ANOMALOUS SWITCHING OF THE BI-STABLE PERCEPT OF A NECKER

CUBE

Dick J. BiermanUniversity of Amsterdam

Psi

• Are correlations that seem to transcend space or time or both and have no normal causal explanation. (‘information transfer’ or ‘signals’ is an interpretation)

• Correlation of conscious cognitive state with future (random) condition = precognition

• Correlations of non conscious (often physiological) states with future (emotional) condition = presentiment

Presentiment researchadvantages

– Uses experimental set up, identical with main stream set ups. Allows for integrated research.

– Subjects can be uninformed. Are not asked to do the ‘impossible’ (this is possible ;-)

– Presentiment is well explained by a theory (Consciousness Induced Restoration of Time symmetry).

Physics & CIRTS

• Physical formalisms (set of differential equations) generate generally time-symmetric solutions (called ‘retarded’ and ‘advanced’ solution)

• Solutions are determined by initial conditions• Solutions are also determined by ‘boundary conditions’.

That’s why we don’t see ‘advanced’ wave (Feynman, Wheeler)

• CIRTS: Boundary condition of ’information dissipated in coherent brain sustaining consciousness’ restores the time symmetry

• Physics is not changed to accommodate the paranormal.

Signals?

• The big Rhinean interpretation error:– ESP = scanning for relevant signals

• Requires unlimited information processing capacity and cannot be true

• CIRTS:– ESP = time symmetry of ‘information’ available in the

future.• Requires twice the ‘normal’ information processing capacity• Adds correlations not signals! (advanced & retarded wave are

correlated)

The role of emotion

• (Reported) Spontaneous cases have always an emotional significance.

• Presentiment deals by definition with (future) emotions

• However CIRTS is a physical theory, emotions shouldn’t be crucial.

Necker Cube

8

Transparent Bi stable views

The Necker Cube experiment• Is a well accepted main stream paradigm, especially in

consciousness research

• The subjects do not know that they participate in a psi experiment

• Does not involve emotions

• Fits into a series of time symmetric but main stream based experiments (like retro-active priming (de Boer), retroactive habituation (Bem), etc)

The Necker Cube experiment

time

First button press

Top view is experienced

Secondbutton press

Change into opaque Top or Bottom view

Top view duration

2 future conditions

10

Prediction

• The later random manipulation will have an effect on the earlier top-view duration.

• More specifically: when a non-transparent bottom view is displayed the top-view duration will be shorter.

• We call this: RETRO-ACTIVE INTERFERENCE

Method• Set-up

– Pilot – 2 independent replications (Amsterdam & Groningen)

• Subjects– Pilot & Groningen: Psychology students (mean age: 23)– Amsterdam: Long term yoga & controls (mean age: 41)

• Procedure– Computerized instruction. Also for experimenters!– Possibility to disregard a trial.

Analysis

• Pilot is considered exploratory

• Determines the parameters– For Outliers– For Disregarded subjects (too many outliers)

• Simple student t-test (confirmed by random permutation test)

Results Necker Cube exp.

Study N Top view

Bottom view

Diff. effect

sterror t P*

PILOT 5 3669 3306 +363 142.7 2.5 0.065 2-t AMS 26 4959 4765 +184 104.6 1.76 0.045 GRONINGEN 122 5027 4959 +103 78.2 1.36 0.090 TOTAL 153 5004 4875 + 129 78.2 1.97 0.026

14

Pilot + Amsterdam + Groningen:129 millisec mean difference (t=1.97, N=153, p =0.026)

Conclusions

• Support for ‘Retroactive’ interference effect

• Directly on bistable percept duration

• NO EMOTIONS involved (but …..)

Thanks

• Dept. of Neuroscience University of Amsterdam

• Henry Stapp

• Jacob Jolij (dept.neuroscience, Uni. Groningen)

• AUDIENCE