You are on page 1of 61

Zeitschrift für Anomalistik Volume 19 (2019), pp.

12–51

Informational Psi
Collapsing the Problem Space of Psi Phenomena

Sonali Bhatt Marwaha, Edwin C. May1

Abstract – � �ee ���� ��om p�e�o�����o� ��� �e�l���me p�� l��o���o�� e�pe��me��� ��� �ppl�����o�� e��
���l��h �he v�l����� o� �h�� phe�ome�o�. B��e� o� �he �heo�e����l �ou�����o�� o� �e����o� �u�me�����o�
�heo�� ��� �he mul��ph���� mo�el o� p�e�o�����o� (���o�m���o��l p��), we �uppo�� �� ���o�m���o��l
p�o�e�� �o� p��, ��� �o����e� informational psi (IΨ) �� �he o�l� �o�m o� p��. IΨ �� �efi�e� �� the trans-
fer of information, which is based on entropic considerations, arising from a distant point in spacetime
leading to the local acquisition of non-inferential information by an atypical perceptual ability. S��e���fi�
u��e��������� �lw��� evolve� �ow���� ��mpl�����. IΨ �em���� � v���le �l�e�����ve �o �he �������� ���
�e�p�e����o�� o� m��� ��ffe�e�� v���e��e� o� p��: �elep��h� (�o� e. �., �he G��z�el�), p�e�e���me��/p�e�
���mulu� �e�po��e, ����������ll�����e� PK (RNG, DMILS, GCP), po���mo��em �u�v�v�l (me��um�h�p,
�e���������o�). I� �h�� p�pe� we e�p��� ou� ���ume��� �o� �he v�ew �h�� �pp��e��l� ��ffe�e�� p�� phe�
�ome�� wh��h �e�e��ll� �equ��e ��ffe�e�� �heo�e����l �pp�o��he�, �oll�p�e ���o o�e phe�ome�o�—���
�o�m���o��l p��. Fu�u�e ���e���o�� �o� �e�e���h o� IΨ ��e ����u��e�.
Keywords: p�� �e�e���h – �heo��e� o� p�� – e���op� – p���p���holo�� – ���o�m���o��l p�� – ��u��l p��

Informationsgestütztes Psi
Kollabierender Problemraum von Psi-Phänomenen

Zusammenfassung2 – D�e Be�u��e �u� P�äko�����o��� u�� E�h�ze���P���L��o�ve��u�he� u�� �A��


we��u��e� �ele�e� ��e E�h�he�� vo� P���Phä�ome�e�. B���e�e�� �u� �e� �heo�e����he� G�u��l��e�

1 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, M. Ph�l., Ph. D. (P���holo��) �� � �e�e���h ���o����e w��h �he L��o���o��e� �o�
Fu���me���l Re�e���h. He� ���e�e��� ���lu�e � ����he��� o� �he �o�����ve ���e��e� ��� p�� �e�e���h
wh��h ��� le�� �o �heo�e����l �evelopme��� �� �he fiel�. She l�ve� �� I���� (em��l: �o��l��m@�m��l.
�om).
E�w�� C. M��, Ph. D. (Nu�le�� Ph�����) �� � le����� fi�u�e �� p�� �e�e���h, ��� h�� �u�ho�e� mo�e
�h�� 500 �e�e���h ��� �e�h����l p�pe�� �� �h�� ��e�. He w�� w��h �he U.S. �ove��me��’� p�� �e�e���h
p�o���m, Star Gate, ��om l��e 1975 �o 1995, ��� w�� �he �e�e���h ���e��o� ��om 1985 �o 1995, �� SRI
I��e�����o��l ��� SAIC. He �� �he p�e���e�� o� �he L��o���o��e� �o� Fu���me���l Re�e���h �� P�lo
Al�o, C�l��o���� (em��l: m��@LFR.ORG).
2 E��e e�we��e��e �eu���he Zu��mme�����u�� fi��e� ���h �m E��e �e� A���kel�.

h��p://��.�o�.o��/10.23793/z��.2019.12
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 13

�e� De����o� Au�me�����o� �eo�� (DAT) u�� �em meh�ph����e� Mo�ell �e� P�äko�����o� (I��o��
m���o���e��ü�z�e� P��) ve���e�e� w�� ��� Ko�zep� e��e� I��o�m���o��p�oze��e� �ü� P�� u�� �e����h�e�
I��o�m���o���e��ü�z�e� P�� (IΨ) �l� ��e e��z��e Fo�m vo� P��. IΨ ��� �efi��e�� — e��e Defi����o�, ��e �u�
e���op���he� Ü�e�le�u��e� ����e�� — �l� ��e Ü�e�����u�� vo� I��o�m���o�, ��e �u� e��em e���e���e�
Pu�k� �� �e� R�umze�� e����eh� u�� zu� lok�le� E�����u�� ���h�����e�e�z�elle� I��o�m���o�e� �u��h
e��e ���p���he W�h��ehmu����äh��ke�� �üh��. D�� w���e���h�ftl��he Ve���ä����� e��w��kel� ���h �m�
me� �� R��h�u�� E�����hhe��. IΨ �le��� e��e p��k��k��le Al�e�����ve zu �e� S����������e�p�e����o�e�
v�ele� ve���h�e�e�e� V������e� vo� p��: Telep��h�e (G��z�el�), P�e�e���me��/P�e�S��mulu��Re�k��o�,
����������h ����e��e PK (RNG, DMILS, GCP), �e�le�e� ���h �em To�e (Me��um��mu�, Re��k�����
��o�). I� ��e�em Be����� e�we��e�� w�� u��e�e A��ume�����o� ���ü�, ���� ve�me���l��h u��e���h�e��
l��he P���Phä�ome�e, ��e ü�l��he�we��e u��e���h�e�l��he �heo�e����he A��ä�ze e��o��e��, zu e��em
P���Phä�ome� koll���e�e�. Zukü�ft��e Fo���hu����u����h�u��e� �ezü�l��h IΨ we��e� ���ku��e��.

Schlüsselbegriffe: P���o���hu�� – E���op�e – P���p���holo��e – ���o�m���o���e��ü�z�e� P�� – k�u��le� P��

Brief Background
P�� phe�ome�� h�ve �ee� o��e�ve� ��� �heo��ze� ��o����ul�u��ll� �h�ou�hou� ou� h���o����l
p���. Emp�����l ��ve�������o�� �h�� h�ve �ee� ���e� �o �h�� v��� �o�� o� l��e���u�e h�� le� �o��
�empo���� �e�e���he�� �o m�ke �u��������l ��v���e� �� e����l��h��� �he v�l����� o� �he phe�
�ome�� ��� �� �heo�� �evelopme��. A� e��e���ve �ev�ew o� �he US Gove��me�� �po��o�e�
p�� �e�e���h p�o���m, Star Gate, h�� le� �o �he �o��lu��o� �h�� ���o�m���o��l p�� (p�e�o����
��o�, �e�l���me p��) �� � ���e���fi��ll� v�l�� phe�ome�o� �h�� h�� �ee� �ppl�e� �u��e���ull� �o
p�o�lem� o� US ����o��l �e�u����. �e�e �� o�l� we�k ����������l ev��e��e �o� �he e����e��e o�
p���hok��e���, wh��h h�� �u��eque��l� �ee� �o����e�e� �o �e � p��� o� ���o�m���o��l p�� (M��
& M��w�h�, 2018�: 22). All ��e�� o� �e�e���h—fiel� ��u��e�, l��o���o������e� ��u��e� ���
�ppl�����o��—��om l��o���o��e� ���o�� �he wo�l�, h�ve �e�ve� �� �u�l���� �lo�k� �ow���� �he
��v���eme�� o� �h�� evolv��� fiel�, �o �he ����e�o���he����e��e �� �� ������ �ow.
�e Star Gate �ppl�e� ���o�m���o��l p�� p�o���m, u���� �he �emo�e v�ew��� me�ho�, w��
���ke� o� � �o��l o� 504 �ep����e m�l����� ��� ���ell��e��e m����o�� �� � v���e�� o� ��e���e� �h��
�equ��e� 2865 ����v��u�l �emo�e v�ew���� �o ���ompl��h �ho�e ����e� m����o��. �e ���� ��om
�he�e �e���o�� p�o�u�e� ����o���le ���ell��e��e �u�h �h��, o� �he 19 �l�e�� ��e���e� ��om 1973–
1995, 17 we�e �e�u����� �u��ome�� �o� �he RV�HUMINT (�emo�e v�ew��� hum�� ���ell��e��e)
�olle���o� p�o�u��—�� 89% �u��ome� �e�u�� ���e. I� �eem� h��hl� u�l�kel� �h�� �he�e woul� �e
�u�h � h��h �u��ome� �e�u�� ���e �� �he RV�HUMINT �e��ve� ���o�m���o� we�e �o� wo��h� o�
�u�h ���e���o�. F��u�e 1 �llu�����e� e��e�p�� ��om e���u�e� ev�lu���o�� o� �he ���o�m���o��l p��
p�o�u�� (M�� & M��w�h�, 2019�).
14 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

Fig. 1: E��e�p�� ��om �u��ome� ev�lu���o�� (1981).


(ITAC – I��ell��e��e ��e�� A��e��me�� Ce��e�; CIA – Ce����l I��ell��e��e A�e���; GF –
G��ll Fl�me, o�e o� �he �o�e ��me� �o� S��� G��e; JCS – Jo��� Ch�e�� o� S��ff).

A u��ve���l phe�ome�o� �u�h �� p�� h�� �ul�u�e �pe��fi� �e�m��olo�� �h�� �� ����������ll�
l��ke� �o �el���ou� ��� me��ph�����l �el�e� ����em�. �e �ome��l��u�e o� �he fiel� ��� phe�om�
e�� h�ve evolve� ove� �he �e��� ������� ��om p���h���l e�pe��e��e�, �o e�����e��o�� pe��ep��o�
��� p���hok��e��� �o ��om�lou� me���l phe�ome�� (��om�lou� �o�����o� ��� ��om�lou�
pe��u�����o�), �o psi (Z����o�e & Alv����o, 1987, 2015). W��h �u��he� ��v���e� �� �h�� fiel�,
�h�� �e�m �oo w�ll evolve, �efle����� � ��e��e� u��e��������� o� �he phe�ome�o�.
Co������ �o popul�� pe��ep��o�, p�� �heo��z��� h�� �ee� p��� o� p�� �e�e���h ��om ��� e��l�
�e���. S��e������ ��om v���ou� �����pl��e� h�ve �o�u�e� o� �e�e�m����� �he me�h����m o� p��,
�evelop��� �heo��e� ��� mo�el� ���e� o� ph�lo�oph���l pe��pe���ve� ��� �he ���e��e o� �he ���
(Be��hle�, 1998; R�o, 1977, 1978, 2011; S�oke�, 1987). A ��e��e� u��e��������� o� �he emp�����l
���� ��� �he phe�ome�� h�ve le� �o ��v���e� �� �heo�e����l u��e��������� ��� �heo�� �evel�
opme��, le����� �o �eve��l �e����le ��� �pe�ul���ve h�po�he�e� �� p�opo�e� �� �he �heo�����.
A� p�� e�pe��e��e ��volve� �ll ��pe��� o� �he e�pl����o�� �om����—ph�����, �eu�o���e��e,
p���holo����l—�heo��e� h�ve �o�u�e� o� v���ou� eleme��� o� �he e����e p�o�e��. (See M�� &
M��w�h�, 2015 �o� �ome �ep�e�e�����ve �heo��e�). S���e p�� �� ����������ll� l��ke� �o �he e��e���l
��� ���e���l wo�l��, ��v���e� m��e �� o�he� �elev��� �����pl��e� �u�h �� ph�����, p���holo��,
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 15

