 12.
This was therefore an experiment
extending into future space-time by 600 kilometres and 8 hrs. 600 km was the spatial interval between
my usual location in Galway and London where the draws take place. While 8 hrs was the temporal interval between my pre-call decisions
(around 12.30pm) and my observation of the later outcomes (after 8.30 pm when
balls tumble out.)
We
regarded this experiment as tightly fool-proof because the timed texts – of
both sender and receiver – would always be available for inspection in the
mobile-phone (and later Gmail) records.
While even the records of any superfluous texts – wherein I might have
texted wrong choices which could be excised later by both parties – would
likewise still remain.
Results
are shown in abbreviated form here. With
+ denoting just one success out of 3 attempts for any particular day. And ++ denotes 2 successes (again out of 3
possible) on Day 6 alone.
Being
very much ignorant of probability calculations at this level, I was at first
reliant on two 2nd-yr psychology students whose estimates proved
highly unreliable. But – after the whole
experiment was concluded by me at the end of Day 18 - I was able to enlist the kind services
of Dr. Michel Fitzgerald – former lecturer in statistics at GMIT, Galway.
He defines
a winning day as one wherein I scored either 1, or2, or 3 successes (+ scores)
with p-value of 0.284. And he calculates
the total p-value after Day 15 as 0.002, or about 1 chance in 500 days more
colloquially. While the p-value after
18 days was 0.0125, or about 1 chance in 80 in popular terms.
After Day 15 however it grew quite evident
to me that I had definitely ‘lost form’.
This was for several strong background reasons I will not elaborate on here.
“Loss of form” is of course a very familiar occurrence in certain athletic
pursuits (golf among others) wherein mind control is paramount. Think Tiger Woods in this context…..
So that after Day 18 – and despite the fact
that we had originally planned for 24 days – the latest incoming evidence made
me conclude that it would be rather useless to go any further with this first
Lotto attempt. Frequential analysts may
of course conclude that this ‘optional stopping’ obviated the entire
experiment. But such would ignore the
subtleties of my psychological background which had changed markedly after Day
15.
There
are of course at least 6 obvious measures whereby this first attempt at Lotto
pre-call could be much improved:
1/
The protocol could be strengthened: should the pre-caller aim for just 1 (out
of 3) win-selections daily? Instead of trying for ‘as many as possible’ indiscriminately
as I was attempting here.
2/
Pre-call selections should be done around 7.30pm daily – so giving a lesser 1-hr
extension into future space-time.
Instead of that much longer 8-hr
interval involved in this attempt.
3/ There should be twice-weekly attempts – i.e.
on both Wednesday and Saturday. Instead
of just Wednesday as our protocol involved.
4/
As opposed to too-rigid frequential analysis, Bayesian analysis must seem
preferable. This would better allow for
p-calculation after every single result, and also for obvious “loss of form”.
5/
Google time-stamping – as used for financial documents - should be preferable
to ordinary G-mail from a fraud-proofing viewpoint?
6/
There should be 6 pre-call adepts – instead of one solitary individual, which was just me here. With each concentrating to pre-call just 1
correct result out of 3 selections. Plus
also a (7th) director to iron out any inconsistencies and attend to
business otherwise.
Given such a program, It then seems
reasonable to project that the full 6 Lotto winning numbers might be pre-called
perhaps once a year. For that mixer-machine
which spews out the winning numbers is just another mechanical randomiser. And there’s abundant evidence from other randomisers
that pre-call can be made to operate with them.
Finally I intend to publish the results of
this Lotto experiment in full detail in a later Blog. So inviting comment from all quarters – and
hopefully Bayesian analysis from those competent in this sphere…
Nevertheless, and despite its great simplicity
and ready functionality, there are obviously still various problems and possibilities associated with the pre-call concept
overall. Among these are:-
1/ Just
what is the basis for pre-call functionality?
But since the functionality of more
familiar re-call is still a mystery to current science, it must seem premature
to question its less frequent counterpart at this early stage.
2/ Does pre-call require a new, temporally enlarged,
paradigm for consciousness?
Quite possibly, since currently
there’s large uncertainty on what a viable paradigm on the function of
consciousness might involve.
3/ Does pre-call violate the principle of
causality?
Initially it does looks so. But to apply the physical doctrine of
causality, to the less corporeal region of mental function, may constitute what
philosophers term a category mistake.
While further realising that causality
stems from observations incorporating that Prime Assumption of wholly
asymmetric memory.
4/
Does it threaten the common impression
of an open future mostly susceptible to
free will, and induce an undue degree of fatalism instead?
‘Free will’ is a term inherited from
the ancients, and probably requires to be replaced. Likewise for this common notion of ‘the
future’ which might require new differentiation and neologisms. For example ‘the physical future’, ‘the
personal future’, ‘the common future, ‘the plastic future’ and so on.
Such current deficiencies are part of a
greater problem, in that overall time language is still largely untested,
pre-scientific and confused. Much as
mediaeval alchemy had no well-defined term/concepts for elements, compounds,
atoms, molecules, etc.
As for fatalism, well-balanced pre-call
adepts would hardly let that possibility worry them unduly: the mentality is
difficult enough to elicit for just numerate endeavours right now.
5/
Could 100% reliability – e.g. for card pre-call – ever be attained?
While 90+% competence is certainly
imaginable, the learning process is definitely exponential, so making full
pre-call reliability more questionable.
Or can even a champion dart-player attain full perfection at all times?
6/ Is there likely to be an objective physical
indicator (for example EEG waves) whenever the desired pre-call mentality has
been attained?
Probably…
7/ If one had 3 adepts – each with .75
competence in binary (red-or-black?) pre-call – would there be greater
reliability on those occasions when all happened to agree?
In theory yes: in practice still unclear….
8/
What is the maximum time horizon into future space-time for pre-call to
operate?
Very definitely at least 4 months in my
experience. And probably much longer as
the traditional literature suggests.
More positively in this final section,
we can consider various new possibilities apparent under the pre-call paradigm…
1/ It should radically elevate the status of psi
research from its current low position of general derision. To the much higher status of providing
pragmatic answers to some large problems on the modern physics scene.
2/ Pre-call makes psi more fully science-coherent
– as opposed to the science-confliction implied by the older ‘transmission’
ideas.
3/
It affords a final proof of Minkowski space-time. By confirming that all those implications of
a ‘laid-out’ future are, at least to some extent, true.
4/ If quantum RNGs can be pre-called as initial
experiments suggest, it would falsify the Copenhagen dictum. And likewise much of that ‘quantum weirdness’
now prevalent on the scientific scene.
5/
And in so doing restore Relativity Theory as the overall prime arbitrer of
time.
6/
Since “computers can’t pre-call” – at least insofar as we currently understand
them - this provides a new Turing Test.
With a very clear difference between mind and machine, and so important
in A.I. fields.
7/ Does familiarity with pre-call enhance one’s
general creativity?
Certainly.
But also enhance intelligence?
Not so certain, or maybe at best
occasionally.
8/
Through definition and falsification of The Prime Assumption (i.e. that memory is
limited to the past alone) pre-call provides more firm foundations for progress
in the overall philosophy of time
9/ It may even suggest that there’s a whole new
continent of time-future which now awaits pragmatic exploration. And of which my investigations as reported
here, have probably revealed just a general outline so far.
10/
If so, we might soon see a whole New Science of Time get under way – a
development for too long absent from the overall science scene…..
