1. ANOMALOUS SWITCHING OF THE BI-STABLE PERCEPT OF A NECKER CUBE Dick J. Bierman University of Amsterdam

2. 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

3. Presentiment research advantages – 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).

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. 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.

7. Cube 7 Opaque top view

8. Necker Cube 8 Transparent Bi stable views

9. 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)

10. The Necker Cube experiment time First button press Top view is experienced Second button press Change into opaque Top or Bottom view Top view duration 2 future conditions 10

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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)

14. Results Necker Cube exp. 14 Pilot + Amsterdam + Groningen: 129 millisec mean difference (t=1.97, N=153, p =0.026)

15. Conclusions Support for ‘Retroactive’ interference effect Directly on bistable percept duration NO EMOTIONS involved (but …..)

16. Thanks Dept. of Neuroscience University of Amsterdam Henry Stapp Jacob Jolij (dept.neuroscience, Uni. Groningen) AUDIENCE