|
The target might be a remote location or individual, or a hidden photograph, or video clip. All possible paths for sensory leakage are blocked, typically separating the target from the viewer by distance, sometimes thousands of miles, or by hiding the target in an opaque envelope [clairvoyant remote viewing], or by selecting a target in the future [precognitive remote viewing]. (Radin, 1997, p. 100)
Variations in protocol. Variations of the typical remote-viewing protocol may include the presence of an interviewer who also does not know the true target (called a blind monitor) and who assists the viewer by asking probe questions to obtain further clarifying information about the viewer’s impressions. Sometimes the sender is looking at the target item during the session (telepathy condition); sometimes there is no sender at the remote site or gazing at the target item (clairvoyance condition); sometimes the viewer draws (or describes (or both) the target item before it has been randomly selected (precognition condition).
Basic statistical analysis. In all the SAIC remote-viewing experiments conducted in 1989-1993 and most of the SRI experiments conducted in 1973-1988 a statistical evaluation method known as rank-order judging was used. Statistician Jessica Utts (2001) describes the procedure:
After the completion of a remote viewing, a judge who is blind to the true target (called a blind judge) is shown the response and five potential targets, one of which is the correct answer and the other four of which are ‘decoys”…The judge is asked to assign a rank to each of the possible targets, where a rank of one means it matches the response most closely, and a rank of five means it matches the least. The rank of the correct target is the numerical score for that remote viewing…. The average rank by chance would be three. Evidence of anomalous cognition occurs when the average rank over a series of trials is significantly lower than three… [Using a computational formula to calculate effect sizes] small, medium, and large effect sizes (0.2, 0.5, and 0.8) correspond to average ranks of 2.72, 2.29, and 1.87, respectively. (Utts, 2001, pp. 115-116)
|
Four requirements. Joseph McMoneagle (1998, p. 24)) one of the “expert” remote viewers who participated in the study identifies four requirements that must be followed in any remote-viewing experiment:
The target is totally blind to the remote viewer.
The target is totally blind to the facilitator or monitor (person in the room with the remote viewer, if any)
The person who may be judging or evaluating the results does not participate in any other portion of the remote viewing.
The person who selects the target for remote viewing does not participate in any other portion of the remote viewing experiment or in the attempt at information collecting.
Methodological concerns. Statistician Jessica Utts (2001, pp. 116-117) at the University of California (Davis) describes the numerous methodological issues that must be addressed before a remote experiment can be conducted so that all alternative explanations of results other than the intended one (psychic functioning) can be ruled out.
No one who has knowledge of the specific target should have any contact with the viewer until the response has been safely secured.
No one who has knowledge of the specific target or even of whether or not the session was successful should have any contact with the judge until after that task has been completed.
No one who has knowledge of the specific target should have access to the response until after the judging has been completed.
|
Targets and decoys used in judging should be selected using a well-tested randomization device.
Duplicate sets of target photographs should be used, one during the experiment and one during the judging, so that no cues (like fingerprints) can be inserted onto the target that would help the judge recognize it.
The criterion for stopping an experiment should be defined in advance so that it is not called to a halt when the results just happen to be favorable. Generally, that means specifying the number of trials in advance, but some statistical procedures require or allow other stopping rules. The important point is that the rule be defined in advance in such a way that there is no ambiguity about when to stop.
Reasons, if any, for excluding data must be defined in advance and followed consistently, and should not be dependent on the data. For example, a rule specifying that a trial could be aborted if the viewer felt ill would be legitimate, but only if the trial was aborted before anyone involved in that decision knew the correct target.
Statistical analyses to be used must be planned in advance of collecting the data so that a method most favorable to the data isn’t selected post hoc. If multiple methods of analyses are used the corresponding conclusions must recognize that fact (Utts, 2001, pp. 116-117).
Few experiments in mainstream psychology must address such a variety of methodological concerns, or are as rigorously well-designed, and conducted with such exquisite careful planning and thought as a modern experiment in parapsychology.
Statistical analysis of remote viewing experiments. Subsequent analysis of overall results of the 154 experiments conducted at SRI during 1973-1988 consisting of over 26,000 trials of 227 participants yielded “overwhelming” results that were so extreme that they could have occurred by chance only once in every 1020 instances (p < 10-20). “Obviously some explanation other than chance must be found” (Utts, 2001, p. 120). The overall results obtained at SRI during 1973-1988 were also “consistent with results of similar experiments in other laboratories” (e.g., Honorton & Ferrari, 1989) (Utts, 2001, p. 121).
|
According to Michael Schmicker in his 2002 book Best Evidence, “like Honorton’s Ganzfeld studies, the Star Gate program results…provide us with some of the best scientific evidence available for the reality of ESP (Schmicker, 2002, p. 75).