��� �he �eu�o���e��e� h�ve ��� w�ll �o����ue �o ��flue��e p�� �heo��z���. S��e��e ��, �fte� �ll, �
��m��o��� p�o�e�� w��h eve�� �����pl��e �o�����u���� �o �he wo�k����p�o��e�� �� �ll �phe�e� o�
��qu���.
Al�hou�h �u�l��� ��� p��p���h��� �pp�o��he� �o u��e��������� p�� h�ve �he�� p�opo�e���
(e. �., Do��e�, 2014; H����, 2017; Kell�, C�����ee, & M���h�ll, 2015; Neppe & Clo�e, 2012; R�o,
2011, 2013), �� ou� v�ew, p�� �� �e�� u��e���oo� �� o�he� �e��o�� ����em� ��e; �h�� ��, p�� �� �he
pe��ep��o� ��� �o�����o� o� ���o�m���o��l �����l� ��om �he e��e���l wo�l�.
I� 1945 J. B. Rh��e ����e�: “[…] �he o��u��e��e o� �elep��h� [w��] o� ve�� ��e�� �mpo�����e
�o �he ��ve�������o� o� �he �p���� h�po�he���” (p. 191). I� 1974 he ����e� �h�� eve� �fte� � �e��u��
o� effo��, ev��e��e �o� �he �elep��h� h�po�he��� h�� �o� �ee� �ou�� �o �e ve��fi��le (p. 137), ��
“p�e�o�����o� offe�e� � �ew �ou��e�h�po�he��� �o �elep��h�” (p. 143)—po���mo��em �u�v�v�l,
ou��o���o�� e�pe��e��e, p���hok��e���, �e��o�PK ��� �e ���ou��e� �o� �� p�e�o�����o�. B��e�
o� �he ���l���� o� �o��empo���� p�� �e�e���h, we �e���e�� Rh��e’� o��e�v���o�� o� “�he �o��ep�
o� �he u���� o� p��” (1974: 146), ��� �oll�p�e �he p�o�lem �p��e o� p�� phe�ome�� ���o � ����le
phe�ome�o�. �e �e�m “���o�m���o��l p��” (IΨ) �� �� �p� �e�m��olo�� �h�� �e�� �ep�e�e��� �he
p�� ����.
S��e���fi� u��e��������� ��v�����l� evolve� �ow���� ��mpl�����; �he mo�e we u��e������
�ome�h���, �he ��mple� �� �ppe���, �l�hou�h, �he u��e�l���� p�o�e��e� m�� �e �omple�. B��e�
o� �� ���l���� o� �he ��ffe�e�� �l���e� o� p�� phe�ome��—p�e�o�����o�, �l���vo����e, �elep��h�,
p���hok��e���, ��� �he �u�v�v�l h�po�he���, �� M��w�h� & M�� (2016) we ����e� �h�� p�e�o��
����o� �� �he o�l� �o�m o� p��. I� �h�� p�pe� we e�p��� o� ou� ���ume��� ��� ���e�� �h�� �he
ev��e��e ��� �heo��e� o� p�� h�ve �e��he� � ����e whe�e we ��� �oll�p�e p�� ���o � ����le phe�
�ome�o�—���o�m���o��l p�� (IΨ). U��e��������� �he u��e�l���� p�o�e��e� o� IΨ �� �he �e��
��ep �o�w��� �o� p�� �e�e���h.

Defining Informational Psi (IΨ)


I� �he effo�� �o u��e������ �he p�o�e�� o� p��, we p���e� �he p�o�lem ���o �he ph����� �om���
(���o�m���o���e����� pe��pe���ve) ��� �he �eu�o���e��e �om��� (pe��o���e����� pe��pe��
��ve) (M��w�h� & M��, 2015�). E��m����� p�� ��om �he�e �wo �om���� e���le� u� �o e�plo�e
�he phe�ome�o� ��om �he pe��pe���ve o� ��� ��������� ���u�e, ��� ��om �he p�o�e����� o� �he
��qu��e� ���o�m���o�.
I� M��w�h� & M�� (2016) we �efi�e� p�e�o�����o� �� �� atypical perceptual ability that allows
the acquisition of non-inferential information arising from a distant point in spacetime. ��� �efi���
��o� p��m���l� ����e��e� �he pe��o���e����� pe��pe���ve o� �he p�o�lem. I� �h�� p�pe�, we e�p���
o� �h�� �efi����o� �o ���o�po���e �he ���o�m���o���e����� pe��pe���ve (�. e., �he ph����� �om���) �o
16 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

p�ov��e � �efi����o� �o� IΨ. S���e, �� ou� v�ew, �h���e� o� e���op� o� �he ����e� ����em pl�� � v���l
�ole �� IΨ, we h�ve ���o�po���e� �� ���o �he �efi����o� ��:

Informational psi (IΨ) is defined as the transfer of information, which is based on entropic
considerations, arising from a distant point in spacetime leading to the local acquisition of
non-inferential information by an atypical perceptual ability.

Explanation of Definitional Terms

Entropy

I� �� well k�ow� �h�� ph����� �� �he m���o level �� ������e���o��l �� ��me (e. �., mole�ule� �oll�����
�� l�qu��). ��� ��, �he equ���o�� �ove����� �he�� mo��o� ��e �ll qu������� �� ��me, �o �� o�e
�epl��e� ��me w��h m��u� ��me we �e� �he ��me ���we�. Ye� we k�ow �h�� �� �he m���o level (e. �.,
hum���) ��me m���he� o� �� o�e ���e���o� o�l�. How �h�� ��� h�ppe� ��volve� � �o��ep� ��lle�
e���op�—� me��u�e o� ���o��e�. Spe��fi��ll�, �he �e�o�� l�w o� �he�mo����m��� ����e� �h�� �he
e���op� o� � �lo�e� ����em ��� �eve� �e��e��e.
A� IΨ ���� �how, �he
qu�l��� o� IΨ �� ����������ll�
p�opo���o��l �o �he �h���e
o� e���op� o� �he ����e� ����
�em. Mo�eove�, �� ���l����
o� �he �o��e� �ho��e ��� ��ee�
�e�po��e (�emo�e v�ew���)
���� �������e� �h�� �he�e m��
�e � ����������l l�m�� ���e� o�
e���op�� l�m��� �o� �he uppe�
l�m�� o� IΨ. F��u�e 2 �llu�����e�
�h�� ���� ������� �� ���o�m��
��o� �heo�e��� �u�ve. �e
�������� e��o�� (e��o� ���� ��
F��u�e 2) �o� �he �e�� ��u��e�,
����������ll� �pe�k���, �o �o� Fig. 2: E���op�� l�m��� o� ���o�m���o��l p�� ����. �e �lue l��e� �ep�e�e��
e��ee� �he �heo�e����l �u�ve �ll �he ��ee��e�po��e (�emo�e v�ew���) ���� �� wh��h e���op�� �����e���
�o� effe���ve ������ h������ we�e �v��l��le. Wh�le �he �������e �o� �o��e���ho��e (���� �ue�����)
���� �� hu�e, po���� �� �e� �ep�e�e�� � ��mple o� �e�� �h���e �e�ul�� ���
���e. �he ve�� �e�� �e�ul� we �oul� fi�� �� �he l��e���u�e.
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 17

E���op� �hu� �e�ome� �� ���e���l p��� o� �he IΨ �efi����o� �� �he �el���o��h�p o� m���o� �o
m���o� ��me �� u��e���oo� w��h �he �e�o�� l�w, ��� �ow we fi�� �h�� �he IΨ qu�l��� �� �el��e� �o
�h���e� �� e���op�. (De���l� ��� �e �ou�� �� M��, 2011, 2014; M�� & Depp, 2015; M��, H�wle�,
& M��w�h�, 2017; M�� & L���z, 2010; M�� & Spo����woo�e, 1994).

Spacetime

I� �l������l ph�����, �p��e ��� ��me ��e �o����e�e� �ep����e �h����. Sp��e �� �h�ee���me���o��l
(he��h�, ��e���h, ��� �ep�h), ��� ��� �e ��v��e� ���o � �h�ee���me���o��l ���� o� �u�e� �h��
�e�����e� �he Eu�l��e�� �eome��� ��m�l��� ��om h��h���hool m��h �l���. T�me �� o�e���me��
��o��l �� �l������l ph�����. E����e��’� �heo�� o� �pe���l �el���v��� �om���e� �he �h�ee ��me���o��
o� �p��e ��� o�e ��me���o� o� ��me ���o � �ou����me���o��l ���� ��lle� “�p��e��me.” Sp��e��me
m�� �e fl��, �� wh��h ���e Eu�l��e�� �eome��� �e�����e� �he �h�ee��p��e ��me���o��, o� �� �oul�
�e �u�ve�. I� E����e��’� �e�e��l �heo�� o� �el���v���, �he �������u��o� o� m���e� ��� e�e��� �� �he
u��ve��e �e�e�m��e� �he �u�v��u�e o� �p��e��me.
Mul��pl���� � ��me ���e�v�l �� �he �o������ �pee� o� l��h� (�e������e� �� c) �he� � ��me �u���
��o� �e�ome� equ�v�le�� �o � �������e. I� ��mple �l�e��� ��� ��om eleme����� ph�����:
∆x = c × ∆t.
��� equ���o� �� � w�� o� �o�ve����� � velo���� (�. e., �he �pee� o� l��h�) ���o �� effe���ve �p����l
�oo������e. �e ��m�l��� �e�m l��h���e��—�he distance l��h� ���vel� �� o�e �e�� ≈9.46 ×1013 =
9,460,730,472,580.8 k�lome�e��—�llu�����e� �he po���. A����� �h�� “�p����l” ��me���o� �o �he
��m�l��� �h�ee, we e�� up w��h � 4���me���o��l �p��e, �l�e�� ��ffi�ul� �o �omp�ehe��, wh��h ��
��lle� M��kow�k� �p��e.
O�v�ou�l�, �� �� �mpo����le �o ���w � 4���me���o��l p���u�e, �o wh�� �� �o�e ����e�� �� �o
���w � 3���me���o��l equ�v�le��. �e ve�����l ���� u�u�ll� �ep�e�e��� �he ��me ���� (���u�ll�
c × t) ��� �he ��� ��e� �ep�e�e�� �p��e. �e p�e�e�� �� �ep�e�e��e� �� � ����le po��� (�he ve��e�)
o� � �o�e �h�� e��e��� upw��� ��om e��h mome�� o� �he p�e�e�� �ow��� �he �u�u�e. �e p��� ��
��o�he� �o�e w��h ��� ve��e� �� �he p�e�e�� �u� ope���� �ow�w��� �o �he p���.
��� �o��ep� �� �e�� �llu�����e� �� �he l��h� �o�e (F��u�e 3). �e po���� lo���e� �����e �he
�o�e� ��e ��lle� ��me�l�ke �ep����e� ��om �he p�e�e��. ��� me��� ���o�m���o� h�� ��me �o �e��h
�he p�e�e�� �� �pee�� le�� �h�� �h�� o� l��h�. All po���� ou����e �he l��h� �o�e� ��e ��lle� �p��e�
l�ke �ep����e�; �h�� ��, �o ��u��l �o��e���o� ��� e���� �e�wee� �hem ��� �he p�e�e��. F���ll�,
l��h��l�ke po���� l�e �lo�� �he e��e o� �he �o�e�.
18 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

Fig. 3: �e l��h� �o�e. �e e��e� o� �he �o�e� �ep�e�e�� �he equ���o� ∆x = c × ∆t.

Local Acquisition
O��e ���o�m���o� ��om � �u�u�e po��� p�op����e� �o �he v������� o� �he pe���p�e��, �he pe��ep�
��o� o� IΨ �����l� �� o��u����� �� �lo�e �o �e�l ��me. �e l�kel�hoo� o� �o�����l me�h����m� �e���
��le �o ��ffe�e�����e �e�wee� �he �empo��l o������ o� �he �����l ��e qu��e u�l�kel�, u�le�� we ��e
w�ll��� �o po��� �� �h�� ����e o� �he ev��e��e �h�� �he ���u�e/p�ope���e� o� �����l� v��� �epe�����
o� �he�� �empo��l o������. ��� �mpl�e� �h��, from the person-centric perspective, all perception,
regardless of its temporal origin, is local in both time and space (�. e., he�e ��� �ow).

