Blog 23

Blog 23/  (Slides 7-9): RETHINKING PSI – Shows how a purely temporal revaluation of the ‘psychic’ mystery is best.

    Nevertheless, over the past few decades, there has been considerable comments from physicists, over this great divergence between naïve impressions and the seeming consequences of space-time. 

    So that Paul Davies (About Time- 1988) has highlighted “Einstein’s unfinished revolution” -  “the glaring mismatch” between psychology and physics, or between subjective and objective time.

    Likewise Scientific American and New Scientist – two of our most influential science magazines – continue at regular intervals to voice the suspicion that there’s something, either lacking or seriously mistaken, in the overall scientific comprehension of time.

    In his Emperor’s New Mind (1990) Sir Roger Penrose – author of the Andromeda Paradox  I’ve quoted earlier – therefore queries  whether there might be something illusory about consciousness.   And also wonders how we might change the laws of physics to accord with what our perceptions seem to say.

    But surely, if anything, it should be our largely untested perceptions that need changing?   And not those laws of physics so accurately and often well proven by thousands of experiments?.  

   In A Brief History of Time (1987) Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan further address the question of why “we can’t remember the future” – in view of that past-future similarity apparent in relativity and space-time realms. 

   While more recently the same question is considered by leading American cosmologists Sean Carroll (From Eternity to Here – 2010 ) and Lee Smolin (Time Reborn - 2014 ).

   Smolin also states that he’s “certain all these problems will be resolved by some simple idea that lies in plain sight of all”

     While not so sure why Smolin should feel so certain, I agree with him that there’s one simple solution to this past/future conundrum which has been overlooked so far. 

    And that the answer to this ‘glaring mismatch between physics and psychology’, just lies in proper understanding of what psi (the term for so-called ‘psychic’ experience) is all about…

    But first to dispose of this question of “remembering the future” over which we’ve seen serious physicists agonise.   For since  ‘re-‘  means ‘again or afterwards’ and ‘future’ implies ‘not yet,’ this verb and noun just can’t be logically combined.  It’s like asking  “Why can’t a circle be square?”   or “Why can’t a square be circular?”

    All such are just really oxymora – incongruous combinations of opposites.     So that this problem should first be restated in less oxymoronic form: “Just why can’t mind be aware of the future as it is of the past?”

    To which the most straightforward solution might be to query further: “But has anyone ever really tried so far?”   As the innocent child in The Emperor’s New Clothes might question - and indeed as my 'nephew' Alexander Connolly (then aged eleven- and- a-half)  once asked me.

    This crystallises the issue of what I’ve long termed THE PRIME ASSUMPTION: that mind can only contemplate the past alone.  (In this I’m ignoring the present – since what we regard as now is already long past in physics terms).

Insofar as I can find out, nobody ever seems to have articulated this Prime Assumption previously.  And yet it lies at the very foundation of large swathes of philosophy, psychology and physics - as these disciplines are currently understood.

   Neither of course has anyone – hitherto - ever tested out this PRIME ASSUMPTION to see if it is really true.

   And so in our next section I will show how it can readily be falsified  –  both theoretically and pragmatically – once psi is properly understood.

    That productive psi research has currently almost ground to a halt is now inescapable by almost any criterion of measurement.   Or that there’s been little progress over too many recent years can hardly be denied.

   But such stases happen often throughout science history.  And they’re usually resolved by a fresh approach – as when Einstein realised that the late 19^th century notion of an Aether was unreal.  With then broke the logjam to stimulate large progress into previously unsuspected new scientific realms.

    Wherefore both history and large personal experience suggest that this whole unsolved problem of psi awareness should now be totally rethought.  Aided by due lessons from science history, as I am conveying by capitals throughout this section.

     Another of these important lessons from science is that weak anomalies can matter very much – sometimes even opening up whole new arenas of enquiry.  Such was the case when Madame Curie (1896) boiled down a tonne of pitchblende to isolate a decigram of radium – a 10^-7 anomaly.  While the recently discovered Higgs Boson was a 10^-16 anomaly – or about one part in ten million billion more colloquially.

    In this section I will therefore show later that psi may well be a weak or occasional anomaly of experience with 10^-8  frequency.  If so, those sceptics who declaim psi as non-occurrent could be described as careless or inobservant of reality.

   A fourth important lesson from science is that people tend to think in terms of space before considering time.  So that (perhaps predictably) the growth of science has progressed likewise.  One reason for this priority may be that everyday spaces – for example the room you’re sitting in – are concrete and easily visualised.  Whereas time is more evanescent and abstract.

    Another may stem from the fact that infants show spatial awareness within the first fortnight (grasping, facial recognition, etc.).  While remaining largely timeless for at least a year.

    Such may explain why Euclid’s geometry first laid out the early laws of space, and over two millenia before Einstein could start on any laws for time.  While we now have the NASA for Space Administration – but nothing similar for administering Time likewise!

