Can Our Minds Cross Time and Space? (2018) - full transcript

Tachyon searches for answers to the age;old question: do humans have power to connect through time and space and predict the future?

Most humans believe that

time only flows
in one direction,

and that mind-to-mind
communication is impossible.

But there are some who
believe this is not the case,

that they can
see into the future

and into the minds of others.

Is this possible?

It's something I
need to investigate.

My father was a scientist

running a top secret
government project.

One night in his lab,
an experiment went horribly wrong,

rendering him invisible.

Fearing he was
disappearing forever,

he rushed home to see my mother.

And nine months
later, I was born.

My life's mission is to
investigate concepts

on the fringe of science,
conducting experiments

to test those claims
regardless of taboo

or seeming unprovability,

searching for the clues
that will make me visible.

I walk on the edge of science.

I am Mister Tachyon.

Humans have long been
fascinated with those

who claim they can
use their minds

to gather information
across time and space.

Is the power to predict the
future or read minds real?

I'm going to begin my
investigation by looking into

the work of Dr. Rupert
Sheldrake, who claims

to have measured both
precognition and telepathy.

Sheldrake was a
respected biologist

at Clare College, Cambridge,
when he began to explore

a number of theories that fell
outside of accepted science.

One of the ideas
he was interested in

was on precognition.

He conducted a
number of experiments,

and while he was
often criticized by

mainstream scientists for
practicing pseudo-science,

I find some of his results

interesting enough
to investigate.

One of Sheldrake's experiments
proposes that people display

precognitive abilities
by sensing or predicting

who's about to call
them on their phone.

Oh, you're looking
for Joe Tachyon.

Many of us have had that sense.

You think about someone,
your phone rings,

and it's that person.

I want to investigate this
idea, so I'm going to replicate

one of Sheldrake's experiments
to collect my own data.

I've asked a group of five close
friends to join me in my lab.

One member of the group
will enter a sound booth

with a phone.

From a different room,
the other four friends will roll this dice

to decide who calls,
pausing to think about their friend

before they dial.

Guessing who's calling by
chance alone allows the subject

a success rate of 25%.

For his experiment,
Sheldrake ran 571 trials

with 63 participants
using landline phones.

Overall, they successfully
predicted who was going to call

over 40% of the time,
well above chance.

I think it's Patty.

- Hello?
- Hello?

- Is this Patty?
- Yep.

I got it right!

I'm going to run this trial 25
times for three of the friends

and track their predictions.

Gonna go with Linda.

- Hello?
- Hello?

Oh crap!

My hypothesis is that
our subject will predict

who is calling more
than 25% of the time.

When I guessed right
when I was in the box,

I kind of had a
really good feeling.

And prior to guessing right,
I would get this feeling where

I was kind of sure
that it would happen.

I would visualize them, and
then I would get it right,

and it kind of kept happening.

So then to me, it felt
like it was working.


After getting 5 of
the first 7 right,

my test subject ended up
responded correctly

7 of 25 times, or 28%.

This is not
significantly above chance.

I repeat the experiment
with two more subjects.

Linda. Sandra. It's Phil.
I think it's Linda this time.

The first responded correctly
5 out of 25 times...

Guess who.

Ah, I got it right,
I got it right!

...a success rate of 20%.

This time it's Sandra.

My third subject hit 28%...


...slightly above chance,
answering 7 of 25 correctly.

- It's Sandra?
- Yeah.

I got it right!

I had a feeling you would.

I felt something, you know.

It's something that you
really can't put your finger on,

you can't describe it,
you can't quantize it,

but it's definitely...

definitely something's there,
something's going on.

These results don't support
Sheldrake's idea so far,

but I'm still
interested to learn more.

I'm going to continue my search
by investigating another one of

Sheldrake's areas of
interest: precognitive dreams.

These are dreams that appear
to predict the future.

I've found someone who has been
tracking his dreams for decades.

I need to meet him.

Well, I was really surprised to
see that my dreams were valid,

that they actually
referred to real-world events,

because it went completely
against everything I believed.

When was your first
precognitive dream?

Well, the first time I
had a precognitive dream,

I didn't believe it was
a precognitive dream.

It happened to match up pretty
well with some later events,

but I still didn't
believe it was precognitive.

What motivated you to
record your dreams?

