• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
I
NFORMATION
, C
ONSCIOUSNESS
,
AND
H
EALTH
R.G. Jahn
 Alternative Therapies
, 2, No. 3 (1996), reprinted with permission
By the mid-nineties, some halfway through the span of the PEAR program, the epistemological relevance of our  work to human healthcare issues had become increasingly clear, and allusions to that had already been made in anumber of oral and written presentations. Our first dedi-cated publication on this connection appeared in
Alterna- tive Therapies 
by invitation of its editor Dr. Larry Dossey.It is reproduced here to summarize the logical argument for the relevance of mind/matter studies to mind/body applications. Abstract 
A 16-year empirical assessment of anomalous human/ma-chine interactions provides strong evidence that consciousnesscan add information to otherwise random digital strings. A par-allel program of remote perception studies establishes the in-verse process: the anomalous acquisition of information aboutdistant physical targets. Remarkably, neither of these extraordi-narycapabilitiesshowsanydependenceoneitherthedistanceor the time separating the participant from the target. The rele-vance of these consciousness abilities to human health followsfrom recognition that physiology entails myriad subtle informa-tion processes, all of which involve some degree of randomicityin their normal functions, and thus may be similarly influencedby conscious volition.Over its long and proliferate history, the family of intellectualand pragmatic endeavors we broadly term science has tended totrade in three conceptual currencies: matter, energy, and infor-mation. Although each of these has encompassed a variety of morespecificphenomenaandtopicalapplicationscharacteristicof particular scientific domains, a similar sequence of attentionto them has progressed through most technical fields. For exam-ple, early physical science, from the time of the early Egyptiansthrough the Enlightenment, focused mainly on the behavior of tangible substance—its structure, mechanics, and chemical andphysical properties. Midway through the 19th century and wellinto the 20th, the concept of energy in its many forms—mechan-ical, electrical, thermal, chemical, nuclear,
etc 
.—became morecentral to basic physics and to its associated technologies. Mostrecently, information has taken center stage, and clearly willdominate physical science and its applications for the foresee-able future.Superficially, these three currencies might seem distinct, butin fact they are demonstrably convertible, with immense conse-quences. Einstein’s identification of the transmutability of ma-terial mass into energy (E
mc
2
) has impelled much of 20thcentury physics, and its technological, political, and sociologicalimplications can hardly be overstated. A somewhat subtler equivalence of energy and information is now well established,and will become progressively more important throughout 21stcentury science and many of its applications.A similar conceptual genealogy has characterized the evolu-tion of the biological and medical sciences. Early preoccupationwith the properties of biological substance—bone, tissue, blood,cell—ledinevitablytoconfrontationoftheenergeticprocessesof living organisms: their metabolism, kinesiological dynamics,and immune and restorative activities. Now, of course, the over-riding emphasis is on biological information, as manifested inthe mechanisms of neurophysiological reaction and communi-cation, genetic coding, brain function, and a host of psycholog-ical parameters. To each of these phases the bioengineering,pharmaceutical, and health service communities have re-sponded with a corresponding array of technologies, prod-ucts, and applications that have had their own major culturalimpacts.The entry of these sciences and technologies into the concep-tual kingdom of information brings with it two intriguing prob-lems, neither of which has been adequately acknowledged, letalone addressed. First, there is the self-evident distinction be-tween
objective 
and
subjective 
information. The former—the hardcurrency of information generating, processing, and represent-ing devices of all kinds—is completely and uniquely quantifiableand,
via 
the fundamental definitions of contemporary informa-tion science, ultimately reducible to binary digits. For example,the
objective 
information contained in any given book could inprinciple be precisely quantified by digitizing each of its lettersand every aspect of its syntactical structure, and compoundingthese in some logical schema. But the magnitude of the
subjective 
information the book presents would still depend on the nativelanguage, cultural heritage, and degree of interest of its reader,and thus would seem to defy quantization.Nevertheless, we seem innately driven to attempt some quan-titative specification;
e.g.
, we might say, “This book is
more 
in-teresting than that one,” or “I have
zero
interest in it.” Likewise,we might attempt to digitize the information displayed by abrilliant waterfall or a magnificent symphony in terms of theprevailingdistributionsofopticalandacousticalfrequenciesandamplitudes; but in so doing we would largely fail to convey itssubjective beauty or emotional impact. Nevertheless, we mighttrytoexpressinpseudo-quantitativetermshowmuchsuchvistasdelighted us (
e.g.