Non-inferential Information
��� �mpl�e� �h�� �he pe��e�ve� ���o�m���o� ����o� �e ���e��e� �� o������� me���.

Atypical Perceptual Ability


Due �o �he h�po�he��ze� �equ��eme�� o� � �pe��fi� IΨ �����l ������u�e� ��� �o�����l h�pe��
���o�����ve me�h����m� �o p�o�e�� �h�� �����l, we p�opo�e �h�� IΨ �� � �o�m�l, �l�e�� ���p���l
pe��ep�u�l ���l��� �h�� �� p�e�e�� �� ��ou� 1% o� �ele��e� popul���o�� (M��w�h� & M��, 2015�,
2015�, 2015�; M��, U���, T���k, e� �l., 1989/2018).
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 19

Overview of Informational Psi (IΨ) Theories


S���e �he l��e 1970�, �he Star Gate p�o���m �� SRI I��e�����o��l w�� ���ke� w��h e��m����� �he
m���o�PK h�po�he���, u��e� �o������ ��om �he De�e��e I��ell��e��e A�e���, US A�m� Me����l
Re�e���h ��� Developme�� Comm���, ��� �he M����le I��ell��e��e A�e���. H��h p�e����o� e����
�ee���� equ�pme�� we�e u�e� �o e��m��e �h�� h�po�he��� (M�� & M��w�h�, 2019�). B��e� o� �he
����, �� 1986 �he SRI �e�m fi��� p�opo�e� �he ���u���ve ���� �o����� ���o�m���o��l mo�el �o� m���o�
PK, wh��h �ook ��� fi��l �h�pe �� �he �e����o� �u�me�����o� �heo�� (DAT). Follow��� � �ev�ew
o� �he e����e S��� G��e �������e, M��w�h� ��� M�� (2015�) �evelope� �he mul��ph���� mo�el o�
p�e�o�����o� (MMPC) �h�� h�� ����e �e�ve� �� � ����� �o� �he �eve��l �heo�e����l ��v���e� �� p�e�
�e��e� �� �h�� p�pe�. A� we h�ve �efi�e� �he �o�e �o��ep� ���e� o� �� ����e����� u��e��������� o�
�he ���u�e o� �he phe�ome�o� ��� ��� e�pe��e��e, we rename the multiphasic model of precognition
to the multiphasic model of informational psi (MMIΨ), w��hou� ��� �l�e����o�� �o �he ���u��u�e ���
�o��e�� o� �he mo�el. Wh�le �he�e ��e �eve��l o�he� �heo����� who h�ve ����e��e� v���ou� ��pe���
o� �he p�o�lem (�ee M�� & M��w�h�, 2015), �� �h�� p�pe� we p�e�e�� ���efl� DAT ��� MMIΨ, ��
�he� �o�m �he �heo�e����l ����� �o� �oll�p���� �he p�o�lem �p��e o� p�� phe�ome��.

The Decision Augmentation Theory (DAT)

�e p�o�lem �� �o who�e p�� �� �� wo�k �� �� e�pe��me�� h�� �ee� pl��u��� p�� �e�e���h ����e
�he 1970�. I� �he p������p��� pe��o�m��� �� e�pe��e� o� h�� �he e�pe��me��e� m��e �eem���l�
o�je���ve �e����o�� �o �h�� �he pe��o�m���e o�l� m�m��� �he p������p�����e��e�e� h�po�he���?
��� ���ue w�� ��m�l��l� p�opo�e� �� Ro�e��h�l (1966) �� e�pe��me��e� effe���, S�hm��� (1970)
�� h�� ������l ��u��e�, ��� l��e� ��op�e� �� S����o�� ��� �omp�o� (1973) �� p�� me����e�
���o�m���o��l �e�po��e (PMIR), ��� �u��eque��l� ����e��e� �� �he �o�mul���o�� o� DAT (M��,
2015; M��, U���, & Spo����woo�e, 1995). E�pe��me��e� p�� �e�e�� �o p�� me����e� e�pe��me��e�
e�pe������ effe���.
�e PMIR mo�el (S����o��, 1974�, 1974�, 1976) p�opo�e� �h�� �� o������m u����e���o��ll�
u�e� p�� �o ���� ��� e�v��o�me�� �o� �ee���elev��� o�je��� o� eve��� o� �o� ���o�m���o� ��u���ll�
�el��e� �o �u�h eve��� ��� �h�� whe� �u�h ���o�m���o� �� o�����e�, �he o������m �e��� �o ���
�� w��� �h�� ��e �����ume���l �� ���������� ��� �ee�� �� �el���o� �o �he p�����ul�� o�je��/eve��
�� que���o�. �e ���u���ve ���� �o����� mo�el, �ow k�ow� �� DAT, ��o�e ou� o� �he ���l���� o�
�he ���� o� m���o�PK w��h ����om �um�e� �e�e���o�� (RNG) �����e� ou� �� 1979–1980 �� SRI
I��e�����o��l. I� w�� �o���e� �h�� �he ���� we�e ���o�����e�� w��h �he ���o��l� hel� �o��o� �h��
PK ��e��� we�e �ffe����� �he ph�����l �ev��e� o� � ������ ���������� �����.
A� p��� o� �he Star Gate p�o���m, M��, Humph�e�, ��� Hu����� (1980) �o��u��e� � �ep�
l�����o� o� �� RNG e�pe��me�� w��h �u��������l p�o�o�ol �mp�oveme��� �o ��� �o u��e������
20 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

�he me�h����m �eh��� �he ����������ll� �o�u�� phe�ome�o�. I� �h�� e�pe��me��, � �o����uou�
���e�m o� ������ ���� �� � ���e o� o�e pe� m�ll��e�o�� we�e �olle��e� ��� �e�� �o � �ompu�e� ��
���e �o�m. B�� �um�e� �h�ee �� �he 8���� ���e w�� �e������e�, �� ��v���e, �� �he ����e� ���. �u�,
e��h ���e �o�����e� �h�ee ���� o� �u�u�e ��� �ou� ���� o� p��� �el���ve �o �he ����e� ���. U���� �
��������� ��lle� �eque����l ��mpl��� (W�l�, 1973) �he� we�e ��le �o ��e����� ����le �u�� �h�� we�e
����v��u�ll� ����������ll� �����fi����. Seve��ee� �u�� ou� o� 87 p�o�u�e� ����v��u�ll� �����fi����
ev��e��e �o� � �ev����o� ��om me�� �h���e e�pe�����o� o� ��� �um�e� 3 (e���� ���om��l �o� 17
h��� �� 87 ����l� w��h �� eve�� p�o����l��� o� 0.05 ��el�� z = 4.75, p = 1 × 10–6, �u� effe�� ��ze =
0.509).
Fo� �he�e ���� �o �e �he �e�ul� o� ��u��l p�� (p���hok��e���, m����ove��m���e�) �mpl�e� �h��
��u��l p�� (CΨ) mu�� �e vol���o��ll� �u��e� o� ��� off w��h�� � ����le m�ll��e�o��—����e� �h��
��� k�ow� vol���o��l �o���ol o� ��olo����l phe�ome��. �e�e�o�e, o�e m��h� e�pe�� u��e� �
CΨ ���ump��o� �h�� �he �e��h�o���� ���� �o �he ����e� ��� �houl� �e �e��l� 100% �o��el��e�. I�
woul� �o� �e �� e����e����o� �o e�pe�� �h�� �ll ���� �� �he ���e �o �e �o��el��e� ����e e��h� m�ll��
�e�o��� �� �l�o �ho�� �o� m��� ��olo����l p�o�e��e�. M�� e� �l. (1980) �ompu�e� �h�ee �ep����e
�o��el���o��—�he �mme����e �e��h�o���� ���� �o �he ����e� ���: ��� �h�ee w��h ��� �ou�; ��� �h�ee
w��h ��� �wo; ��� ���� �wo ��� �ou�. F��u�e 4 �how� � �o��p���me���� fi� �o �he o��e�ve� �o��
�el���o�� ���������� �o �o��el���o� �e�wee� ��� o� �he �h�ee ���� �� �he ��u��. ��� le� �o �he
h�po�he��� that what appeared to be CΨ was an IΨ process.

Fig. 4: No��p���me���� fi� �o �he �o��el���o�� o� ���� �el��e� �o �he ����e� ���.
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 21

�e m��hem�����l �o�mul���o� o� DAT qu����fie� ����������l �e��� ��� �how� �e�o�� ���
�ou�� �h�� �he �epo��e� �����fi���� ���������� �� m��� o� �he�e ��u��e� ����e �o� �e��u�e o� �ome
pu����ve PK �o��e, �u� ���he� �he e�pe��me��e� u�e� h��/he� u��o����ou� IΨ ���l��� �o e������
���o�m���o� ��om � �o��pe��u��e� ����om �eque��e �u��e� �h�� m�m�� �o��e� o� �he ��� level.
�e m�m�� effe��� ��e �o� ve�� �o�u��, �eve��hele��, �he� m��h� �o�����u�e �o �he ���e���o� o�
�he ���� ��� �he ���e�p�e����o� o� �he �e�ul��. DAT �� ��������ve� ��� help� �o m�ke �e��e o� �
ve�� l���e �mou�� o� �o�u�� p�� ����.
�e DAT p�o�o�ol ��� �e ���o�po���e� ���o ��� �e�e���h p�o�o�ol� �h�� u�e ����om�z���o�
��� ���e�e����l ���������� �� ���� ���l���� �u�h �� �� ��u� ����l� ��� pl��e�o ��u��e�. F��u�e 5���
�llu�����e �h�� effe�� �� � h�po�he����l ��u� ����l.

Fig. 5: (�) Rep�e�e��� �he ��u��l effe��; �h�� ��, �he ��u� �� eff�����ou�; (�) Demo������e� how �he
effi���� �� m�m��ke� �� IΨ.

I� � ��p���l ��u� ����l, �� u�����e� ����om p�o�e�� �o��� p���e��� ���o �wo ��oup�—� ��u�
��� pl��e�o ��oup. U��e� �ou�le��l��� �o�����o��, �he ��u�/pl��e�o �� ��m�����e�e�; �he ����
������� �how� �� F��u�e 5(�) ��ove, ��e ��p���l ��� �������e �he effi���� o� �he ��u�. Howeve�,
�he ��me ��������� �� F��u�e 5(�) ��ove h�� � ��ffe�e�� ���e�p�e����o�. I� ��� �e�l popul���o�,
�he�e �� � ��ve��e �e� o� ����um�����e� �u�h �� ��e, e�h������, ��� he�l�h �o�����o�� �� �������e�
�� �he ��� ��� �k���� m��e. I� �e�e��l, me����l �e�e���he�� ��e �w��e o� �u�h ��ve�����e� ���
���emp� �o ���ou�� �o� �hem. Howeve� u�l�kel�, �� �� po����le, �h�� �he ����v��u�l �e�po����le �o�
�he ����om ������me�� o� p���e���, u�e� he�/h�� u��o����ou� IΨ �o ���� �he �o����� p�o�e�� �o
m�m�� �he effi���� o� �he ��u�.
A� Je����� U��� (2016: 163), �o�me� P�e���e�� o� �he Ame����� S���������l A��o�����o�, ����e�:

[…] “�e����o� �u�me�����o�” m�� �e u�e� �ou���el� �o help people m�ke �e��e� �e����o��
�� �he p�e�e�� ��ou� wh�� ����o�� �o ��ke, ���e� o� ���o�m���o� ��ou� �he �o��eque��e� o�
22 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

�ho�e �e����o�� �� �he �u�u�e. I� ��ue, �h�� k��� o� ��om�lou� ���o�m���o� ��ou� �he �u�u�e
�oul� ���lu�e k�ow��� whe� � ��vo���le �eque��e �� ��ou� �o �e �e�e���e� �� � ����om
�um�e� �e�e���o�, ��� �h�� ���o�m���o� �oul� �e u�e� (u��o����ou�l�) �� �he ����om�z��
��o� ph��e o� �l�����l ����l�.