What it was was an accumulation
of dreams over a period of

years, during which time my wife
constantly was referring to

this dream and others and saying
these are precognitive dreams,

you need to take
them more seriously.

The turning point
was the Ramstein Air Show.

He had a dream where
this guide came and said,

"Here, I want to
show you something."

And he led him to this air
field where there were all these

planes flying around, and
there was a huge fireball.

Everybody get back!

And later that week,
he was watching TV:

"We just report this accident,
this major, terrible accident

at the Ramstein Air Show,"
and it was in Germany.

And I think that really made
him sit up and take notice.

How many dreams
have you recorded?

I have 12,417 dreams entered in
my database as of this moment,

but the most important thing
is that the data is there.

Do you feel an obligation to
tell people about your dreams?

I do not feel obliged to
help anyone with these dreams.

The reason I don't feel this
obligation is simply because

the precognitive dreams I've had
and the other dreams that might

be the basis for a warning are
very small in number relative

to the total number of
dreams in my journal.

How often do you dream
about significant events?

In my experience,

although sometimes
there are news-worthy events

in my precognitive dreams,
that's really rare.

More often it's about
really simple things,

like what's going to
happen when I go to the store.

Why do you think you
have precognitive dreams?

I think it's
because as an artist,

I engage in activity that
improves my ability to focus

for a very long period of time.

And I think that that type of
activity somehow enhances my

receptivity to receiving psychic
information through my dreams.

According to Andrew,
432 or 3.4% of his dreams

have been precognitive; a small
number, but still intriguing.

I need to learn more about this.

I'm investigating
if it's possible for us

to predict the future.

Andrew Paquette's dream
database is interesting,

and motivates me to
explore this idea further.

I wanna learn more about
precognition and telepathy,

and how they might be
explained scientifically.

I've joined Dr. Rupert
Sheldrake to investigate.

I ask him to start
with precognitive dreams.

There have been a lot of cases

where people have dreamed
in advance of disasters.

With the famous
sinking of the Titanic,

there were a few people
who didn't get on the boat

because they'd had
dreams, alarming dreams

about the boat sinking
before it set off.

Before train crashes
in the US in the 1950s,

someone did a study of dreams
and found that before these

train crashes, people had
dreams of train disasters.

So there's already in the
psychic research literature

good evidence that when
spectacular disasters occur,

quite a number of people have
dreams about them beforehand.

In your research,
have you found a way

to explain this phenomenon?

I don't know how to
explain precognitive dreams.

What they seem to be
is tapping into

one's own mind in the future.

Now, no one knows
how to explain that.

I myself have a theory
called "morphic resonance",

which is a theory about memory
and involves the transmission of

information from the
past to the present.

Sheldrake believes that memories
from all complex organisms

may be stored in a morphic
field, and is built upon

generation after generation.

memories are then passed
on ugh an energy transfer

related to ideas
and quantum physics.

I take the view that in science,

the first step is
natural history.

So every giraffe,
as the embryo develops

in the womb of
the mother giraffe,

is tuning in, I think, to
the form of previous giraffes.

And when it's born, it
tunes into the instincts,

the collective memory
of previous giraffes.

Sheldrake often cites
experiments conducted

in the 1920s at Harvard as
evidence of morphic resonance.

He says rats learned a new
behaviour in the experiment.

They trained rats to avoid
shocks and escape a maze.

They then introduced new rats
and noticed that they managed to

avoid the shocks and escape
the maze without any training.

If rats learn a new
trick in one place,

for example San Francisco,
then rats all around the world

will learn the same
thing quicker through

a kind of resonance on
the basis of similarity.

Now, how this works
nobody knows, but there are

quite a few theories
as to how it might work.

But they all take us into areas
of physics which are rather hard

to understand, and they're
only theoretical speculations.

Research in this field
slowed dramatically

after the rat experiment,
as many disagreed with Sheldrake

about where the result
should lead us.

As far as I'm concerned,
the interesting question is

does it really happen or not?

And I'm quite happy to
leave the question of

what theory fits best to later.

Sheldrake's critics argue
his theories don't explain

biological phenomena as
well as other theories.

Do you ever have
doubts about your theories?

I certainly have doubts
about my own theories.

I don't think that morphic
resonance or telepathy...

certain facts, I think
they're very probable.

But you know, maybe there's
some alternative explanation

for the experimental data.

I haven't come across it yet,

but I'm open to
that possibility.