, “That was even better than the last one” or 
 227
© 2007 by Elsevier Inc. Printed in the United States. All Rights Reserved
EXPLORE May/June 2007, Vol. 3, No. 3
ISSN 1550-8307/07/$32.00 doi:10.1016/j.explore.2007.03.007
RELEVANT OVERVIEWS
 
“That is the finest I have ever seen”). And then, of course, thereis the young child with widely outstretched arms, attempting toquantify his heartfelt emotion: “Mommy, I love you
so-o-o
much!”Quantification of subjective information will be a major chal-lenge to the exploding era of information. Some will contendthat it should not even be attempted—that subjective experiencemust be categorically excluded from the purview of natural sci-ence. We think not; and neither did the brilliant philosopher,psychologist, and humanist William James
35
:The spirit and principles of science are mere affairs of method; there is nothing in them that need hinder sciencefrom dealing successfully with a world in which personalforcesarethestartingpointofneweffects.Theonlyformof thing that we directly encounter, the only experience thatwe concretely have is our own personal life. The only com-pleted category of our thinking, our professors of philoso-phy tell us, is the category of personality, every other cate-gory being one of the abstract elements of that. And thissystematic denial on science’s part of personality as a con-dition of events, this rigorous belief that in its own essentialand innermost nature our world is a strictly impersonalworld, may, conceivably, as the whirligig of time goesround, prove to be the very defect that our descendants willbe most surprised at in our boasted science, the omissionthat to their eyes will most tend to make it look perspec-tiveless and short.The need to include subjective information as a scientificcurrency is far more than an abstract philosophical issue. In aworld increasingly driven by consumer reactions, political im-pressions, and delicate interpersonal expectations, for science todeny its immense intellectual power and cultural influence tothisentireregimeofcommonhumanexperiencewouldnotonlybe irresponsible, it would be self-constraining and ultimatelylead to its own
Götterdämmerung.
Imposing as this challenge of the subjective may be, the pen-etrationofscienceandtechnologyintotheforestofinformationwill be considerably more complicated by a second problem;namely, the demonstrated capacity of consciousness to alter both subjective
and 
objective elements of information. Few willquarrel with the first half of this claim. The self-evident capabil-ities of human consciousness to create profound subjective ex-periences for itself and others to enjoy
via 
art, music, literarycomposition, or even
via 
scientific and mathematical reasoning,can hardly be disputed. The sublime experiences engendered byhuman love and empathy qualify equally well as enhancementsof subjective information for their donors and their recipients.But quantifiable alteration of the
objective 
information contentofaphysicalorbiologicalsystemsolelybyactionofanattendingconsciousness is far more difficult to demonstrate and vastlymore controversial to discuss—yet ultimately more critical inoptimally configuring our scientific resources for service andaccomplishment in the information age. It is this challenge thatmotivates our own program of research, a few aspects of whichwe would like to share with you in these pages.
PEAR PROGRAM
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) pro-gram was formally established in the University’s School of En-gineering and Applied Science in 1979, for the sole purpose of rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human conscious-ness with random physical processes. The present laboratorystaff comprises a compatible mixture of theoretical and experi-mental physicists, psychologists, and engineers, each comple-menting particular scientific expertise with appropriate human-istic interests. Financial support has been provided by a number of institutional and private philanthropic sources, which alsohave underwritten the program’s efforts to stimulate broader collaborative research on consciousness-related topics withinthe University and around the world
via 
such organizations asthe Princeton Human Information Processing Group, the Inter-national Consciousness Research Laboratories, the Academy of Consciousness Studies, the Society of Scientific Exploration,and other less formal enterprises.The research agenda of the PEAR laboratory itself has focusedon three major areas: anomalous human/machine interactions,remote perception, and theoretical modeling of consciousness/environment interactions. Considerable technical literature oneach of these programs has been published,
36
and a comprehen-sive review of the research, its contemporary relevance, and itsbroader cultural implications are presented in the book 
Marginsof Reality
.
2
Here we can only offer a brief sampler of these effortsand their major results.
Human/Machine Interactions
The basic protocol of these experiments requires human opera-tors to attempt by anomalous means to influence the output of various simple machines, each of which involves some sort of random physical process. These devices are electrical, mechani-cal, fluid dynamical, optical, or acoustical in character; macro-scopic or microscopic in scale; and digital or analog in their information processing and feedback displays. They generatedata over a broad range of rates, in formats that are theoretically,or at least empirically, predictable. All are equipped with numer-ous fail-safe features to guarantee the integrity of the data andtheir freedom from artifact, and all can be precisely calibrated toestablish their unattended statistical output distributions.In all benchmark experiments the operators, seated in front of these machines (but in no physical contact with them) and usingwhatever personal strategies they wish, endeavor to produce sta-tistically higher output values, lower output values, and baselineor unaltered output values over interspersed periods of pre-stated intentions. Great care is taken in the experimental designand data acquisition to preclude any form of spurious interfer-ence with the machine operation. Therefore, any systematic de-viation of these three data streams from one another can onlyindicate the existence and scale of the sought anomalous effect.Over the 17-year history of the program, more than 100 op-erators have performed such experiments. These participantshave varied greatly in personality, background, intellectual so-phistication, and style of operation, but all have remained anon-ymous, untrained, and uncompensated for their work, and nonehas claimed extraordinary abilities before or after their efforts.Throughout, we have regarded these operators as research col-