   Wherefore it’s perhaps only predictable that, when psi first began to be investigated after the London foundation of SPR (Society for Psychical Research) in 1882, the main focus should be on spatial – as distinct from temporal – aspects.

     Space rather than time predominated in early psi research, which has largely continued with this priority ever since.   And – as I will show – this   bias goes far to explain its striking  lack of progress overall.

  This ‘space-before-time’ bias can be traced back as far as Anton Mesmer (ca 1780), who resurrected hypnotism.  After which careless and incomplete observation by his protégé Marquis de Puysegur initiated the common notion of ‘clairvoyance’ .  This was supposed to be a paranormal and trans-spatial capacity for seeing into closed or distant realms.  

     But tellingly Puysegur neglects to record whether his mesmerised subjects were ever told the real outcome of their efforts later – a fact which would emphasise their temporal aspect, and more logically.

    The same trans-spatial basis can be observed when the early Society for Psychical research (SPR - London) began to collect anecdotes of psi awareness from the general public after 1882.  Researchers then were obviously influenced by the new technology of telegraphy which was the internet of its day. 

    Hence came the notion of telepathy or mental transmission.   In support of which over 100 carefully considered psi anecdotes were published in Phantasms of the Living (SPR -1886, 1918).

    Yet every last single one of these anecdotes (I’ve analysed them all Individually!) can also be interpreted as if their experients were merely ‘thinking forward - to some surprising experience they would encounter soon afterwards!   Thereby establishing temporal as an equal alternative to spatial interpretations throughout. 

    The same applies to 179 of those 186 psi anecdotes advanced by Louisa Rhine in support of ESP. (Reaches of the Mind – 1962).   

    And likewise to those several dozen anecdotes which have emerged from the CIA-sponsored remote-viewing program of 1972-95.  Its participants aimed to somehow transcend space while trying to peer into foreign regions.  But alternatively one may conclude they were transcending time by just ‘thinking forward’ - to confirmatory information they could inspect soon afterwards.

    In addition most – perhaps all? - successful psi experiments can be interpreted as ‘thinking forward’ likewise.   This applies to reproduced drawings described in Phantasms, at least the majority of J.B. Rhine’s early (and most successful) card-guessing experiments, and (probably) C.Honorton’s ganzfeld results.

    Finally one concrete measure of the space-before-time bias throughout psi research is provided by the last 5 years of the annual SPR conferences.  From 150 papers read there, just 16 (11%) were devoted to temporal affairs. And that includes 3 delivered by me personally……

    In the light of all which an objective observer might remark that the laws of space (e.g. inverse-square transmission) have already been worked out – and allow no obvious room for violating anomalies.   Whereas at least some ‘laws of time’ are still contentious – as indeed we’ve already seen with the problem of space-time psychology.

    So that it must seem more logical to prioritise time over space, if that weak anomaly of psi awareness is to be explained…..

     That logic is essential is another due lesson from science history.   And the point here is that, while all inferences of spatial anomaly can equally be interpreted in terms of the temporal, the reverse is simply not true.   There are some well investigated cases of  temporal psi which simply can’t be interpreted in spatial terms.

    One such is Mark Twain’s report of a famous dream wherein he foresaw his brother Henry in a coffin – an incident which ‘came to pass’ after Henry was blown up in a boiler explosion soon afterwards.  There simply couldn’t be any possibility of ‘telepathy’ or contra-spatial ‘transmission’ in this sequence.

    So that Occam’s excellent ‘dictum of maximum simplicity’ matters here: Two explanations should not be considered where just one will do.

  Further, if your science is reliable, you should be able to make testable predictions about data still uncollected or facts as yet unknown.   So that I now confidently predict that 95+% of new psi anecdotes will “make sense” as temporal anomalies, and regardless of whether a spatial interpretation is also possible.

    Finally too one should sensibly heed Nobelist Peter Medawar’s excellent and sensible advice to young scientists: “Consider the soluble problems first” (The Art of the Soluble -1984)

    But those several space-violating or ‘transmission’ hypotheses have proven largely intractable and unproductive so far.  So that it must seem no more than sensible to set them aside (at least for the moment) and consider the temporal options instead.

     But if one is to consider psi from a purely or largely temporal perspective, a required first step must surely be to check on its descriptive words.   For that “wrong words divert into cul-de-sacs of confusion” is a scientific maxim which  that earlier example of the Aether clearly proves.  

     Wherefore the traditional term ‘precognition’ – which has long served for description of psi temporality – should next be scrutinised.  It’s a term introduced around 1892 by prominent SPR founder F.W.Myers, to describe some early psi anecdotes with unavoidable temporality.  

    Predictably also – in view of the space-before-time rule - this was some 10 years after the spatial or ‘transmission’ idea of telepathy had taken hold.