Why do you think
telepathy exists?

The more I discovered about it,

the more it made sense
in evolutionary terms.

If some birds go out foraging
for food and they find food,

and other members of the
flock are in other places,

if they can telepathically tell
the other ones where they are

and where they found the food,

this would make them
survive better.

So I think it has very
good evolutionary reasons

for existence.

Dr. Sheldrake's ideas on
telepathy and precognition

have given me
plenty to think about.

I wonder if my body's cells
might learn to be visible

through morphic resonance.

For now though,
I'm interested in another experiment,

e with evidence of telepathy.

In my quest for evidence,

I'd like to replicate
Sheldrake's dog experiment.

His theory states
that dogs and owners

are telepathically connected
under certain conditions.

One of them is that owners
and pets with a strong

emotional bond will have a
stronger telepathic connection.

I found three volunteers for my experiment,

and I'm going to start by
determining the connections

they have with their dogs.

I'm looking for
evidence of precognition

or telepathy.

I've met with two believers
who've experienced and collected

data they believe supports
both of these phenomena.

My first experiment testing
phone call predictions

did not strongly support
their existence.

It's time to move onto a new
test, and I'm going to attempt

to replicate Sheldrake's
dog experiment.

So, are you ready to find
out if you have any powers?

Sheldrake's experiment
tested a single dog and owner

over several months.

When the owner had no
intention of returning home,

the dog was at the
window 4% of the time.

When the owner did
have the intention,

the dog was at the
window 78% of the time;

very strong
statistical evidence.

For my own experiment,
I've set up cameras

in the homes of three
participants with pet dogs.

My name is Andrea.

My dog's name is Chaya.

So you've had Chaya
since she was a puppy?

Yes, we... I got her in Mexico
when I was living down there.

How would you
describe your relationship?

We're very close.

She gets me.

My name is Staci.

My dog's name is Franny.

She's 4 years old.

How would you describe the
bond between you and Franny?

We peacefully
co-exist for the most part.

She's a loving dog, but
she's fairly independent,

which is nice for me.

My name is Shamso.

My dog's name is Kovo.

He's 15 months old,
and he is my first dog.

What are the key elements
of your relationship?

We've both become dependent
on each other emotionally.

You know, he depends on me for
more than just food or exercise,

and I depend on him
for his love as well.

Sheldrake's idea
would suggest that

the emotional bond
between owner and dog

increases the strength
of telepathic connection.

So my hypothesis is that
Chaya and Andrea will have

the strongest link because
they've been together

the longest, a rough indicator
of their emotional state.

The owners will leave and
return only after I signal them.

I will send them
home at random times,

and this should give us
data of whether the dogs are

telepathically picking up the
owner's intention to head home.

I'm going to run the experiment
over the course of a few days.

While my dog experiment runs,
I want to investigate a form of

precognition some believe
we all possess: intuition.

One interested party
is the US Navy.

They've spent millions to
investigate why some soldiers

seem to be able to predict when
danger is around the corner

better than others.

The Navy hopes that one day,
they'll be able to teach sailors

to hone these abilities, to
preemptively sense danger,

save lives, and make
them more effective.

There are some who believe
this form of intuition isn't

a connection with the future,

it's an ability we all
possess called "mind sight",

and I'm going to meet
the man who studies it.

My name is Ron Rensink.

I'm a vision scientist.

Mind sight is a perceptual
experience where people have

a feeling of something happening
even though they don't see it.

Often people report it
if they're going down

say an alleyway, and they just
don't feel it's quite right,

something's maybe
potentially dangerous.

That would be an
example of that.

What's the science
behind mind sight?

I actually came across mind
sight quite accidentally.

I was doing work on a phenomenon
called "change blindness",

where you can show
an image and a blank,

and another image and
a blank back and forth.

And people find that
under these conditions,

it's very difficult
to see a change.

And during these experiments,

several of our observers
spontaneously reported,

they said, "Well,
when do I hit the key?

Do I hit it when
I see the change,

or when I feel
something happening?"

After about the 4th
or 5th person does this,

you go well, okay, let's set up
an experiment, and alright,

hit the key when you feel it
and then when you see it.

Can you feel
anything changing yet?

I know there's something wrong,
but it's difficult to say what.

Yeah, so that's exactly
the mind sight feeling,

that there's something going
on and you don't know what.

