Does anyone have an explanation of why experimenters failed to replicate the results of Dr. Bem's original experiment? In both experiments, the subjects viewed a list of words on a computer and then typed as many of the words as they could remember. Later, the computer randomly selected some words from the original group of words presented to the subjects and showed them again. The original experiment by Dr. Bem found that subjects remembered more of the words that they saw later than words that weren't shown to them later, indicating that the subject's ability to remember words was affected by precognition of seeing the words in the future. However, the experimenters attempting to replicate the results by Dr. Bem failed:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0033423 Could the failure have something to do with the fact that the subjects in both studies were told that the experiment was designed to test psychic ability? Or, even though experimenters weren't involved much in the computer run experiment, could the bias of the second experimenters against psy ability (as demonstrated in the snide title of their article) be somehow responsible for the failure. If so, I don't see how, because they left the room and didn't know how the subjects were doing while they took the test on a computer. Thanks for taking the time to consider this!

Having not read the details of the experiment... the failure could be do to many different things. The core factors would likely be:

The psi uncertainty principle
The intent of the subjects and/or experimenters
PMR rule-set (violation of historical consistency)

Keep in mind that the long-term growth needs of the LCS can trump any PMR rules or outcomes. PMR, you, me, the rules, etc exist because of the system's pull/drive/desire to evolve and grow. A kindergarten classroom has rules, but a good teacher makes adjustment on a case by case basis and based on the long term growth of the class. The rules are there to keep things running smoothly, but sometimes the teacher has to step in.

So, it could have been the rule-set doing its thing and keeping things "normal" so that the integrity of this learning lab is maintained; or it could have been that the LCS made adjustments to ensure the long-term growth of all-that-is.

From there, you can pick apart the details.

That is according to my understanding anyway.

_________________
-"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find... you get what you need"

Thanks, for your answer, Justin. I'll have to think more about the possibilities.

David,

I looked at that link some but not completely and in detail. It will take a lot of time and effort to analyze both research projects as to methodology and possibly figure out why the second did not replicate the first. If I do so, it will just be my opinion and no proof. What value is there in this effort? My suspicion is that it relates to the use of computers and pseudo random rather than fully random processes and the removal of the effects of having human intervention versus computerization of the process. This removes a lot of potential for human Intent creating effects. What justification can you give for expending the effort to check out my suspicions?

Ted

I've been asked by a professor of psychology friend of mine if I have any thoughts about the article describing the "debunking" which was sent to him by another psychology professor who has some interest in parapsychology. My friend sent me the email because he knows of my interest in the subject. Even though only one of the professors is very interested in parapsychology, I think it would be good for both of them and their students to become familiar with Tom's work, especially since both professors are at prestigious schools. So I figured that an explanation of the failure of the replication based on some aspect of MBT theory would be a good way to introduce them to the subject. However, I'm not quickly seeing a good explanation, so any help would be appreciated. But whether or not there is such an explanation, I plan to tell them about Dean Radin's work and tie it in with Tom's explanation of "video lag."

Ted,

I want to add to my previous post that although it would be an honor to get your help, I realize that it could take a lot of time and effort on your part and I totally understand if you would rather not undertake the task. Besides, my planned discussion of Dean Radin's work and video lag may be all that is needed to get my professor friends interested in Tom's work. In any case, thank you for responding to my post.

David

davidsocal,
The so called "experimenter effect" may be involved in a way that is consistent with Daryl Bem and Dean Radin's results. In short there could be a 'reverse EPR effect' caused by a future constraint.Following Tom's model of reality it would seem to me that the 'probable future data base' is involved.The paper and article below seem pretty consistent with the model here IMO.


Checkout this paper:

http://www.boundary.org/bi/articles/Und ... sality.pdf

This might be related to it:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01 ... :int=1&-C=

David,

That puts the situation into a context that puts a value on accomplishing an understanding. I will attempt to do so but there is nothing certain as to result. I don't see Tom around lately or get back comments lately on things I send to his attention so I'm not sure if we can get his help on this on any current time frame as he is obviously busy. To what specifically do you refer to in regards to Dean Radin and MBT? Would you explain this here as a preliminary practice to explaining it in your context with these professors? I have not had time to look at those latest links you posted. I'm just waking up a short while ago and my dog wants his breakfast and attention. Duty calls.

Ted

Thanks, Ted. It's 5:20 am here in California. Been a long night, so I'm going to bed soon. But I'll begin working on the Dean Radin / MBT connection later today as time permits. Just to clarify, I would use Radin's experiments as an example of work that shows precognition, as opposed to the "failed" experiment. And I would give Tom's explaination of how MBT would predict Radin's results based on Tom's explanation of "video lag" as given in his Hawaii lecture (which I attended.)