U��� �o��lu�e�, “[…] �he ���ump��o�� upo� wh��h mo�� me����l (��� o�he�) �e�e���h ��
���e� m�� �o� �e ���u���e” (p. 164).
De����o� �u�me�����o� �heo�� m�� well �e o�e o� �he mo�� �����fi���� ��ke�w��� ��om �he
p��� 30 �e��� o� p�� �e�e���h.

The Multiphasic Model of Informational Psi (MMIΨ)

�e MMIΨ (�. k. �. mul��ph���� mo�el o� p�e�o�����o�) �� � �����l����e� p�o�e���o��e��e�


mo�el. O�e o� �he ke� �e��u�e� o� �h�� mo�el �� �h�� �� ��v��e� �he p�o�lem �p��e ���o �he ph�����
��� �eu�o���e��e �om���� �o� u��e��������� �he IΨ p�o�e��. P�� ���o�m���o� ����e� ��om �he
e��e���l wo�l� (�. e., �he ph����� �om���), ��� �� pe��e�ve� ��� p�o�e��e� �� �he ���e���l wo�l�
(�. e., �he �eu�o���e��e �om���).
• The physics domain (PD): �e PD ��ll� e��lu��vel� w��h�� �he pu�v�ew o� ph�����. I�
����e��e� �he que���o�, how �� �� po����le �h�� ���o�m���o� ��� �o �e�wee� �wo �p��e�
��me po���� ��� ��� �e u�e�, e�pe���ll� �� �he �wo po���� o� �he eve��� ����o� �e ��u��
�ll� �o��e��e�? Fo� e��mple, �� �ll p�e�o�����o� ��u��e� �� wh��h �he ����e� ���mul� ��e
�e�e���e� after � �e�po��e h�� �ee� �e�o��e�. I� �� �el��e� �o how ���o�m���o� �� �����e�
��om �� e��e���l �ou��e, wh��h �� ������� �� ��me ��� �p��e, �o �he pe���p�e��. ��� �� �he
���o�m���o���e����� pe��pe���ve o� �he p�o�e��. Al�hou�h �he�e ��e �eve��l �o�u���um�
�el����� �o �h�� �om���, e���op� h�� �ee� ��e���fie� �� � ke� �e��u�e. (See M��, 2011,
2014; M�� & Depp, 2015; M��, H�wle�, & M��w�h�, 2016; M�� & L���z, 2010; M�� &
Spo����woo�e, 1994).
• The neuroscience domain (ND): �e ND �� �he pe��o���e����� pe��pe���ve o� IΨ �h��
���lu�e� �he p���holo����l �om��� ��� �e���e� ���e���l �o �he hum�� pe���p�e��. I�
����e��e� �he �eu�olo����l ��� e�pe��e����l p��� o� �he p�o�lem, �h�� ��, how �� �he ���o��
m���o� ��qu��e�, how �� �h�� ���o�m���o� p�o�e��e� �� �he �����, ��� how �� �� e�p�e��e�.
��� �o�m�l ���u�����o� �le��l� l��� ou� �he �om��� o� ����v��� �o� �e�e���he�� ��om v���ou�
�����pl��e�, �� �o����e���� �he well�e����l��he� l�w� o� �he ph�����l wo�l� ��� wh�� we �u��
�e��l� k�ow—��� w�ll k�ow—��ou� �������eh�v�o� �el���o��h�p�. �e mo�el p�e�e��� �eve��l
�e����le h�po�he�e� ��� ����e� w��h�� �he ND; � �e���le� ����u���o� o� �he�e ��� �e �ou�� ��
M��w�h� & M�� (2015�, 2015�, 2015�). B��e� o� ou� o��o��� ���l����, �he mul��ph���� mo�el
o� p�e�o�����o� m�� �e �e��e� �e�e��e� �o �� �he multiphasic model of informational psi (MMIΨ).
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 23

Collapsing the Problem Space of Psi Phenomena


I��o�m���o��l p�� (IΨ) �� � p�o�e�� ���he� �h�� � ����ul�� eve��, ��volv��� �he ���o�m���o��
�e����� ��� pe��o���e����� p�o�e��e�.
De�p��e �wo ��ffe���� �o�����o�� (�. e., �e�l���me o� p�e�o�����o�), we ���ll cannot �o���ol
when �he pe���p�e�� o������ �he ���o�m���o�. I� �ll �e�l���me ���e� we k�ow o� �he�e ��e �lw���
�� le��� �wo po����le ope� �h���el� �h�ou�h wh��h �he p������o�m���o� m�� �e o�����e�—�he
p�e�e�� ��� �he �u�u�e. I� �po����eou� o� ope����o��l/�ppl�e� ���u���o��, �he �empo��l lo����o�
o� �he eve�� �e�e�m��e� whe�he� �� �� � p�e�o�����o� o� �e�l���me ���k.
Follow��� � �ev�ew o� �he e����e S��� G��e �emo�e v�ew��� ��� p���hok��e��� �������e,
���lu���� �he �omple�e �e�l����fie� ope����o��l �emo�e v�ew��� ����, ��� ���� ��om o�he� l��o�
���o��e� �� �he pee� �ev�ewe� l��e���u�e, we �o��lu�e �h�� ���o�m���o��l p�� �� � ���e���fi��ll�
v�l�� phe�ome�o�, ��� �h�� IΨ �� � �o�m�l, �l�e�� ���p���l, phe�ome�o�. �e�e �� ���uffi��e��
ev��e��e �o �uppo�� �he ��u��l p�� (CΨ) h�po�he���.

Fig. 6: Coll�p���� �he p�o�lem �p��e o� p�� phe�ome��.


24 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

A� �umm���ze� �� F��u�e 6, �� �h�� �e���o� we ����u�� �he v���ou� p�� phe�ome�� ��� �he��
���o����e� ��ve�������o� me�ho�� le����� �o �he v�ew �h�� �he p�o�lem �p��e o� p�� phe�ome��
��� �e �oll�p�e� ���o � ����le phe�ome�o�—���o�m���o��l p��—�h�� ��� �e e�plo�e� ��om �he
PD o� ND w��h �om��� �pe��fi� que���o��. ���, �� ou� v�ew, �� � ��ep �o�w��� �� p�� �e�e���h.
A���e����� �he �eve��l que���o�� �el��e� �o IΨ l���e� �� �he ����u���o� �e���o� o� �h�� p�pe� w�ll
�he� l��h� o� CΨ phe�ome�� �l�o, �� ���ee� �he� ��e � �������� �l��� o� phe�ome��.

Basic Premise
A� �he ou��e� �� �� �mpo����� �o �pe���� �he ����� p�em��e o� wh��h �he ���ume��� p�e�e��e� ��
�h�� p�pe� �e��. A� �llu�����e� �� F��u�e 7:
• �e u��ve��e �� �ove��e� �� ph�����l l�w�.
• I��o�m���o� �� �he ��ou�� fiel� o� �he pe�e����l e��e���l wo�l�.
• M���/�o����ou��e�� �� �� eme��e�� p�ope��� o� �he �mpe�m��e�� �����.
• M���/�o����ou��e�� ����o� e�e�� � ���e�� �o��e o� �he e��e���l wo�l�, e��ep� �� me���
o� �he mo�o� ����em.

Fig. 7: B���� p�em��e o� ���o�m���o��l p�� (IΨ). Wh�le u��ve���l �o����ou��e�� m�� �e
�o����e�e� �� �� �������� me��pho����l �o����u��, �he l���e X �������e� � �o�����e�
�o��e���o� o� �� le��� �� u�l�kel� o�e.
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 25

The Telepathy Hypothesis

Telep��h� �e�e��ll� �e�e�� �o �he ��qu�����o� o� ���o�m���o� �o��e����� �he �hou�h�� ��� �eel�
���� o� ��o�he� �o����ou� �e��� w��hou� �he u�e o� �o�m�l me��� o� �ommu������o�—�o�h
ve���l ��� �o��ve���l. P�o�e�u��ll�, �� �� ��ffi�ul� �o �e�e�m��e e����l� wh�� �he ����e� ��, �� o�e
mu�� e��he� �el� o� � p�e�e�o��e� �o�e o� �he ����e� ���mulu� (� �e�l���me �o�����o�) o� �el� o�
� po����e���o� �������o� o� �he ����e� ���mulu� (� p�e�o�����o� �o�����o�) �o �e�e�m��e whe�he�
�he “�elep��h���ll�” �����m���e� ���o�m���o� w�� ���u���e o� �o�. �e me�ho�� u�e� �o e��m��e
�elep��h� ���lu�e �he G��z�el� ��� ��e�m �elep��h� e�pe��me���.

The Ganzfeld Procedure

I� �he G��z�el�, � p������p��� �� �om�o����l� �e��e� �� �� ��ou�����ll� �h�el�e� �oom, e�e� �ov�
e�e� w��h h�l� p����po�� ��ll�, ��� we����� � he���e� w��h “wh��e �o��e” ���e�m��� �h�ou�h ��.
A�����o��ll�, �he p������p��� �� p�e�e��e� w��h � �oo�h��� �u� �o������ v��u�l e�pe��e��e o� � �e�
�low. �e ����o��le �o� �h�� �� �o �e�u�e �om��o�e��o�� �o��e. I� � ������� �oom, � p����e�, e��he�
� ���l���/��m�l�, ���e��, o� ������e�, �� �e��e�, ��� �� �he �ppo���e� ��me �� ��ke� �o “�elep��h��
��ll� �����m��” �he �e������e� ����e� ����oml� �ele��e� ��om � ����e� pool. I� � ��ee��e�po��e
�o�m��, �he p������p��� �� �he� ��ke� �o ������e �he �o��e�� o� �he �elep��h���ll� ��qu��e� me��
���e. ��� p�o�e�u�e �� ��m�l�� �o �h�� u�e� �� �he ��e�m �elep��h� ��u��e�, ��� w��, �� ����,
�evelope� �o ��mul��e � ��e�m ���u���o� �� Ch��le� Ho�o��o� �� �he e��l� 1970�.
Me������l��e� o� �he G��z�el� ��� ��e�m �elep��h� ��u��e� �how � �o�u�� IΨ effe��.
(See Bem, P�lme�, & B�ou�h�o�, 2001; Ho�o��o�, 1985; H�m�� & Ho�o��o�, 1986; S�o�m,
She�woo�, Roe, T�e��ol��, Ro�k, & D� R���o, 2017; S�o�m, T�e��ol��, & D� R���o, 2010). S�o�m e�
�l. (2017: 123) ����e: “Pe�h�p� �elep��h�, o� �� le��� � pu�e �o�m o� ��, m�� eve� �e �� ���������o�
�h�� �� �o� o�l� �mpo����le �o p�ove, �u� �� p����mo��ou�l� �e�u�����.”

Rejecting the Telepathy Hypothesis

I� e��m����� �he �elep��h� h�po�he��� we ����e�� �wo m�jo� po����: (1) m���/�o����ou��e�� ��
�� eme��e�� p�ope��� o� �he �����, ��� (2) �he ���u�e o� p��. A��l�z��� �he�e w�ll e���le u� �o
�e�e�m��e whe�he� �elep��h� ��� �e �o����e�e� � �������� phe�ome�o�, o� �u��ume� w��h�� IΨ
�o� �o�h emp�����l ��� �heo�e����l �o����e����o��, o� �eje��e�.