So now when we look at
these images side by side,

you can look at the level of
the lake in the background,

and it's clearly different
in the two pictures.

Would you consider mind
sight a form of precognition?

It's a separate parallel system.

It's precognition in as much as
it alerts your conscious mind,

so it picks it up before
you consciously see it.

Do you believe people
can see into the future?

I think it is possible for
people to honestly believe

they see the future.

There's no strong scientific
evidence for this at the moment,

at least that I know of.

But on the other hand,
it's also very hard to prove

something's impossible.

Dr. Rensink may have his
doubts about precognition,

but his research
seems to demonstrate that

there is something going on
beyond our conscious mind,

and I'd like to
investigate this further.

I found an experiment that
might help me do just that.

There have been studies done

that point to a phenomenon
called "presentiment".

This is where our
bodies subconsciously

predict the future, seconds
before a significant event,

like an accident or
seeing a disturbing photo.

I need to test this for myself.

For this experiment,
I will show four volunteers

a series of images to test if
they can unconsciously predict

when a disturbing
image will be shown.

The original experiment
showed that subjects sweat

significantly more before a
disturbing image was shown,

highlighted here in yellow.

This was attributed
to presentiment.

To measure presentiment myself,

I've wired my participants to
heart rate and skin monitors.

My hypothesis is that
I will see an increase

in their stress responses before
seeing a disturbing photo.

I don't know if people
can predict the future,

but I wouldn't rule it out.

I tried to predict when a
scary image was gonna appear,

but I couldn't predict it.

I didn't particularly feel
any bodily changes within me.

Personally I don't feel like
I reacted significantly

to the experiment.

The images didn't really
affect me in any traumatic way,

I don't think.

It's been interesting,
but it hasn't really changed

my own opinion on
intuition and precognition.

As it progressed, it was
like watching a scary movie

where you tense up and you're
expecting to see something.

Ew, oh my god!

But I think it is
interesting to question

and actively think
about intuition.

I don't think there was any
one moment where I predicted

if an image would be
scary or disturbing.

I don't think I was like
anticipating anything.

I wouldn't expect my volunteers
to consciously notice changes

before scary images,
but my data does not suggest

they are noticing anything
unconsciously either.

There were no changes in any
of the subjects' stress levels

before any images were shown.

I need to check in on my
Sheldrake dog experiment.

I set up cameras in the homes
of three volunteers to monitor

their dogs' behaviour,
and see if they have

a telepathic connection
with their owners.

My hypothesis is that
Andrea and Chaya will have

a stronger telepathic connection
than the other two test subjects

because they have a stronger
emotional connection

based on how long
they've been together.

To test this, I monitor the
owners leaving and coming home

three times over the
course of two days.

The owners were signalled
by a text message

to return at random times.

None of the dogs responded when
the text messages were sent.

This suggests they did not
pick up on their owners' intent

to leave for home.

In all three tests,
Franny waited at the door

around 30 seconds before
Staci arrived home.

I observed this was about
the time for when Staci

opens her front gate
until she unlocks her door.

The gate is only 25 feet
from Staci's apartment.

It may be that Franny's move to
the door could be triggered by

the sound of the gate.

This reduces the validity
of the data for this trial.

Chaya went to the door
in one out of three trials.

She appears to anticipate
Andrea coming home

for three-and-a-half minutes.

This is long before she would
be able to see or hear her.

Kovo also went to the door
one out of three times,

also about three minutes
before Shamso arrived home.

Very interesting.

I hesitate to draw any firm
conclusions about precognition

or telepathy from my data.

My telephone experiment
participants guessed at chance,

averaging a success rate
of 25% over 75 trials.

Interestingly, my
participants said

they could feel something
different before correct trials.

Is this precognition,
or do their feelings come from bias?

My presentiment experiment

failed to collect
any data consistent with

subconscious anticipation
of disturbing images.

In my dog experiment,
the first trial may have been compromised

by the dog going to the door
when her owner made a sound

opening the gate.

In two of the six
remaining trials,

dogs waited for their owners
for over three minutes,

before they could've physically
detected them coming home.

Is this a telepathic connection
between dog and owner,

chance, or other variables
like foreign sounds or smells?

With this small sample size,
I cannot draw conclusions,

however these results
are thought-provoking.

This certainly
leaves me curious about

investigating these
ideas further.

I need to do more experiments.