BP – Telepathy
Telepathy is an indication of the interconnectedness of minds/consciousness beyond physical, 3D,
materialist/mechanistic mechanisms or explanations.
The scientists that make bold statements about the mind and consciousness are basing their conclusions
on facts of findings…on evidence that has satisfied their scientific standards. To think accomplished
scientists would assert such conclusions based on anything other than compelling evidence is not
rational. Religion may be as much emotion as reason, however though some may compare the idea of
consciousness to God, the scientists I quote – except for 1 or 2 (out of 100) – are not religious.
And there are scientific experiments…
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING
Professor Jessica Utts Division of Statistics University of California, Davis:
ABSTRACT "Research on psychic functioning, conducted over a two decade period, is examined to
determine whether or not the phenomenon has been scientifically established. The primary work
examined in this report was government sponsored research conducted at Stanford Research Institute,
later known as SRI International, and at Science Applications International Corporation, known as SAIC.
Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has
been well established. The statistical results of the studies 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. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI
and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be
readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.”
Larry Dossey, MD: These assertions [re telepathy] are not hyperbolic, but conservative. They
are consistent with the entire span of human history throughout which all cultures of which we
have record believed that human perception extends beyond the reach of the senses. This
belief might be dismissed as superstition but for the fact that modern research has established
its validity beyond reasonable doubt to anyone whose reasoning has not clotted into hardened
skepticism. To reiterate a single example, researchers Charles Honorton and Diane Ferrari
examined 309 precognition experiments carried out by 62 investigators, involving 50,000
participants in more than 2 million trials. Thirty percent of these studies were statistically
significant in showing that people can describe future events, when only 5 percent would be
expected to demonstrate such results by chance. The odds that these results were not due to
chance were greater than 10 (small degree) 20 to 1.
“This oneness of the all implies the universality of mind…If my conclusions are correct each individual is part of
God or part of the universal mind. I am perfectly willing to admit that reality does change as discovery
proceeds. I can see nothing basically wrong with a real world which undergoes modification along with the flux
of experience.” Henry Margenau, professor of Physics and Natural Philosophy at Yale for 50 years.
“Mind rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always…the source and
condition of physical reality.” Nobel biologist MD, George Wald
Sir James Jeans made fundamental contributions to quantum mechanics and felt deeply about the role of
consciousness in the physical world. “The universe begins to look like a great thought than like a machine”.
“To divide or multiply consciousness is something meaningless. There is obviously only one alternative,
namely the unification of minds or consciousness…in truth there is only one mind.” Erwin Schrodinger, a
leader of modern physics.
Lawrence LeShan, PhD, The Medium Mystic and the Physicist Appendix E
The first telepathy dream experiment using EEG-EOG monitoring yielded significant results (Ullman,
Krippner, and Feldstein, 1966). (Upon completion of the study, three judges (working independently
and blind) rated each of the seven targets against each of the seven dream transcripts. Data were
subjected to analysis of variance (scheffe, 1959), yielding a F of 10.86 (p<0.01). Two years later it was
replicated adding one more night of testing transmissions. An F of 6.43 (7/28df) was obtained
(p<0.001)). For this appendix, LeShan references studies research published in journals including
Science (1953, 118, 273-274, and International Journal of Neuropsychiatry (1966, 2 420-437)
**&&^^^&*
DEAN RADIN: Men Who Stare at Photons, Part 1 | EU 2013 - …
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXqyf13HeM
&&**&&^^
A ganzfeld experiment (from the German for “entire field”) is a technique used in the field
of parapsychology to test individuals for extrasensory perception (ESP). It uses homogeneous
and unpatterned sensory stimulation to produce the ganzfeld effect, an effect similar to sensory
deprivation.[1] The ganzfeld effect has been utilized in many studies of the neuroscience of
perception, not only parapsychology. The deprivation of patterned sensory input is said to be
conducive to inwardly generated impressions.[2] The technique was devised by Wolfgang
Metzger in the 1930s as part of his investigation into the gestalt theory.[3]
Parapsychologists such as Dean Radin and Daryl Bem say that ganzfeld experiments have
yielded results that deviate from randomness to a significant degree, and that these results
present some of the strongest quantifiable evidence for telepathy to date.[4] Critics such as Susan
Blackmore and Ray Hyman say that the results are inconclusive and consistently
indistinguishable from null results.[5][6][7]
Historical context[edit]
The ganzfeld experiments are among the most recent in parapsychology for testing the existence
of and affecting factors of telepathy, which is defined in parapsychology as the paranormal
acquisition of information concerning the thoughts, feelings or activity of another person.[8] In
the early 1970s, Charles Honorton had been investigating ESP and dreams at the Maimonides
Medical Center and began using the ganzfeld technique as a more efficient way to achieve a state
of sensory deprivation in which it is hypothesised that a concept referred to by some as "psi" can
workclarification needed.[9] Since the first full experiment was published by Honorton and Sharon
Harper in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research in 1974, the Ganzfeld has
remained a mainstay of parapsychological research.