1. Mind/Consciousness as an Emergent Property of the Brain

A hum�� ����� �o������ ��ou� 86 ��ll�o� �e�ve �ell� (�eu�o��) ��� ��ll�o�� o� �e�ve fi�e�� (��o��
��� �e�����e�), wh��h ��e �o��e��e� �� ���ll�o�� o� �o��e���o�� o� ����p�e�. Co����ou��e��, ��
ou� v�ew, �� � ��o�� �e�m �h�� ���o�po���e� �ll ��pe��� o� �eel���, �w��e�e��, k�ow���, �o���;
26 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

�o����ou��e�� �� �o� � mo�ol��h�� “�h���” �h�� ��ve� ���e �o �ll �he�e o�he� ��pe���. �e �el�, �eel�
����, �hou�h��, ��� �ll el�e �h�� m�ke� u� hum��—�he �eel��� o� �e��� �o����ou�—��e eme��e��
p�ope���e� o� �he �ellul�� ����v���. �e v��� v���e��e� o� �o�����ve �efi���� o� �mp���me��� ���o���
��e� w��h �e�e��� ���o��e�� ��� ����� ��ju��e� ��e ev��e��e o� �he eme��e�� m���/�o����ou��e��
��om ����� ���h��e��u�e ��� �eu��l ����v���. �e p�e�e������ v�ew o� mo�� m������e�m�o��e��e�
���e������ �� �h�� “�o����ou��e��” �� �� eme��e�� p�ope��� o� �he u��e�l���� ����v��� �� �he �����
(e. �., Chu��hl���, 1995; C���k, 1994; D�m���o, 1994; K�m, 1999; S�l�e���e��, 2001; Spe���, 1969,
1991; S�eph��, 2004; Te�m��k, 2015; To�o��, 2008; To�o�� & Ko�h, 2008).
A “�hou�h�”—�o��ve���l, e�p�e��e�, �o����ou�/�w��e o� u��o����ou�/u��w��e—�� �� ����v�
��� p���e�� �mo�� �he ��ll�o�� o� ����� �ell� �� �he� ���e���� w��h e��h o�he� (e. �., P�ule�u, F���h,
& F���kow��k, 1993; Pe�o��mv�o�, B����, Se��ol�, R�e��e�, e� �l., 2017; Sum�e�, Bell, & Ro��ell,
2017). Wh�le �� �� po����le �o lo���e �e��o�� �� �he �e�e���l �opo���ph� �o� v���ou� ��pe� o� �o��
����ve ����v���, �� m�� �o� �e po����le �o p�� �ow� � ����le �hou�h� o� � ����le �o��ep�, o� � ������
o� wo���. I� o�he� wo���, �he�e �� �o �eu��l �o��el��e �o� �he wo�� “�pple” �h�� �� �������� ��om
�h�� �o� �he wo�� “o����e” �u�h �h�� ����v��� �� �he �e��o� ��� �e ��e���fie� �� ���������� o�e o�
�he o�he�. �u�, �� �efi����o�, � “�hou�h�” �� �� eme��e�� p�ope��� o� �he u��e�l���� �eu�o��l
����v���. ��� ����e� five m�jo� po���� �� �he �o��e�� o� pu����ve “�elep��h��” �ommu������o�:
�. �e �������e �e�wee� �he ����� ��� �kull v���e� �e�wee� 0.4 ��� 7 mm �epe����� o�
whe�e �ou me��u�e ��; �he �h��k�e�� o� �kull �o�e� v���e� ��om 3 mm �o 14 mm, w��h ��
�ve���e o� 8 mm. ��� ����, ��� �� eme��e�� �o����ou��e��—howeve� o�e �hoo�e� �o
�efi�e �o����ou��e��—e��e�� p��� �he l��e�� o� �he ����� ��� �he ������l �o�e�? �u�
���, �he�e �� �o ���epe��e�� ev��e��e �h�� po���� �� �h�� ���e���o�.
��. �e�e �� �o ev��e��e �o� ���o�m���o��l �����l� em������� ��om �he ����� �h�� ��� p�op��
���e ���o�� ������� �p��e��me.
���. Le� u� ���ume �h�� �� ����v��u�l’� �o����ou��e�� ��� e��e�� ou� o� h�� �kull, ��� �e��h
��o�he� pe��o�. �e�: (�) wh�� �� �he ���u�e o� m���/�o����ou��e�� �u�h �h�� �� ���
e��e�� ou� ��om �he ����� ove� �hou����� o� k�lome�e��? Wh�� �� “��” �h�� e��e��� ou�,
(��) wh�� �� ��� �����e�, (���) wh�� �� �he ������u�e� �o� �he pe��ep��o� o� �o����ou��e��
eme����� ��om ��o�he� �����, (�v) wh�� �� “��” �h�� �he pe���p�e�� �� “�e�����” �� ��o�he�
pe��o�’� m���? �e ��me �e� o� que���o�� ����e whe�he� �he pe��o� �� �e����� o� �e�e�v�
��� ���o�m���o� ��om �he �hou�h�� o� ��o�he� pe��o�.
�v. A� ��� �� �u��e�� �eu�o���e��e �� �o��e��e�, �he�e ��e �o u��que �e����l �e�vou� ����em
(CNS) ������u�e� o� � “�hou�h�” �h�� ��� �e�ve �� � �elep��h�� ����e�. A �hou�h� �� ����
��fi����l� ��ffe�e�� �h�� eve� �� e����p�e� �m��e �o�����e� �� �he ���e� wo�k���� o� �
�ompu�e� h��� ���ve �h�� �oul� �e�ve �� � ����e� ���mulu�.
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 27

v. S���e �he�e �� � ���e�m o� �o����ou� ��� u��o����ou� �hou�h�� �� �he hum�� m���, how
�� �he “���om���” �o����ou��e��/m��� ��le �o �������u��h �e�wee� �he ����e� �hou�h�
��� �he �e�� o� �he ���e�m? �e�e �� ��mpl� �oo mu�h �o��e �� �he hum�� m���!

2. The Nature of Psi

�e�e ��e �h�ee m�jo� po���� ��ou� �he ���u�e o� p�� �h�� we mu�� �o����e�:
�. �e Whe� ��� Whe�e o� P��: O�e o� �he ����e�� �h�lle��e� o� p�� �e�e���h �� whe� ���
whe�e �oe� p�� h�ppe�. E�pe��me�� p������p���� ���o�m u� �h�� �he� �o �o� h�ve �o��
��ol ove� when �he� ��e “p���h��.” Fo� �������e, �he p�� ���o�m���o� ��� �e ��qu��e�
whe� �he �e���o� �� ��he�ule�, o� �he w�� �o �he l��o���o��, o� eve� ���� e��l�e�—�h��
��, � p�e�o�����ve �o�����o�. (��� m�ke� �� ��ffi�ul� �o ���l�ze � p�oo��o��p�����ple o�
p�o�e���o��e��e� CNS ��u�� o� p��).
��. Fu�u�e A��we� Book: A� ev��e��e ��om p�e�o�����o� ��u��e� �������e, �he�e �� �� “���we�
�ook” �� � �u�u�e po��� �� �p��e��me, wh��h �� �he �ou��e o� �he pe���p�e��� p�� ���o�m��
��o�. Whe�he� o� �o� �� �� w����e� �ow� o� p�pe� o� �how� �o � pe��o�, �he ���we� e�����;
�� �� �mpo����le �o �lo�e �h�� �u�u�e �oo�, �o�h �� e�pe��me���l ��� �po����eou� ���e�.
�u�, eve� �� ��� �elep��h� e�pe��me��, � �u�u�e “���we� �ook” �� �lw��� �v��l��le �o �he
pe���p�e��.
���. Sh�el���� o� IΨ S����l: E��m����� �he �elep��h� h�po�he���, I. M. Ko��� (1966, 1967,
1968, 1969) h�� p�opo�e� �h�� ���o�m���o� ������e� u��e� �o�����o�� o� �e��o�� �h�el��
��� �� me����e� �� ELF w�ve� w��h w�vele���h� �� �he 300��o�1000�km �e��o�. A� T���
��� Pu�hoff (1974) e�pe��me���ll� �e�e�m��e�, pl����� �he pe���p�e�� �� � ������� ���e
�oe� �o� �lo�k ��� pu����ve p�� �����l. I� � �l����fie� ��u�� �u��e� �� �he U���e� S���e�
A���o��e Fo�e��� Te�h�olo�� D�v���o�, W���h��P���e��o� A�� Fo��e B��e, �he SRI �e�m
(Pu�hoff & T���, 1975: 129–130; Pu�hoff, T���, & M��, 1977: 179; Pu�hoff, T���, M��,
& Sw���, 1978/2018: 202–204) �e��e� �h�� h�po�he��� �� �o��u����� � �emo�e v�ew�
��� �e���o� w��h � p�����ep� �emo�e v�ewe� ��� mo���o� �e��e� �� � �u�me����le �� �he
�ep�h o� 78 me�e�� �� �e� w��e�, w��h �he ����e� ��ou� 800 km �w��. ��� �h�el���� ���
�o� �ffe�� �he ���u���� o� �he �emo�e v�ew���. �u�, eve� �� � �elep��h� e�pe��me�� o�e
����o� �h�el� �he pe���p�e�� ��om �u�u�e ���o�m���o��l p�� �����l�, m�k��� �� �mpo����le
�o �evelop � “pu�e” �elep��h� p�o�o�ol.
B��e� o� �he�e p�����p�l ���ume���—�o ���o�m���o��l �����l� em������� ��om �he �����,
�o ����e�, �oo� �o ���o�m���o� ��om �u�u�e ����o� �e �lo�e�—�he �elep��h� h�po�he��� ��� �e
�eje��e�.
28 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

The Prestimulus/Presentiment Psi Hypothesis

I� �� well k�ow� �h�� �he �epo����� o� fi����pe��o� e�pe��e��e �� ���u�h� w��h ��ffi�ul�� (Bu��o�,
2008; Ch����� & S�mo��, 2010; E��lem��, 2011). Fo� e��mple, e�pe�����o��l ��� �h���e �l����
�e��, �epo����� � pe��o��l e�pe��e��e �h�� w�� ���u�ll� ��o�he�’� e�pe��e��e �epo��e� �� �he fi���
pl��e, o� ��ju����� �he �epo����� �� �o�fi�m���o� ���� ��e ju�� �h�ee ��om � lo�� l��� o� �o�m�l
pe��ep�u�l ��� �o�����ve phe�ome�o�. M�������� ��� p���ho�he��p���� ���e �he�� p�o�e���o��
o� �he ���� �h�� we hum��� ��e u��el���le �� ���e�p�e���� ��� �epo����� ou� o��e�v���o�� ���
e�pe��e��e�. IΨ e�pe��e��e� ��e �o� �mmu�e �o �he�e p�o�lem�. Seek��� � w�� ou� o� �h��
��lemm�, e�pe��me��e�� e��m��e� ph���olo����l ������u�e� o� IΨ �u�h �� �� �he �u�o�om��
�e�vou� ����em (ANS). Two me�ho�� ��e popul�� ��ffe���� o�l� �� �wo �e�pe���: who �������e�
e��h ����l ��� wh�� ��e �he ���mul�.
�e p�e����mulu� p�� h�po�he��� (�ow �. k. �. p�e�����ve ������p��o�� ����v���) �� ���e� o� �he
p�em��e �h�� �he me��u�eme�� o� ph���olo����l �e�po��e� (e. �., �� ��ou���� �����le �e�po��e,
�k����o��u�����e, ��� he��� ���e, p��o� �o �he o��e� o� � ���mulu�) w�ll p�ov��e � me��u�e o�
p�� w��hou� �he �el����l��� p�o�lem� ���o����e� w��h fi����pe��o� �epo�����. ��� me�ho�olo����l
�pp�o��h �llow� �he �e�e���h p������p���’� �o�� �o “�pe�k” �o� �hem �� �vo����� �he p�o�lem�
���o����e� w��h fi����pe��o� �epo�����. �e ��e� �� �h�� � ����oml� �ele��e� ���mulu� (e. �.,
emo��o��l pho�o���ph �� p�e�e���me�� e�pe��me���, o� �����le �o��e �� p�e����mulu� �e�po��e
e�pe��me���) �� p�e�e��e� �o � p������p���. I� �he�e ��u��e�, ��pe��� o� �he ANS ��e me��u�e�
�� �k�� �o��u�����e, he��� ���e; �ome e�pe��me��� mo���o� �he �e����l �e�vou� ����em ���el�.
�e �epe��e�� v�����le �� �he �eh�v�o� o� �he ph���olo�� before �he �u�u�e ���mulu� h�� �ee�
�e�e�m��e�—���mulu� ve��u� �o���ol.
Re�e���h ���o�� �eve��l l��o���o��e� o��e�ve� �����fi���� ANS �e�po��e� �� ��v���e o�
����oml� �ho�e� ���mul� (Du���� & T�e��ol��, 2018; Mo�������e, T�e��ol��, & U���, 2012;
Mo�������e, T�e��ol��, U���, Ive� e� �l., 2014). Afte� �o��u����� �eve��l ��u��e� �� p�e�e���me��/
p�e���mulu� �e�po��e, M�� ��� �olle��ue� (M�� & Spo����woo�e, 2003, 2010, 2014; Spo�����
woo�e & M��, 2003; M��, P�ul����, & V����, 2005) �����o�e� �h�� ��e� o� �e�e���h, �� � �e��
o�� ���e�p�e����o� o� �he�e fi������ �� �h�� �he� we�e �ue �o �he e�pe��me��e��’ o� p������p����’
u��o����ou� IΨ. �e ���l���� o� p�e����mulu� �e�po��e ���� �� ���e� o� ���e�e����l ���������� ���
��� �e ��equ��el� ����e��e� �� �he �e����o� �u�me�����o� �heo��.