The “Report on Government-Sponsored Remote Viewing Programs” written by scientists who ran the program (physicist Harold Puthoff, physicist Harold Puthoff, and physicist Edwin May) and scientists who later evaluated its results (statistician Jessica Utts and psychologist Ray Hyman) can be found on the website of the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory [www.lfr.org/csl/] and in the Spring 1996 issue of Journal of Scientific Exploration,10, 88-100. The Star Gate program is described in detail by science writer Jim Schnabel (1997) in his book Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America’s Psychic Spies and in Elmar Gruber’s (1999) English language edition of his book Psychic Wars: Parapsychology in Espionage – and Beyond.
American Institutes of Research. The report written for the American Institutes of Research was commissioned by the CIA at the request of Congress to evaluate the government program in remote viewing called “Star Gate, a famous psychic spy program that is generally unknown to the general public or to the scientific community because most of the research was classified until November 1995.
Evaluation of remote viewing statistical data. Jessica Utts (2001), Professor of Statistics at the University of California (Davis) and Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was one of the two principle evaluators who reviewed the formerly classified research data for the CIA at the request of the U. S. Congress.
|
|
After her examination of the body of evidence statistician Jessica Utts concluded:
It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. …The statistical results examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. .. The results show that remote viewing has been conceptually replicated across a number of laboratories, by various experimenters and in different cultures…I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date. Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability works. (Utts, 2001, pp. 131-133)
Evaluation of remote viewing experimental design. The other principle reviewer, Ray Hyman, psychology Professor Emeritus at the University of Oregon and a longtime skeptic of psi phenomena, after reviewing the same evidence, likewise concluded:
I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfield studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, filedrawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing or other misuse of statistical inference … So, I accept Professor Utts assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychologists experiments ‘are far beyond what is expected by chance.’ The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. (Hyman, 1996, pp. 39-40)
|
Prima facie evidence. According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (Merriam, 1961), prima facie evidence is “evidence having such a degree of probability that it must prevail unless the contrary be proved” or “evidence sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted” or an alternative explanation can be found.
Prima facie evidence: Remote viewing. Utts (2001) cites several remote viewing cases that would seem to meet that criterion for evidence. For example, there was the case of
two remote viewers [who] purportedly identified an underground secret facility. One of them apparently named code words and personnel in this facility accurately enough that it set off a security investigation to determine how that information could have been leaked. Based only on the coordinates of the site [the latitude and longitude expressed in degrees, minutes, and second], the viewer first described the above-ground terrain, then proceeded to describe details of the hidden underground site. (Utts, 2001, p. 118)
Michael Schmicker (2002) is able to provide a number of additional details about this particular double-blind test.
The two remote viewers, a New York artist named Ingo Swann and a California ex-police commissioner named Pat Price, did more than simply draw a detailed map of the building and grounds of the target, the National Security Agency’s secret listening post at Sugar Grove West Virginia. Price was also somehow able to get inside the super-secure building with his mind and read the names of facility personnel off desk placards, read the titles of documents on desks, and labels off folders inside locked cabinets at the site – a feat that understandably set alarm bells ringing at the government agency responsible for security of the site. The information they provided was later verified as accurate by the government agency that had sponsored the test. (Schmicker, 2002, p. 76)
|
Ganzfeld Telepathy Experiments from 1974 to 1997
How the Ganzfeld procedure differs from remote viewing. The ganzfeld procedure differs from the remote viewing protocol in three important ways.
First, a “mild altered state is used,” second, senders are [usually] used, so that telepathy is the primary mode, and third, the reviewed (viewers) do their own judging just after the session, rather than having an independent judge… The ganzfeld experiments differ in the preferred method of analysis as well. Rather than using the sum of ranks across sessions, a simple count is made of how many first places matches resulted from a series. Four rather than five choices are given, so by chance there should be about 25% of the sessions resulting in first place matches. (Utts, 2001, p. 130)
Three phases of the typical ganzfeld experiment. According to parapsychologist Dean Radin (1997), the ganzfeld experiment has three phases: (1) preparing the receiver and sender, (2) transmitting the target, and (3) evaluating results. A single ganzfeld session takes about 90 minutes. The ganzfeld procedure uses double-blind control procedures, two experimenters working together, and sensory isolation to prevent possible experimenter bias, fraud, and inadvertent sensory leakage.
Preparation. During the first phase of preparation, the subject (the telepathic receiver) is led to an acoustically isolated room, sits in a soft, reclining chair and two halves of a Ping-Pong ball are taped over the eyes while a uniform red light is focused upon them from about two feet. This creates a homogeneous, unchanging visual field called a Ganzfeld (or “total field”). The subject may also wear headphones through which “white noise” is played (like static noise between TV stations). Sometimes a ten-minute progressive relaxation tape is played to help the subject relax.
|
After about 10 minutes in the ganzfeld chamber, the subject begins “talking aloud” about whatever feelings, images, and thoughts come to mind, and continues speaking until instructed to stop, about 20 minutes later. The subject’s verbalizations are monitored and recorded by an experimenter acting as a recorder in another room via a microphone link. The receiver is told to not try to actively work at seeking out images but to simply relax and let the images spontaneously, and naturally arise.