Experimental procedure[edit]
In a typical ganzfeld experiment, a "receiver" is placed in a room relaxing in a comfortable chair
with halved ping-pong balls over the eyes, having a red light shone on them. The receiver also
wears a set of headphones through which white or pink noise (static) is played. The receiver is in
this state of mild sensory deprivation for half an hour. During this time, a "sender" observes a
randomly chosen target and tries to mentally send this information to the receiver. The receiver
speaks out loud during the thirty minutes, describing what he or she can see. This is recorded by
the experimenter (who is blind to the target) either by recording onto tape or by taking notes, and
is used to help the receiver during the judging procedure.
In the judging procedure, the receiver is taken out of the ganzfeld state and given a set of
possible targets, from which they must decide which one most resembled the images they
witnessed. Most commonly there are three decoys along with a copy of the target itself, giving an
expected overall hit rate of 25% over several dozens of trials.[10]
Analysis of results[edit]
Early experiments[edit]
Between 1974 and 1982, 42 ganzfeld experiments were performed.[11][12] In 1982, Charles
Honorton presented a paper at the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association that
summarized the results of the ganzfeld experiments up to that date, and concluded that they
represented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of psi. Ray Hyman, a skeptical
psychologist, disagreed. The two men later independently analyzed the same studies, and both
presented meta-analyses of them in 1985. Honorton thought that the data at that time indicated
the existence of psi, and Hyman did not.[11][13]
Hyman's criticisms were that the ganzfeld papers did not describe optimal protocols, nor were
they always accompanied by the appropriate statistical analysis. He presented in his paper a
factor analysis that he said demonstrated a link between success and three flaws, namely: Flaws
in randomization for choice of target; flaws in randomization in judging procedure; and
insufficient documentation. Honorton asked a statistician, David Saunders, to look at Hyman's
factor analysis and he concluded that the number of experiments was too small to complete a
factor analysis.[14]
In 1986, Hyman and Honorton published A Joint Communiqué, in which they agreed that though
the results of the ganzfeld experiments were not due to chance or selective reporting, replication
of the studies was necessary before final conclusions could be drawn. They also agreed that more
stringent standards were necessary for ganzfeld experiments, and they jointly specified what
those standards should be.[15]
Post-Joint Communiqué[edit]
In 1983 Honorton had started a series of autoganzfeld experiments at his Psychophysical
Research Laboratories. These studies were specifically designed to avoid the same potential
problems as those identified in the 1986 joint communiqué issued by Hyman and Honorton. Ford
Kross and Daryl Bem, both professional mentalist entertainers (magicians whose specialty is
simulating psi effects)[16] examined Honorton's experimental arrangements, and pronounced
them to provide excellent security against deception by subjects.[17] In addition to randomization
consistent with the specifications of the communiqué, and computer control of the main elements
of each test, these autoganzfeld experiments isolated the receiver in a sound-proof steel-walled
and electromagnetically shielded room.[18]
The PRL trials continued until September 1989. Of the 354 trials, 122 produced direct hits. This
34% hit rate was statistically similar to the 37% hit rate of the 1985 meta-analysis. These
experiments were statistically significant with a z score of 3.89, which corresponds to a 1 in
45,000 probability of obtaining a hit rate of at least 34% by chance (mean chance expectation is
25%).[16][18]
Concerning these results, Hyman wrote that the final verdict of whether psi can be demonstrated
in the ganzfeld awaited the results of future experiments conducted by other independent
investigators.