The Causal Psi (CΨ) Hypothesis: Micro-Psychokinesis

�e �o��ep� o� CΨ (p���hok��e���) �� ���e� o� �he p�em��e �h�� m���/�o����ou��e�� ���


���e��l� ���e���� w��h o�je��� �� �he e��e���l wo�l� ��� ��� e�e�� � �o��e o� m���e� �u�h �h��
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 29

�he o�je�� �� move� o� pe��u��e�. ��� �� mu�h l�ke �he New�o����/�l������l me�h����� wh��h
�� �o��e��e� w��h �he �e� o� ph�����l l�w� �e�������� �he mo��o� o� �o��e� u��e� �he ��flue��e
o� � ����em o� �o��e�.
�e P���p���holo����l A��o�����o� �efi�e� PK �� “�he direct influence of mind [emph����
���e�] o� � ph�����l ����em �h�� ����o� �e e����el� ���ou��e� �o� �� �he me�����o� o� ���
k�ow� ph�����l e�e���.” P�lme� (1985: 2) h�� �efi�e� p���hok��e��� �� “[…] �he ��flue��e o�
[o�] ph�����l o�je��� o� eve��� �� �� o������m �� w��� �h�� ����o� �e ������u�e� e��lu��vel� �o
k�ow� ph�����l �o��e�.” Cu��e��l�, �he�e ��e o�l� �ou� k�ow� �u���me���l �o��e�, �� o��e� o�
���e���h: ���v���, we�k �u�le��, ele���om���e���, ��� ���o�� �u�le��. Co����e���� �he�e �� �o
�efi����o� o� “m���”, le��� �o � m�jo� �efi����o��l p�o�lem �o� CΨ ��u��e�. �e �efi����o� ��
�e����ve—PK �� wh�� h�ppe�� whe� o��e�v���o�� �������e �h�� �o�h��� el�e �oul� o� ��� �ffe��
�he ph�����l ����e� ����em. P�lme�’� �efi����o� le�ve� �he �oo� ope� �o� m��� �o�m�l ��u��l
����o�� �h�� m�� h�ve not �ee� ���ou��e� �o� �� �he p�o�o�ol o� ��ju��e� �o� �� �he me��u����
�ev��e�, �hu�, e��e����� �he �efi����o� �o �l������l ��u��l effe��� �h�� ��e �o� u��e���oo� o�
�o����e�e� �� �he e�pe��me��e�.
A� me���o�e� �� �he p�ev�ou� �e���o�, �he�e �� �o ev��e��e �o� �����l� p�op������� ou� ��om
�he �����, he��e, equ����� �o����ou��e��/m��� w��h � �u���me���l �o��e m�� �e �� e��o�.
�e�e �u���me���l ����o�� �ompel u� �o �eje�� �he po�����l��� o� �o����ou��e��/m��� �e�v���
�� � ph�����l �o��e.
M��, R����, Hu����� e� �l. (1985/2018) ����e:

Fo� � ��u��l �o��e �o �e �he �u���me���l me�h����m, �� mu�� �e e��owe� w��h p�����u�
l��l� ���e�e����� p�ope���e�. N�mel�, �� mu�� ���e���� w��h p�o�e��e� �ove��e� �� �he we�k
�u�le�� �o��e �� �e��� (����o����ve RNG �ou��e�); ���e���� w��h p�o�e��e� �ove��e� ��
�he ele���om���e��� �o��e (�o��e ��o�e RNG �ou��e�); ��� ���e���� w��h ��olo����l ����em�
(pl���, ���m�l, ��� �e�e���); ���, �� mu�� ���e���� w��h �he RNG �ev��e� �e����le�� o� �he
���e���l �omple���� o� �he �e�e���o� (S�hm���, 1974). U���l we h�ve e�h�u���vel� ��u��e�
�he “k�ow�” �o��e� �� ���u�e w��h �e���� �o p��, �� �� p�em��u�e �o po��� �� u�k�ow� fifth
�o��e �o ���ou�� �o� �he ����.

�e �uppo����� ev��e��e ������� �he CΨ h�po�he��� �� �ee� �� �he ���l���� o� �e�ul�� ���o��
�he v���ou� e�pe��me���l me�ho�olo��e� ��op�e� �o e��m��e �he m����pe��u������m���e�
h�po�he���: ����om �um�e� �e�e���o� (RNG) ��u��e�, ���e�� me���l ��flue��e o� l�v��� ����
�em� (DMILS), �he Glo��l Co����ou��e�� P�oje�� (GCP), ��� �he �e�e�� h�po�he��ze� p���h��
�oll�p�e o� ���e��e�e��e �� �ou�le��l�� e�pe��me���. A� �� �he �elep��h� h�po�he���, �he e�pe���
me���l �e�ul�� m�� �e v�l��, �l�e��, �he ���e�p�e����o� o� �he �e�ul�� po��� �o IΨ.
30 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

The Random Number Generator (RNG)/Random Event Generator (REG) Experiments

�e fi��� e�pe��me��� u���� ele���o��� �ev��e� ���e� o� � ��mple qu���um p�o�e�� we�e �o��
�u��e� �� S�hm��� (1969�, �) whe�e�� he w�� ��le �o o��e�ve �����fi���� ev��e��e o� p�e�o��
����o�. B��e� o� �h��, S�hm��� (1970) ���emp�e� �o �ee �����fi���� ev��e��e o� p���hok��e���
u���� � ��m�l�� �pp����u�. S�hm��� ����e�, “�e ����� p��� o� �he �pp����u� w�� � ������ ����om
�um�e� �e�e���o� wh��h p�o�u�e� �he �um�e�� “+l” ��� “–1” �� ����om �eque��e, ��� �he
�e�e��l o�je���ve w�� �o h�ve �he �u�je��� ��� �o me���ll� ��flue��e �he �e�e���o� �o p�o�u�e
o�e o� �he �wo �um�e�� mo�e ��eque��l� �h�� �he o�he�” (p. 175). S�hm��� (p. 181) �o��lu�e�:

�e e�pe��me�� h�� �ee� ����u��e� �� �e�m� o� PK, �u� �� p�����ple �he �e�ul� �oul� �e��
����l� �l�o �e ������e� �o p�e�o�����o� o� �he p��� o� �he e�pe��me��e� o� �he �u�je��.
S���e �he �eque��e o� �e�e���e� �um�e�� �epe��e� �������ll� o� �he ��me whe� �he �e��
�u� �e���, ��� ����e �he e�pe��me��e�, �� �o��e��u� w��h �he �u�je��, �e���e� whe� �o fl�p
�he ����� �w���h, p�e�o�����o� m��h� h�ve p�omp�e� e�pe��me��e� ��� �u�je�� �o ����� �he
�u� �� � ��me wh��h ��vo�e� ��o���� �� � �e����� ���e���o�.

S���e �he 1960�, �epo��� em������� ��om �he �o�me� Sov�e� U��o� po���e� �o �he po�����l���
�h�� �he Ru������ m�� h�ve “h���e��e�” “p���hoe�e��e���” e�e��� ���o “p���ho��o��� we�po��”
�h�� �oul� �pp��e��l� ��o�e ��� l��e� ���e�� �he p���h�� e�e��� �o� wh��eve� pu�po�e, ���lu����
�� offe���ve we�po�� �u���� �he Col� W�� (M���e & L�Mo�he, 1975). P���ho��o��� we�po��
we�e �o �ffe��, ��flue��e o� �o���ol �he m���� o� �he�� ����e��, po�e����ll� �ffe�� � ����e�’� he�l�h
(�o� e��mple, �o ��ve �he ����e� � he����he o� ��om��h ��he �o �������� h�m o� he� ��om �ome
���k), o� pe�h�p� eve� ���ve �hem �o �u����e o� �����e���l �e��h. �e l���e� �o�w��h��������,
h�� �he� ���u�ll� wo�ke� �� �e����e�, mo�� p���ho��o��� �ev��e� we�e �o����e�e� �� �o��le�h�l
we�po��� (M��, Ru�el, M�Mo�e��le, & Aue����h, 2015: 202). B��e� o� �e�e�� mee����� w��h
M�jo� Ge�e��l N�kol�� Sh�m, Depu�� D��e��o� o� KGB, Re��., M�� �epo���, “Ge�e��l Sh�m
�ol� me �� pe��o� �h�� he �u��e� 40 ��ffe�e�� ������u�e� �pe��fi��ll� �o� �he pu�po�e o� �u�l����
�o��le�h�l p���ho��o��� we�po���. �e� �oul� �o� m�ke �� wo�k” (p. 356). �u�, eve� ���o��
mo��v���o��l ���� �� ��vo� o� �he PK h�po�he��� w�� ���uffi��e�� �o m�ke �hem wo�k.
S�hm���’� e��l� �e�ul�� ��� �he Ru����� �epo��� p�omp�e� p�� �e�e���he�� ���o�� �he wo�l�
��� �he US ���ell��e��e �e�v��e� �o ��ve������e p��. �u�, ����e ��om �he IΨ/�emo�e v�ew���
p�o���m, �he S��� G��e �e�m u��e��ook e��e���ve wo�k e��m����� �he CΨ h�po�he��� (M��
& M��w�h�, 2019�). B��e� o� ��u��e� u���� RNG h���w��e ��� �oftw��e ����em�, w��h ����
�om ou�pu�� ��om � �e����e��� �ou��e, ����le �lph��p�����le, p�ezoele����� ������ ��u�e� ���
������u�e��, �he S��� G��e me������l���� �o��lu�e� �h�� “�e�e �� �o ev��e��e �o �uppo�� �h�� �
p���hoe�e��e��� ���e�����o� w��h �he ph�����l wo�l� e�����” (M��, U���, T���k, e� �l., 1989/2018).
Me������l��e� o� RNG ��u��e� ��om o�he� l��o���o��e� �������e � we�k �u� ����������ll� �o�u��
effe�� (Bö��h, S�e��k�mp, & Bolle�, 2006; P��ke� & B�u�ew��z, 2003; R���� & Nel�o�, 2003). �e
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 31

IΨ h�po�he���, �� ������ll� �u��e��e� �� S�hm��� (1970), w�� �����e� �o�w��� �� �he SRI �e�m
����e �he e��l� 1980� ��� �o�mul��e� ���o wh�� �� �ow k�ow� �� �he �e����o� �u�me�����o�
�heo�� (M��, Spo����woo�e, & U���, 1995/2014; M��, U���, & Spo����woo�e, 1995/2014).

