In 2011 researcher Daryl J Bem published a paper with data indicating that (i) information from the future could flow backward in time several seconds, and humans are unconsciously respond to it as if they are aware of it in the past. That article, Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect, sparked controversy. The experiments and data interpretation were relentlessly attacked and rejected. As far as I can tell, the data is still being attacked and rejected. There is no mechanism known to science that could account for information flow backward in time. The phenomenon is called precognition and is part of research into psychic phenomena, or psi research.
In an ongoing effort to show that the results are real, Bem and colleagues published updates in 2015, 2016 and 2022 of analyses of follow-on studies designed to replicate the original results of 2011. Those updates are described in the article, Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events.[1] According to Bem et al., the results are real and humans can sense at least some future events.
Future events are shown to be sensed by the human brain or mind by showing images on a computer screen. Most images are neutral and do not elicit a detectable brain response. But images of erotic or strong negative content do elicit a detectable brain response. A computer randomly shows images, so humans are not involved in that aspect of the experiment. The data is that a few seconds before the computer “chooses” a response-eliciting image humans respond to it with a detectable burst of brain waves. That looks like information is flowing from the immediate future to a human in real time. Some people take this kind of data as evidence that a God(s) can exist and that psi phenomena are real.
Bem’s 2022 update claims that the results are rock solid real, not an anomaly, statistical fluke or flawed research protocol:
We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09. A Bayesian analysis yielded a Bayes Factor of 5.1 × 109, greatly exceeding the criterion value of 100 for “decisive evidence” in support of the experimental hypothesis.
Statistical significance at a level of ‘6 sigma’ means that the results have about a two in one billion chance of being a fluke or false positive result. In physics, reports of fundamental new phenomenon require proof at a level of at least 5 sigma, or about 1 in 3.5 million. Physicists accepted the reality of the Higgs Boson, the last of the undetected fundamental particles the standard model of the universe predicted. It was proven at the 5 sigma level. If that is true, then what Bem has been arguing in the face of years of overwhelming criticism is real and his critics are wrong. One cannot rationally argue with 6 sigma results unless there are unknown flaws in the research and/or data analysis protocols.
Assume that Bem is right and this phenomenon is real what are the implications? Is there a God? Why don't brains produce responses to “neutral” images the computer shows? Are other psi phenomena real, e.g., telepathy or clairvoyance?
Reseasrchers inclined to believe Bem’s results acknowledge the difficulty most people have accepting this psi precognition phenomenon as real. A 2018 paper commented:
“Most scientists consider the idea that prospection may also involve influences from the future to be flatly impossible due to violation of common sense or constraints based on one or more physical laws. We present several classes of empirical evidence challenging this common assumption. If this line of evidence can be successfully and independently replicated using preregistered designs and analyses, then the consequences for the interpretation of experimental results from any empirical domain would be profound.”
In the face of Bem's analyses and his persistence, current research on this is getting more sophisticated. Results continue to come out that continue to undermine Bem’s explanation. A 2021 paper, found evidence of precognition with one experimental protocol, but it went away in a second protocol that was designed to control for past visual experiences. That paper commented:
“Results from some individual participants suggest on the first glance a precognition pattern, but results from our second experiment make a perceptual history explanation more probable. On the group level, no precognition effects were statistically indicated. The perceptual history effects found in the present study are in confirmation with related studies from the literature. The precognition analysis revealed some interesting individual patterns, which however did not allow for general conclusions. Overall, the present study demonstrates that any future experiment about sensory or extrasensory perception urgently needs to control for potential perceptual history effects and that temporal aspects of stimulus presentation are of high relevance.”
This is an example of how science progresses. As something unexplainable comes up using early generation research protocols, later protocols are designed with better controls. That's especially important for social science research. Since we do not yet have a deep understanding of the brain-mind, unknown biases and human complexities can lead to false conclusions.
Footnote:
1. The 2022 version of Bem’s paper comments:
Precognition is one of several phenomena in which individuals appear to have access to “nonlocal” information, that is, to information that would not normally be available to them through any currently known physical or biological process. These phenomena, collectively referred to as psi, include telepathy, access to another person’s thoughts without the mediation of any known channel of sensory communication; clairvoyance (including a variant called remote viewing), the apparent perception of objects or events that do not provide a stimulus to the known senses; and precognition, the anticipation of future events that could not otherwise be anticipated through any known inferential process.
No comments:
Post a Comment