To see if other, post-Joint Communiqué experiments had been as successful as the PRL trials,
Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman carried out a meta-analysis of ganzfeld experiments carried
out in other laboratories. They found no psi effect, with a database of 30 experiments and a non-
significant Stouffer Z of 0.70.[19]
This meta-analysis was criticised for including all ganzfeld experiments, regardless of the
methods being used. Some parapsychologists considered that certain researchers had used
protocols that were not part of the standard ganzfeld set up, such as targets consisting of music
(traditional ganzfeld experiments use visual targets).[20] These experiments did not return
significant results. A second meta-analysis was conducted by Daryl Bem, John Palmer, and
Richard Broughton in which the experiments were sorted according to how closely they
adhered to a pre-existing description of the ganzfeld procedure. Additionally, ten
experiments that had been published in the time since Milton and Wiseman's deadline were
introduced. Now the results were significant again with a Stouffer Z of 2.59.[21]
In a 1995 paper discussing some of the challenges, deficiencies and achievements of modern
laboratory parapsychology Ray Hyman said,
“I want to state that I believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld
experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous
parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the
investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more
obvious flaws of previous research.”
—Ray Hyman, The Journal of Parapsychology, December 1995[22]
[He also said: “ [A]cceptable evidence for the presence of anomalous cognition must be based on
a positive theory that tells us when psi should and should not be present. Until we have such a
theory, the claim that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated is empty.[...]”
Why does there have to be prediction or control for when telepathy will or won’t occur? With
all the billions of births, what’s the accuracy of predicting when a baby will be born…other than
“somewhere around 9 months” and of course they come very early and can come quite late? Is
there a prediction and control for when love will be present between two strangers meeting?
Is that kind of “chemistry” real if it is not based on some formula for its presence? What about
creativity? Can one be creative according to laboratory timetables and research sessions?]
Contemporary research[edit]
The ganzfeld procedure has continued to be refined over the years. In its current incarnation, an
automated computer system is used to select and display the targets ("digital autoganzfeld"). This
overcomes many of the shortcomings of earlier experimental setups, such as randomization and
experimenter blindness with respect to the targets [23]
In 2010, Lance Storm, Patrizio Tressoldi, and Lorenzo Di Risio analyzed 29 ganzfeld studies
from 1997 to 2008. Of the 1,498 trials, 483 produced hits, corresponding to a hit rate of 32.2%.
This hit rate is statistically significant with p < .001. Participants selected for personality traits
and personal characteristics thought to be psi-conducive were found to perform significantly
better than unselected participants in the ganzfeld condition.[24]
&&^^&&**((**&^
In addition to the evidence and sound theoretical support for non-material, beyond space-time,
fundamental information network, and pilot waves/fields and transcending material/mechanistic
explanation, there is much evidence regarding phenomena like placebo and telepathy that fits quite
smoothly into the consciousness-as-causal and exists-separate-from-brains paradigm.
Hypotheses have definitely been tested.
Upton Sinclair actually wrote a book with that title about his wife who was telepathic. He set up such
rigorous testing that Einstein wrote an endorsement of the book saying people should take heed of the
findings. Do you think Einstein would be fooled? Is his critique typical of some careless, uninformed,
unscientific perspective?
About the book, Einstein wrote: "I have read the book with great interest and am convinced that it
deserves the most earnest consideration. The results of the telepathic experiments carefully and plainly
stand far beyond those which a nature investigator holds to be thinkable...In no case should the
psychologically interested pass over this book heedlessly."
Sinclair himself wrote: "It is foolish to be convinced without evidence; it is equally foolish to refuse to be
convinced by real evidence."
Einstein went on to say to psychiatrist and psi researcher, Jan Ehrenwald, "I read your book Telepathy and
Medical Psychology with great interest...it appears to me that from a physicist's point of view, we have no
right to rule out a priori the possibility of telepathy. For that the foundations of our science are too
uncertain and incomplete."
ESP findings send controversial message
By S. Carpenter
“…The metanalysis has generated heated discussion among psychologists. Some argue that Milton and
Wiseman were unjustified in lumping all 30 studies together because their results were so disparate.
Milton contends that a standard statistical test of variation among the results showed that they could treat
the studies as a uniform set.
Bem says, however, "The reason the effect isn't significant is that there are three studies that are
pulling down the average, and those studies are very nonstandard." Further, 6 of the 30 studies
showed significant psi effects�more than would be expected by chance, he adds.
Since the metanalysis was completed, nine more ganzfeld studies have been published. Milton
acknowledges that the psi effect would be statistically significant if the analysis were updated to
include these studies.”