Direct Mental Interactions with Living Systems (DMILS)

I� �ome e�pe��me��� �e�e���h p������p���� we�e ��ke� �o ��flue��e, me���ll� ��� �� � �������e,
�he ph���olo����l o� �eh�v�o��l ����v���e� o� o�he� pe��o��, ���m�l�, o� �ell�; me������l��e� h�ve
�eve�le� �����fi���� ev��e��e �o� p�� �� �he �o�m o� p���hok��e��� ��flue��e� o� ���m��e ����e�
����em� (B��u�, 2003; S�hm���, S�h�e��e�, U���, & W�l��h, 2004). �e�e ��e �e�����e� �� �������
me���l ��flue��e (DMI) o� ���e�� me���l ���e�����o�� w��h l�v��� ����em� (DMILS) e�pe��me���
(B��u�, 2008), �l�o k�ow� �� ������� he�l��� ���e���o�—DHI—(S�hl��z, R����, M�lle e� �l.,
2003).
R����, S�hl��z, B�u� (2015: 67) ����e� �h�� DHI �� �efi�e� “�� � �omp����o���e me���l ���
���e��e� �ow��� �he he�l�h ��� well�e��� o� � ������� pe��o�.” S�hl��z e� �l. (2003: A31) ����e: “
[…] DHI po��ul��e� �h�� �he ���e���o�� o� o�e o� mo�e pe��o�� ��� ���e���� w��h �he ph���olo���
��l, p���holo����l ���/o� �eh�v�o��l ����u� o� o�e o� mo�e ������� l�v��� ����em�.” I� �efi����
�he �e�m� �he� ����e: “�e wo�� distant �� DHI �pe��fi��ll� me��� �h�el�e� ��om o������� ph����
��l ��� p���holo����l ��flue��e� �� me��� o� �p����l, �empo��l, ���/o� �e��o�� �h�el����, �. e.
e��lu��o� o� �ll k�ow� ��u��l p��hw��� o� hum�� ���e�����o�.” Fu��he�, �he� �efi�e ���e���o� ��
“� me���l ����e ���e��e� �ow��� ��h�ev��� � �o�l.” S�hl��z e� �l. (p. A32) �l����� �he ���������o�
�e�wee� ���e���o��l��� ��� m���:

To �e �le��, ���e���o��l��� �� �o� �he ��me �� mind �e��u�e ���e���o��l��� �� � p�ope��� o�


o�je���ve ����o��, whe�e�� m��� �� e��e����ll� �he “�pp����u�” �h�� h���o�� ��� p�o�u�e�
�u�je���ve me���l ����e�. I��e���o��l��� �� �l�o �o� �he ��me �� �o����ou��e��, wh��h m��
�e �efi�e� �� �he ��p����� �o �e �o����ou�, o� �he ����e o� �o����ou� �w��e�e��. I��e���o�
�� �l�o �������� ��om ���e���o�. I��e���o�� ��e me���l ����e� �ep�e�e����� �u�u�e ����o��,
whe�e�� ���e���o� �� � mo�e o� �o�u���� o� �ele����� o�je��� o� pe��ep��o�, �h��k���, ���
�w��e�e��.

A� ���e���o� �� �efi�e� �� � me���l ����e, �e�e���he�� need �o ����e�� �he que���o� how �
me���l ����e ���, ��om � �������e—���o�� �p��e��me—�ffe�� �he ph���olo��, p���holo��, ���/
o� �eh�v�o��l ����u� o� �� ����v��u�l/��oup. ��� que���o� must �e ����e��e� �e�o�e p�opo����
DHI �� � po����le h�po�he��� �o� �he o��e�ve� ����. ��� ����, S�hl��z e� �l. (2003) ��k�owl�
e��e �he �ole o� DAT (e�pe��me��e� p��) �� � po����le �ou��e o� �he o��e�ve� effe��. Howeve�,
���o����� �o S�hm��� (2012) ��� Roe, So��e�, ��� Ro��u��h (2015) ���� �uppo����� �he DHI
h�po�he��� m�� �e � �efle���o� o� p�o�o�ol p�o�lem�, wh��h ��e �l�o �epl����e�.
32 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

The Global Consciousness Project (GCP)

S����e� �� 1998, �he Glo��l Co����ou��e�� P�oje�� (GCP) �� � �oll��o����o� o� �e�e���he�� ��u���
��� effe��� o� m��� �o����ou��e�� o� ����om �um�e� �e�e���o�� (RNG). �e GCP �e�wo�k
�o������ o� �pp�o��m��el� 60 h���w��e RNG� �����lle� o� �ompu�e�� �� lo��l���e� �h�ou�hou�
�he wo�l�. I� ��ve������e� �he po�����l��� o� � �u��le �o��e���o� �e�wee� �he �olle���ve me���l
����v��� o� hum��� ��� �he ph�����l �eh�v�o� o� ����em� �� �he �u��ou����� e�v��o�me��. �e
p�oje�� �o�mul��e� �h�� p�opo����o� �� � ��o�� h�po�he��� �h�� �el��e� �he ou�pu� o� ��ue ����om
�um�e� �e�e���o�� (RNG�) �o ��me� o� ���e��e, �olle���ve me���l ���e���o� �� �he wo�l�: Periods
of collective attention or emotion in widely distributed populations will correlate with deviations
from expectation in a global network of physical RNGs (B���el, 2014: 255; B���el & Nel�o�,
2008; Nel�o�, 2014: 237).
M�� ��� Spo����woo�e (2011/2014: 276) �epo��e�, �h�� �he DAT ���l���� o� �he �o�m�l GCP
eve��� (n = 300), �how� �o ev��e��e o� ��� ���mme���� ���e�����o� w��h �he ph�����l �ev��e�.
�e� �o��lu�e �h�� �he e�pe��me��e�’� DAT�l�ke �e����o� ��p����� ���ve� �he GCP �e�ul�, ��� ��
�� u�l�kel� �h�� �he�� ����������ll� �o�u�� �e�ul� �� �ue �o � v������o� o� �he�� p��m��� h�po�he���
o� �ome �lo��l �o����ou��e�� �o��e���o�� �o �he RNG �ev��e�.
I� � �e���l���� o� �he GCP ���� B���el (2017: 94) �epo��� �h��:

Ove� 17 �e���, �he [GCP] h�po�he��� h�� �ee� �e��e� o� �e��l� 500 eve���, ��el���� �
�umul���ve �e�ul� �h�� �eje��� �he �ull h�po�he��� �� �eve� �������� �ev����o��, �pp��e��l�
le����� ���o�� �uppo�� �o �he p�opo��l o� �lo��l �o����ou��e��. Howeve�, �� �l�e����e
���e�p�e����o� �� �h�� �he �e�ul� �� �ue �o �� ��om�lou� effe�� ���o����e� w��h pe��o��
���e��l� e����e� w��h �he e�pe��me��. […] ��� finds that the data do not support the global
consciousness proposal [emph���� ���e�]. R��he�, ���l��e� �������e �h�� �he GCP �e�ul�
�� �ue �o � �o�l�o��e��e� effe�� ���o����e� w��h ����v��u�l�, ��m�l�� �o effe��� �epo��e� ��
p��o� �e�e���h �h�� ��u��e� �u�je�� e����eme�� w��h RNG ou�pu��.

Rejecting the Causal Psi Hypothesis

I� ��o�he� �l��� o� m���o�PK e�pe��me���, R����, M��hel, ��� Delo�me (2016), �� �he�� �e��e�
o� �ou�le��l�� e�pe��me���, e��m��e� �he �pe�ul���o� �h�� �� e�����ph�����l ����o�, �. e., m���/
�o����ou��e��, pl��� � �ole �� �he qu���um me��u�eme�� p�o�lem. �e� ����e:

[…] �he�e �e�ul�� �o �o� �uppo�� � ���o�� �ole �o� �he m���, �� �� �o����ou��e�� l��e��
�ll� ��u���� � �oll�p�e o� �he qu���um w�ve �u����o�. R��he�, � mo�e mo�e�� �u����o� ��
�u��e��e� whe�e�� �he m��� h�� �he ��p����� �o mo�ul��e p�o����l���e� ���o����e� w��h
�he ��������o� ��om qu���um �o �l������l �eh�v�o�. I� �e�m� o� ���olu�e m�����u�e, �he�e
mo�ul���o�� ��e �u��le (p. 21).
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 33

�e v�l����� ��� �ppl�����l��� o� IΨ, �he effe���ve�e�� o� �he DAT �o�mul���o�� �� �������u��h�
��� �e�wee� ���o�m���o��l ��� ��u��l p�o�e��e� �� ���� u���� ���e�e����l ����������, �he �eve��l
que���o�� �e������� �he �efi����o� ��� ������u�e� o� m���/�o����ou��e��, �he ���ue o� e�v��o�me��
��l �e�ohe�e��e �� qu���um me�h�����, ����e �eve��l �������l que���o�� o� �he v�l����� o� �he CΨ
h�po�he���. I� v�ew��� p�� �� ���o�m���o�, �he DAT ���e� ���� ��om m���o�PK (RNG, DMILS,
GCP, p�� me����e� �ou�le��l�� e�pe��me���) ��u��e� le�� �uppo�� �o IΨ. B��e� o� �he�e ����o��,
�he CΨ h�po�he��� �ee�� �o �e �eje��e�. Howeve�, �� m���/�o����ou��e�� �� h�po�he��ze� �o h�ve
�he ������u�e� �o pe��u�� e��e���l m���e�, p�opo�e��� must ��ke �he �e�� ��ep �� fi��� �efi���� wh��
m���/�o����ou��e�� �� �u�h �h�� �� ��� h�ve �he effe��� h�po�he��ze� �o� �he�e e�pe��me���.

The Causal Psi Hypothesis: Macro-Psychokinesis

M���o�PK po�e� �eve��l �heo�e����l �h�lle��e�. M���o�PK �� �he ��flue��e o� m���/�o����ou��e��


o� l���e ���le m���e� �� �he �l������l e��e���l wo�l�, ���, �he�e�o�e, �o �o� �equ��e ���e�e����l
���������� �o v�l����e �he effe��. Al�hou�h fiel� �e�e���h h�� le� �o o��e�v���o�� o� m���o�PK eve���
�h�� �o �o� h�ve e��� o� �o�ve���o��l e�pl�����o��, �he� ��e ��ffi�ul� �o �e��e ���o �he l��o���o��
��� mu�� �e e��m��e� o� � ���e�������e �����. �e m���o�PK �e��� o� Te� Owe��, e. �., �h������
we��he� p���e���, ��u���� vol����� e�up��o�� (M��hlove, 2000), ��� �e ��equ��el� e�pl���e� �� IΨ.
Co����e���� �he ����u���o� �o ���, �he pl�u����l��� o� m���o�PK m�� �e v����h���l� �m�ll;
�. e., �he ���ume��� ������� m��� o� m���o�m���e�, ��e equ�ll� v�l�� �o� m���o�PK. G�ve� �he
v���e��e� o� o��e�ve� pu����ve m���o�PK eve���, ��ve������o�� �ee� �o fi��� el�m����e �ll ph����
��l ��flue��e� ��om �he ph�����l wo�l�, ���e���l ��olo����l effe���, ��� �����ume�����o� e��o��
�e�o�e p�opo���� � CΨ effe��. Fu��he�, �he� �ee� �o ����e�� �� ��� how �he�e ��e v�ol���o�� o� �he
k�ow� ph�����l �o��e� �� �o�m�l me��� �e�o�e ������u���� �he o��e�ve� effe�� �o �he ��flue��e
o� m���/�o����ou��e�� o� e��e���l m���e� �ep����e� �� ��me ��� �p��e.
Lo�� Aue����h (pe��o��l �ommu������o�) �u��e���, �� m��� o� �he o��e�ve� m���o�PK
eve��� el�m������� �o�ve���o��l e�pl�����o�� �� �el���vel� e���. I� �eve��l m���o�PK eve���
�he�e ��e ph�����l ��flue��e� �h�� ��e l�kel� not v�ol���o�� o� k�ow� ph�����l �o��e�; howeve�,
�he �ppl�����o� o� �he�e ��e ��flue��e�/���e��e� v�� �o����ou�/u��o����ou� ���e���o�, �� � �e���
�e���o� o� wh�� m�� �l�e��� �e �� �he e�v��o�me�� o� p�o�u�e� �� �he hum�� �o�� �o ��e��e
e��e���l effe��� �� �he �e�l wo�l�. A� ����e�, �he que���o� o� wh�� �o�����u�e� ���e���o� �u�h �h��
�� ��� ��flue��e �he e��e���l wo�l� w��hou� �he u�e o� ���e�� �o��e, ��� �� � �������e ��om �he
m���/�o����ou��e�� o� �he ��u����ve ��e��, �� � �heo�e����l ��� emp�����l que���o� �h�� �ee��
�o �e e��m��e�, �e�o�e ���ep���� o� �eje����� ���e��pe��fi� pu����ve m���o�PK eve���. A �������l
��pe�� o� �h�� ��ve�������o� woul� �e �e�e�m����� �he ���u�e o� m���/�o����ou��e�� ��� ���
po�e����l��� �o ��flue��e e��e���l m���e� ��om � ������� �p��e��me po���.
34 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