“After being in the ganzfeld for about one half hour, subjects typically report being immersed in a sea of light. Some subjects report total ‘black out,’ complete absence of visual experience” (Rao, 2001, p. 35). The goal of the ganzfeld procedure is to reduce sensory input in order to develop a “psi conducive” state similar to the states of consciousness written about in descriptions of mystical and meditative experiences and in the ancient religious texts of India, the Vedas, in which siddhis or psychic abilities occur (Honorton, 1977). Theoretically, the ganzfeld sensory deprivation technique is predicted to create certain perceptual effects that would permit the individual to perceive faint internal stimuli (images) that would be overwhelmed by usual sensory input.
Sending. During the second phase of sending, a second experimenter, acting as a sender, located in a different acoustically isolated room from the receiver and apart from the first experimenter monitoring the subject, is presented with a distinct, dramatic visual stimulus (picture, slide, or brief videotape sequence) with a strong visual and emotional impact that has been randomly selected from a large pool of similar stimuli that serve as the target for the ganzfeld session. In fully automated ganzfeld experiments (called autoganzfeld), a computer-controlled, closed-circuit audiovisual system records the subject’s verbalizations and selects and presents the stimulus material to ensure that experimental protocols are conducted the same way every session.
The sender looks at the visual stimulus for about 20 minutes, attempting to “transmit” it to the receiver in the ganzfeld chamber. The sender may alternate between periods of actively sending and relaxing during the period. The sender tries to become “immersed” in the target employing visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory imagery if possible. Sometimes an audio link is established so that both the sender and the recorder can listen in on everything the receiver is saying to provide audio feedback to the sender to help “adjust” the mental strategy being used.
|
Judging. At the end of the ganzfeld period (about 30 minutes), during the third and final phase of judging, the first experimenter (the recorder) informs both the receiver and the sender that the “sending phase” is completed. The receiver removes the eyeshades and headphone, and then
The monitoring experimenter gives the subject four pictures with a request to rank them 1 through 4 on the basis of their correspondence to the subject’s mental images and impressions during the ganzfeld. The monitoring experimenter of course does not have any knowledge as to which of the four pictures is the one looked at by the agent [sender]. After all the four pictures are ranked, the subject is shown the target picture. The rank the subject gives to that picture provides the score for statistical analysis of the matching of the subject’s mentation with the target. Sometimes, the ranking is done by a judge in addition to or in the place of the subject. (Rao, 2001, p. 35)
Statistical analysis. Only if the receiver correctly assigns a rank of 1 to the actual target is the session regarded as a “hit;” otherwise the entire session is recorded as a “miss.” One hit every four sessions would occur simply by random chance (25% chance hit rate). Any hit rate greater than that over four sessions would indicate that information about the sender’s target picture somehow became accessible to another distant person in some way other than through any of the known sensory channels.
Results. The first ganzfeld experiments were reported in 1974 with significant results (Honorton & Harper, 1974). “Between 1974 and 1981 there were in all 42 published ganzfeld-ESP experiments of which 19 [about 55 %] gave significant evidence for psi; it seemed that psi in the ganzfeld is a highly replicable effect” (Rao, 2001, p. 35). In 1985, psychologist Ray Hyman (1985) raised questions about the adequacy of the procedures and statistical analyses used in the ganzfeld experiments, and a new setup called autoganzfeld now replicates the ESP ganzfeld effect meeting the “stringent standards” requirement as recommended by Hyman and Honorton (1986) in their joint communiqué.
|
In subsequent publishing of Ganzfeld results, Bem and Honorton (1994)
showed 106 hits out of 329 sessions, for a hit rate of 32.2 percent when 25 percent was expected by chance. The corresponding p-value was 0.0002 [i.e., the odds of this positive result being due just to chance is 20,000 to one]. As mentioned earlier, the hallmark of science is replication. This result has now been replicated by three additional laboratories [ at the University of Amsterdam, Netherlands and the University of Edinburgh, Scotland] (Bierman, 1995; Boughton & Alexander, 1995; Morris, Dalton, Delanoy & Watt, 1995). (Utts, 2001, pp. 130-131)
Bem, Palmer & Broughton (2001) updated the ESP ganzfeld database by adding ten more studies published after 1997. “As it stands now, we have a broad range of replications covering over a period of 25 years, involving over 90 experiments by a wide range of investigators. They show a fairly robust effect comparable across studies that adhere to the standard ganzfeld protocol (Rao, 2001, p. 37).
Key findings that Honorton has discovered through his meta-analysis of ganzfeld experiments include (Schmicker, 2002, p. 73):
Certain persons typically will do better in a Ganzfeld experiment than others. The people most likely to succeed at ESP include people who
are artistic and creative.
have personally experienced a psychic event in their lives.
believe in the reality of ESP.
regularly practice meditation, relaxation or biofeedback.
are extroverts.
have intuitive personalities.
had earlier participated in other psi experiments.
Dynamic visual images (video clips with motion and sound) are easier to communicate via ESP than static images (still photo or drawing).
Friends make better “senders” to receivers than strangers.
A warm, friendly laboratory ambiance is more conducive to ESP than a cold, clinical, unemotional laboratory.
|
Share with your friends: |