A ganzfeld experiment (from the German for “entire field”) is a technique used in the field of parapsychology
to test individuals for extrasensory perception (ESP). It uses homogeneous and unpatterned sensory
stimulation to produce the ganzfeld effect, an effect similar to sensory deprivation.[1] The ganzfeld effect has
been utilized in many studies of the neuroscience of perception, not only parapsychology. The deprivation of
patterned sensory input is said to be conducive to inwardly generated impressions.[2] The technique was
devised by Wolfgang Metzger in the 1930s as part of his investigation into the gestalt theory.[3]
**&^&
Larry Dossey, MD: These assertions are not hyperbolic, but conservative. They are consistent with the
entire span of human history throughout which all cultures of which we have record believed that human
perception extends beyond the reach of the senses. This belief might be dismissed as superstition but for
the fact that modern research has established its validity beyond reasonable doubt to anyone whose
reasoning has not clotted into hardened skepticism. To reiterate a single example, researchers Charles
Honorton and Diane Ferrari examined 309 precognition experiments carried out by 62 investigators,
involving 50,000 participants in more than 2 million trials. Thirty percent of these studies were
statistically significant in showing that people can describe future events, when only 5 percent would be
expected to demonstrate such results by chance. The odds that these results were not due to chance
were greater than 10 (small degree) 20 to 1.
A flood of scholarly work has appeared supporting the premise that consciousness is not equitable with
the brain, such as the exemplary book, Irreducible Mind, by University of Virginia psychologists Edward F
Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, and colleagues. Hundreds of additional books and studies supporting this view
are provided in the references section of this book. In addition, books are now available that are
specifically devoted to the objections of skeptics, such as Cambridge philosopher Chris Carter’s admirable
Parapsychology and the Skeptics.
But of course the brainiacs don’t really think their consciousness is the same as their brain. For example,
they lobby funding agencies to obtain research grants. In doing so, they assume that the funders have
the freedom to decide where the money goes, which must mean the granters are not simply brains
whose decisions are determined by biochemical fluxes in their gray matter. No society can function
successfully according to the materialists’ views. The notion of self-responsibility and freedom of choice
underlie the justice systems and international codes of conduct of civilized nations. ‘We’re all zombies.
Nobody is conscious.” Daniel Dennett includes himself in this extraordinary claim, and he seems proud of
it.
Others suggest that there are no mental states at all, such a love, courage, or patriotism, but only
bioelectrical brain fluxes that should not be described with such inflated language. This led Nobel
neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles to remark that “professional philosophers and psychologists think up
the notion that there are no thoughts, come to believe there are no beliefs, and feel strongly that there
are no feelings.”
That sentiment is echoed every time a materialist asks “What do you mean by inner states? Or going
within?” There’s no concept of the reality of inner states of consciousness. They are what our brain does
(or tells us to do) and we are mistaken if we think they’re anything more than chemicals and nerve
impulses.
“A person’s mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms,
ions and molecules that make up and influence them.” Nobelist Francis Crick
“Yet this claim rests on no direct evidence whatsoever. No scientist has ever observed consciousness
emerging from matter. In spite of complete absence of evidence, the belief that the brain produces
consciousness endures and has ossified into dogma. Many scientists realize the limitations of this belief.
One way of getting around the lack of evidence is simply to declare that what we call consciousness is
the brain itself. That way nothing is produced, and the magic of “emergence” is avoided.
Many scientists concede that there are huge gaps in their knowledge of how the brain makes
consciousness, but they are certain they will be filled in as conventional science progresses. Eccles and
philosopher of science Karl Popper branded this attitude ““promissory materialism”...is simply a religious
belief held by dogmatic materialists. It has all the features of a messianic prophecy.” Sir John Eccles.
Non-locality, by definition defying laws/assumptions of conventional science, has been proven and
reproven. Best known studies are Alain Aspect at Institut d’Optique in Orsay France, 1981…’91 and again
in 2004 Gisin and team at University of Geneva provided additional evidence that nonlocality is and
inherent aspect of nature.
“Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one.” David Bohm.