 228
EXPLORE May/June 2007, Vol. 3, No. 3 Information, Consciousness, and Health
 
leagues rather than subjects of study, and no psychological or physiological tests have been attempted.Variants of the benchmark protocols that have been exploredincludewhethertheintendeddirectionofeffortischosenbytheoperator or assigned by some random indicator; whether themachine runs continuously or is initiated at intervals imposedby the operator; the pace and size of the data blocks; the pres-ence or absence of feedback, and its character; the number of operators addressing the machine; the distance of the operator fromthemachine;andthetimeofmachineoperationrelativetothe time of operator effort. As of this writing, some 50 millionexperimental trials have been performed, containing more than3 billion bits of binary information. From this large body of results, the following salient features may be extracted:
37
1. Anomalous correlations of the machine outputs with pre-stated operator intentions are clearly evident. These takethe form of shifts of the distribution means that are statis-tically replicable, and quantifiable in the range of a fewparts in 10,000 deviation from chance expectation, on theaverage. Over the total database, the composite anomaly isunlikely by chance to about one part in a billion.2. The output mean shifts achieved by the entire group of operators range smoothly over distributions that would beexpectedbychance,exceptthatthecompositemeanvaluesare shifted as specified above. No outlying values, indica-tive of “superstar” performance, are found.3. Several of the individual operator databases are sufficientlydistinctive and replicable in their relative effectiveness of high,low,andbaselineintentions,andintheirresponsestoparticular protocol variations, to constitute characteristic“signatures” of achievement.4. Bothindividuallyandcollectively,theinteriorstructuresof the distributions of anomalous mean shifts are consistentwith a model wherein the elemental binary probability in-trinsic in each experiment has been altered from its designvalueofpreciselyonehalftoslightlyhigherorlowervalues,depending on the operator, intention, and protocol.5. The scale and character of the results are relatively insensi-tive to the particular random device employed. In somecases,thecharacteristicoperatorsignaturesarequitesimilar from one device to another.6. Although few psychological or physiological correlateshave been attempted, significant differences in male andfemale performance have been identified.7. Two operators addressing a given experiment together donot simply combine their individual achievement signa-tures; rather, their “co-operator” results are characteristic of thepair.Co-operatorsofthesamesexarelesseffectivethanmale/female pairs. “Bonded” male/female pairs producethe highest scores of any operator subsets.8. No learning or experience benefits are observed. To thecontrary, operators tend to perform best over their firstmajor experimental sets, then decline in performance over the next one or two sets, after which they recover better performance that stabilizes to their individual values over subsequent sets. These sequential patterns, termed “seriesposition effects,” are reminiscent of switching transientsoccurring in many physical and biological situations.9. No dependence of individual or collective effect sizes onthe distance of the operators from the machine appears inthe data. Operators addressing the machines from thou-sands of miles away produce effect sizes and characteristicsignatures similar to those that they achieve seated next tothe machines in the laboratory.10. Experiments performed “off-time” (
i.e.
, with operators ex-erting their intentions several hours before or after the ma-chines actually produce their data strings) show similar ef-fect sizes and internal characteristics to those performed“on-time”(
i.e.
,withmachineoperationconcurrentwiththeoperators’ periods of effort).11. Subjectivereportsfromthemostsuccessfuloperatorsspeak of a sense of resonance or bond with the machine, of sur-rendering their sense of identity to merge with the machineinto a unified system, of exchanging roles with the ma-chine, of “falling in love” with it, or of having “fun” with it.From this huge array of empirical indications, it seems un-avoidable to conclude that operator consciousness is capable of inserting information in its most rudimentary
objective 
form—namely, binary bits—into these random physical systems bysome anomalous means, independent of space and time.Human/machine experiments similar to these have been con-ducted at many other laboratories, with anomalous results com-mensurate with our own.
38
Of particular interest to the humanhealth arena are those few studies that have demonstrated re-sponses from biological substances or living organisms em-ployed as the random targets of the operators’ intentions.Equally relevant are a small body of experiments in which therole of the operators has been played by other than humanspecies (
e.g.
, chicks, rabbits, mice,
etc.
), all of which seem capableof influencing random electronic processors to respond to somebiological or emotional needs.
39
These results, combined withfurther studies in our own program that demonstrate anomalousresponses of portable random event generator units unobtru-sively placed in various human group environments—such asreligious services, sporting events, professional meetings, medi-cal counseling sessions, or other convocations entailing somecollective emotional potential
40
—confirm the ubiquitous char-acter of these information anomalies, and broaden their poten-tial importance to our individual and cultural welfare.
Remote Perception
In this complementary class of experiment, the “target” is not aphysical device or process in a laboratory environment, but aphysicalsceneatsomeremotegeographicallocation.Thegoalof the human participant is not to insert information into the tar-get, but to extract information from it by anomalous means. Inthe usual protocol, two participants are involved in any givenexperiment. One, the “agent,” is physically present at the targetlocation, which has been selected by some random process, andthere immerses himself emotionally and cognitively in thescene, records its characteristics on a standard check sheet, andtakes photographs of it. The other, the “percipient,” locatedmany miles from the scene and with no prior knowledge of it,
 229
Information, Consciousness, and Health EXPLORE May/June 2007, Vol. 3, No. 3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...