    Myers however borrowed this term ‘precognition’ ready-made from mediaeval theology.  But, unlike Faraday, he appears not to have considered any further tests for its accuracy or suitability.  He just wanted to remove that element of forewarning inherent in ‘premonition’, a more common inference in that era.

    But pre-cognition’s inherent similarity to re-cognition (of which it is the antonym) was almost bound to cause large ontological confusion, a consequence not clearly realised.

    Confusion arises because re-cognition must involve 3 essential elements.  As can be seen from this following little anecdote:  “First I saw Mary yesterday; Second I see her again approaching now; Third I re-cognise her (Lit: know her again) because my mind connects these two events.”

     On the other hand re-call is a simpler memory function with just 2 essential elements.  As again another and simpler little story can clarify: “First I saw Mabel off on the plane yesterday; second (although she’s no longer physically present) I can re-call something of her likeness now.”

   To re-call therefore means ‘to summon back to mind’, with its essence reducible to  “First see, then later think (about it).”   While the essence of nearly all psi anecdotes is an exact temporal opposite: “First think (about something unusual); then later see (as it ‘comes to pass’ in reality).” 

    For accurate description of psi temporalities, pre-call therefore emerges as a more accurate fact-label than pre-cognition ever could.   It’s a neologism first coined and used by me in my address to the Parascience Conference - London, 1974.

    Pre-call has the further advantage that it can readily be visualised through a simple diagram, as the next slide shows.  Whereas, because of its inherent confusion,  pre-cognition just can’t by any means be so reduced.

   The left side of this diagram therefore embodies the well-known memory-curve introduced by H.Ebbinghaus in 1882.   High peaks denote past observations of high interest - with many details available to re-call soon after such events were first observed. 

    Though such details grow ever less prominent over longer intervals, condemned to fade away beneath the memory threshold.

    In contrast observations of lesser interest fade away much faster - often within hours or even minutes -  then rapidly growing irretrievable beneath the memory threshold.   For example who can now re-call anything about the first stranger encountered after leaving home today?

    Likewise the facts of psi awareness can all be depicted with a much steeper and future-directed memory curve.   Again this shows how high-interest observations (for example of an accident) tend to be pre-called from days, weeks, months ahead.  Whereas more trivial events (e.g. “I was just thinking of Mary, and then she texted”) tend to involve a time-lag of seconds or minutes at most.

 

    A further benefit of this new pre-call diagram is that it permits a first-ever calculation of relative frequency for the psi anomaly.   For this consider first that on average one might make 1 new observation for every single conscious second.  Though 1 observation per 10 seconds seems a more realistic estimate.

    Next multiply these estimates by your maximum 2 billion conscious seconds in the 97 years you’ll be rather lucky to survive.  So that you will end up with a maximum 2x10⁹ observations - or more likely 2x10⁸  - throughout your entire lifetime!

    Consider then that the average individual may well observe at least 2 potential cases of psi awareness during this entire lifespan.  That would mean an experiential anomaly with relative frequency of 10^-9.  Or 10^-8  more realistically.
    Although if you also take into account the total number of past observations you can now actually re-call at this instant, the relative psi frequency grows far less weak again.

    Historically in any case weak anomalies of this order have often proved important for new discovery.  As my earlier examples of radium (a 10^-7 anomaly) and the Higgs Boson (10^-16) show.   

    A third advantage of this diagram is that it can be very helpful once pre-call learning is begun.   Because, at the moment of Now, you can deliberately decide to render some future observation as interesting as possible.   So hopefully projecting its interest peak that little bit higher above the future-oriented memory curve.

    A final large attraction of this pre-call diagram is that it exhibits simplicity, compression and (partial) symmetry.  And these are all hallmarks of good science, as Murray Gell-Mann observes in his chapter on the scientific enterprise (The Quark and the Jaguar – 1994 – ch 7).

    In addition good science is also microscopic, in that its practitioners seek to observe the facts as closely as they can.   This entails close questioning of people as soon as possible after they’ve experienced what might be a psi episode. 

    Or an even closer and faster observation of your own mentalities, if you are susceptible to such events. 

    Such close analysis was what I once did in a novel and year-long Survey of Coincidence – conducted with 16 professional people, in Galway long ago.  And as I’ve reported in my e-book Future, Memory and Time  (2015).

    All of which contrasts with the more telescopic or traditional methods of psi observation, as recorded in books like Phantasms (1886) or Reaches of the Mind (1962.)   For, as critics have also pointed out, such records are too far removed from their source material.  Usually they detail possible psi anecdotes sent in by distant experients, and often relating to events from long before.  

    But the more microscopic approach I’ve pioneered can soon clarify that pre-call is most likely to maximise during periods of mental quietude.  (Mediums and mystics have of course been saying the same thing for centuries). 

    While conversely spontaneous pre-call tends to be minimised – or even disappear completely! – during periods of periods of mental disharmony, pressure, and the like.

   And by distilling such observations into more controlled or less happenstance situations, the path to pre-call learning then becomes more clear…