2017
DOI: 10.1063/1.4982775
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Examining the nature of retrocausal effects in biology and psychology

Abstract: Abstract. Multiple laboratories have reported physiological and psychological changes associated with future events that are designed to be unpredictable by normal sensory means. Such phenomena seem to be examples of retrocausality at the macroscopic level. Here I will discuss the characteristics of seemingly retrocausal effects in biology and psychology, specifically examining a biological and a psychological form of precognition, predictive anticipatory activity (PAA) and implicit precognition. The aim of th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
(28 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…And when psi belief was manipulated, psi performance on a clairvoyance task was successfully manipulated as well (Walsh & Moddel, 2007). In addition, gender seems to influence both precognition and psychokinesis tasks, but in complex and inconsistent ways that do not allow firm conclusions to be drawn, except that as in many non-psi behavioral tasks men and women sometimes have different ways of responding to certain tasks and stimuli (Bierman & Scholte, 2002;Jahn et al, 2017;Lobach, 2009;Mossbridge, 2017;Mossbridge et al, 2012;Radin & Lobach, 2007;Wittmann et al, in press).…”
Section: P a G E 8mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…And when psi belief was manipulated, psi performance on a clairvoyance task was successfully manipulated as well (Walsh & Moddel, 2007). In addition, gender seems to influence both precognition and psychokinesis tasks, but in complex and inconsistent ways that do not allow firm conclusions to be drawn, except that as in many non-psi behavioral tasks men and women sometimes have different ways of responding to certain tasks and stimuli (Bierman & Scholte, 2002;Jahn et al, 2017;Lobach, 2009;Mossbridge, 2017;Mossbridge et al, 2012;Radin & Lobach, 2007;Wittmann et al, in press).…”
Section: P a G E 8mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous examinations of forced-choice psi task performance have provided some indications that belief in psi and personality traits such as extraversion and openness can influence accuracy, albeit in a task-specific way (Hitchman et al, 2012;Honorton et al, 1998;Marcusson-Clavertz & Cardeña, 2011;Palmer & Carpenter, 1998;Zdrenka & Wilson, 2017) and that gender or sex at birth can also have task-specific influences on psi accuracy (Bierman & Scholte, 2002;Lobach, 2009;Mossbridge, 2017;Mossbridge et al, 2012;Radin & Lobach, 2007;Wittmann et al, in press). Our exploratory conclusion after examining data from the four online forced-choice tasks described here is that the task-specificity of these factors is strongly supported.…”
Section: Psi Strategies Differ Across Demographic and Personality Traitsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studying paranormal phenomena can benefit from information processing approaches, which help reduce the unpredictability in theoretical conceptualization. For example, the frame-content duality view of information as a hypothetical particle for transmitting impacts may have potential , particularly when both notions of time and conscious processing may share the same unknown fundamental information mechanism (Mossbridge, 2017). Additionally, this study also shows the advantages of employing Bayesian analytics in parapsychological research, especially when the cost of science is a real and major issue in this relatively low-funded field (Vuong, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…We used a trait-analysis approach to examine the relationship between psi performance and various demographic, personality, and target factors. The trait-analysis approach is not new to psi and has been used over the past four decades with varying results (e.g., Barušs & Mossbridge, 2017;Bierman & Scholte, 2002;Braud, 2002;Cardeña & Krippner, 2000;Hitchman et al, 2012;Honorton et al, 1998;Jahn et al, 2017;Krippner et al, 2019;Lawrence, 1993;Lobach, 2009;Mossbridge, 2017;Palmer, 1971;Palmer & Carpenter, 1998;Radin, 1989;Radin & Lobach, 2007;Storm & Tressoldi, 2017;Walsh & Moddel, 2007;Wittmann et al, in press;Schwartz, 2007;Zdrenka & Wilson, 2017). Drawing from this work, we expected that psi performance would be revealed as a small effect and that gender, psi belief, and target richness or target interestingness would correlate with performance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%