Well documented Medium/ telepathy experiment:
The results from the HBO Experiment were quite striking. The range of accuracy for the five mediums
ranged from 77% to 95%, with an average of correct items for the mediums as 83%. In contrast, the
average of correct items for the control group was only 36%. These results are displayed in the graph
provided to the right, which can be enlarged by placing your cursor over it. Dr. Schwartz made the
following calculation:
“When the 83 percent for the mediums was compared with the 36 percent for the control group of
students, the statistical probability of this difference occurring by chance alone was less than one in ten
million”
**&&^^&
Sir George Hubert Wilkins was a celebrated newsreel cameraman, reporter, pilot, spy, war hero,
scientist, explorer, geographer and adventurer. He was the first person to fly across the polar ice
cap from Barrow, Alaska, to Spitsbergen, Norway. His biographer, Simon Nasht, in The last
Explorer, brought this remarkable man's story back to life, after being forgotten for generations.
Wilkins grew up in rural south Australia among Aboriginal people. He often noticed that they
appeared capable "of knowing some event that was taking place miles beyond their range of
sight and hearing." Wilkins remained fascinated with the nonsensory, nonrational operations of
consciousness for the rest of his life.
In 1937, when six Soviet fliers crashed in the arctic in Alaska, the Soviet government
commissioned Sir Hubert to lead an aerial search for them. Seeing an opportunity to put
telepathy to a test, he and Harold Sherman, a New York psychic and writer, decided to
collaborate on a six-month experiment. Three nights a week, between 11:30 and midnight NY
time, Wilkins, the "sender," would attempt to project his thought impressions from whatever
location he was in, to Sherman, the "receiver," who wrote down what came through while sitting
in the darkened study of his Riverside Drive apartment.
Each night, Sherman would seal his written impressions and send them to Dr Gardner Murphy, a
psychologist at Columbia University, who would serve as an independent judge of whatever
correlations might turn up. When Murphy eventually compared Wilkin's log to Sherman's written
impressions, he found too many matches to be handily dismissed by chance...a rate of approx.
60%.
Some of the correspondences were almost identical. On Dec 7, while at Point Barrow, Alaska,
Wilkins heard a fire alarm ring. He went to the window and saw a Native house blazing in the
night. Sherman, 3,400 miles away in NY, recorded that same night, "Don't know why, but I
seem to see a crackling fire shining out in the darkness - get a definite fire impression as though
a house burning - you can see it from your location on the ice."
Or, Wilkins had attended a formal ball for the Army with the locals in Canada as his plane was
forced to land due to bad weather, Wilkins recorded that he was worried about a dress-suit that
he had to wear as the waistcoat was short in size. On the same night Sherman recorded in his
dairy "You in company with men in military attire-some women-evening dress-important people
present-much conversation-you appear to be in evening dress yourself."
It became clear that Sherman was receiving messages before Wilkins sent it, and often before it
even happened. “There is growing evidence that precognition is a fact. Man’s mind can go
backward and forward in time.” Like photons.
The Wilkins-Sherman experiments would essentially be replicated in 1971 by another explorer,
astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to walk on the moon. Mitchell was the lunar module
pilot for the Apollo 14 mission. Prior to the mission, he and two research physicists on the
Apollo program, Drs Boyle and Maxie, devised a “thought transfer” experiment. The Apollo 14
mission offered the opportunity to test the phenomenon on an interplanetary scale.
Mitchell was so busy he could only find time for transmission sessions. Despite the best-laid
plans, Mitchell’s transmissions did not correspond to the receiving sessions for the four
individuals on Earth. That didn’t seem to make any difference. The receivers, it turned out,
wrote down their impressions before Mitchell’s sending sessions even began, converting the
experiment into a successful test of precognition or future knowing.
NASA, sensitive as ever to public relations, ignored history’s first space-based thought-transfer
experiment, except to say that it was a personal test without official sanction. Mitchell found
that the experiment generated excitement among quite a few engineers and legendary rocket
genius Wehrner von Baun. Mitchell described how many of the scientists came to his office,
closed the door, and asked him to tell them about the experiment.
The Wilkins and Mitchell experiments are near replicas. Both demonstrated that distant
receivers can acquire information precognitively, before it is sent.
Quantum information processing…when you get into quantum physics (or any of the sciences) you – if
followed rigorously/deeply enough -are forced to look at “information” differently.
Tech transmits long-distance thought
Could we soon send emails 'telepathically'? dailymail.co.uk
Researchers led by the University of Barcelona used EEG headsets (pictured) to record
electrical activity in the brain, and convert the words ‘hola’ and ‘ciao’ into binary.
• http://dailygrail.com/Mind-Mysteries/2014/8/New-Research-Suggests-Autistic-Savants-
May-Have-Enhanced-Telepathic-Abilities (They are not as locked into left-brain, verbal,
3D constructs of reality).