The Post-Mortem Survival Hypothesis

I� �� � m���e� o� �mmu���le ����h �� �eve��l �ul�u�e� ��� �el�e� ����em� ���o�� �he wo�l�, ���
em�e��e� �� �he�� l���u��e, �h�� �he �oul/�o����ou��e�� �u�v�ve� �o��l� �e��h. Wh�le �� �he
A���h�m�� �el���o�� �e����h �� �o� �o����e�e�, � �el�e� �� �e���������o�/�e����h �� � �e����l
�e�e� o� �he H���u, Bu��h���, J����, ��� S�kh �el���o��, �l�hou�h �he�e ��e ��ffe�e��e� �� �he��
�o��ep��o� o� �e����h. ��� �el�e� �� �eepl� �oo�e� �� �he�e �ul�u�e�, �lo�� w��h �he v�ew �h��
�ll �o��u�e�/m���o��u�e� ��e ���o����e� w��h �he ����v��u�l’� �ee�� �� � p��� l��e. Howeve�, ph��
lo�ophe�� h�ve ���u����ze� �he�e ���ue� ���o�� ��� w��h�� �he v���ou� ��hool� o� �hou�h�. Fo�
�������e, Gokh�le (2016) ����e�:
Whe�he� o�e ���ep�� � �oul��u������e o� �o�, ��hool� o� I����� ph�lo�oph� wh�le e�pl����
��� �o����e ��� l��e����o� h�� �o ���ep� �� e����� o� e�����e� �u�h �� � �u��le �o�� ���/o�
�oul ���/o� m��� wh��h ��� e���� ou����e �he ��o�� �o�� ��� h�� �o ������u�e �o����e o�
l��e����o� ul��m��el� �o �h�� e�����. �e e����e��e o� �u�h �� e����� �� mo�e � m���e� o� ����h
��� w��h�ul �h��k��� ���he� �h�� � �o�����e ���e� o� e�pe��e��e ��� �e��o�.

�e Lokā���ā/Cā�vāk� ��hool� (�e������� ��ou� 600 BCE) o� I����� �hou�h� h�ve �eje��e�
�he �u�v�v�l h�po�he��� (Bh�����h����, 2016; Ch���op��h����, 1959/1973; Ch���op��h����
& G���op��h����, 1990; Gokh�le, 2015; S��h�, 1994), �� h�ve Ch��e�e ph�lo�ophe�� W���
Ch’u�� (202 BCE–220 CE) �� Discourses Weighed in the Balance, ��� F�� Zhe� (450 CE–510
CE) �� Spirit Does Disintegrate. F�� Zhe� �e�� ou� �o ���p�ove �he po�����l��� �h�� m�� ��� �u��
v�ve �e��h �� ��� �o�m, o� �h�� �he �p����� o� �he �e�� po��e�� �he powe� �o �ommu�����e w��h
m�� o� ��ju�e h�m �u���� h�� l��e ��me. A� �he e����e��e o� �he �oul �� que���o�e�, �he �mmo���l�
��� o� �he �oul �e�ome� �� ���u����� (Ch��, 2006; Tw���he�� & Loewe, 1986).
A� Rou��e�u (2012: 47) e�pl����, �he �u�v�v�l h�po�he��� �omm��� �he �u�v�v�l �heo���� �o
�he �ollow���: (1) l�v��� pe��o�� ��e �ompo�e� o� � ph�����l p��� (“�o��”) ��� � �up���ph�����l
p��� (� “�oul”); (2) �he �oul �u�v�ve� �he �e��h o� �he �o��; (3) �he �oul �� �he e��e����l �e��e� o�
�he pe��o�’� me���l ��� p���h�� p�ope���e�; (4) ���������e �oul� (“�p�����”) ���, v�� �he�� p���h��
���l���e�, ���e���� w��h l�v��� people ��� �he o������� ph�����l wo�l�. I� ou� v�ew, �h�� �mme���
��el� ����e� �he que���o� o� wh�� �he �oul ��. A��um��� �he �e�l��� o� �� �mm��e���l �oul, how o�
whe�e ��e �he me���l ��� p���h�� p�ope���e� ��o�e�?
We e��m��e ���efl� �he �wo me�ho�� ��op�e� �o �e�e�m��e �he v�l����� o� �he �u�v�v�l
h�po�he���: me��um�h�p �e�e���h ��� ��ve�������o�� ���o ���e� o� �he �e���������o� ��pe.

1. Mediumship Research

Me��um� m�� �e �efi�e� �� “����v��u�l� who �epo�� e�pe��e����� �e�ul�� �ommu������o� w��h
�he �e�e��e�” (Be���hel, 2007: 37). L��o���o�� ���e� ��ve�������o� o� me��um� ���o�po���e�
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 35

�o�h qu�l�����ve ��� qu��������ve phe�ome�olo����l �e�e���h me�ho��, u���� �ou�le� ���
���ple��l��� p�o�o�ol� �o p�ov��e u��que ��� v�lu��le �����h�� ���o me��um�h�p (Be���hel
(2007, 2013; Be���hel & S�hw���z, 2007). Be���hel, Mo�he� ��� Bo��uzz� (2017) �epo�� �h��
�ome me��um� ��e ��le �o ��ffe�e�����e �e�wee� e�pe��e��e� o� ���������e �ommu������o� ���
p���h�� �e������ �o� l�v��� ����e��.
I� �he ��m o� me��um�h�p �e�e���h �o e��m��e (�) �he v�l����� o� �he �u�v�v�l h�po�he��� o�
(��) �� �� �o e��m��e whe�he� �he me��um �� �ommu�������� w��h �he �e�e��e� o� u���� p�� ��
�� ���o�m���o��l �ou��e? I� �he �o�me�, �he� �he �u��e�� me��um�h�p p�o�o�ol� emplo�e� ��e
����equ��e �o e��m��e �he �u�v�v�l h�po�he���; �� �he l��e�, �he� �he p�o�o�ol� ��� ���l���� o�
�e�ul�� ��e ���e� o� �� � p��o�� ���ump��o� �h�� po���mo��em �u�v�v�l �� � v�l�� phe�ome�o�,
��� �he me��um� ��e ���ee� �ommu�������� w��h �he ���������e.
�e�e ��e �wo �ompe���� h�po�he�e� �o� �he me��um�h�p ����: �he �e�m �u�v�v�l p�� �� u�e�
�o �e�����e �he ���ump��o� �h�� me��um� �ommu�����e ���e��l� w��h �he �e�e��e�, ��� �he
�e�m �om���� p��, (�. k. �. �he l�v��� ��e�� p�� h�po�he���), �� u�e� �o� �he �ompe���� �heo��
�h�� me��um� u�e IΨ w��h �he l�v���, �l���vo����e (���lu���� o� � p���h�� �e�e�vo��), ���/o�
p�e�o�����o� �u� �o� �ommu������o� w��h �he �e�e��e� �o ��qu��e ���o�m���o� (Be���hel &
Ro�k, 2009; Be���hel, Mo�he� ��� Bo��uzz�, 2017, Su��u�h, 2009). �e ���e o� �he �he�� ��me
�e�wee� me��um Rol��� ��� �����m���e� V�k�o� Ko��h�o� ��� �e ����e��e� �� IΨ (M�� &
M��w�h�, 2016).
A��o����� �o Be���hel e� �l. (2017: 85), �u�v�v�l p�� ��� �om���� p�� (�. k. �. l�v��� ��e��
p��—LAP) m�� �e �e�m� �e�e�����, �� ���u�l���, �o �he ��me phe�ome�o�. B��u�e (2013: 26–27)
����e�, “[…] �� ���o�m���o� p�ov��e� �� �he me��um ��� �u��eque��l� �e ve��fie� […] �he� �ll
�lo�� �� w�� �v��l��le �o �he me��um’� ESP.” A� B��u�e �u��he� ����e�, �he ���ume�� pu� �o��h
������� �h�� �� �u�v�v�l���� �� �h�� “LAP p�e�uppo�e� �� �mpl�u���le �e��ee o� �efi�eme�� o� p���
�h�� �u����o����, ��� (�� p�����ul��) more than would be required by the survivalist [emph����
o������l]” (p. 28). Howeve�, �� we h�ve �ee� �� �he �emo�e v�ew��� l��e���u�e, �ev�ew o� ope���
��o��l RV, �epo��� �� �emo�e v�ewe��, ��� �heo�e����l ���l���� o� RV, �he RVe� m�� �e��� ���e���
��� �he p�� ���o�m���o� well �e�o�e �he ����� o� �he �e���o�, o����� �� ���o�� �eve��l �e���o��, ���
�o��ol����e �ll o� �� w��h �o��p�� ���o�m���o�, �o p�e�e�� � �ohe�e�� p���u�e.
�e �u�v�v�l h�po�he��� �� p�em��e� o� �he ���ump��o� �h�� �he�e ��e ���������e e�����e�
w��h whom o�e ��� �ommu�����e. ��� ����e� �eve��l que���o��: (�) wh�� ��e �he� m��e o�, �. e.,
wh�� �� “��”? (��) �oe� “��” h�ve �he p�ope��� �u�h �h�� �� ��� ��o�e ���o�m���o� (memo��), ���
�e�ve �� � ����e� �o� �he me��um? Al�hou�h �he LAP h�po�he��� ���lu�e� �elep��h� w��h �he l�v�
���, �he ���ume��� p�e�e��e� �� �h�� p�pe� ����e �he que���o� o� �he v�l����� o� �elep��h�. �u�,
IΨ �em���� �he o�l� �ou��e o� p�� me����e� ���o�m���o�. ��� ��, �he me��um �oul� o�����
�he ����, �o� �elep��h���ll�—o� �elep��h���ll� ��om �he �e�e��e� wh��h �� �ll �he mo�e � ����
36 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

fi�ul� �o�����o�—�u� ���he� ��om �he IΨ p�o�e��, �u�h �� �u�u�e �ee����k o� ���o�m���o� �o �he
me��um ��om ��� o�he� �u�u�e �ou��e, wh��h �� � p�e�o�����ve �o�����o�.
Howeve�, �� Lo�� Aue����h (pe��o��l �ommu������o�) que���o��, wh�� ��ou� �ho�e ���u��
��o�� �� wh��h �he me��um �e�� �o �ee����k ��ou� �he�� ����eme���? I� � �e��e� o� e�pe��me���
o� �ee����k ��� p�e�o�����o� �epe��e�� �emo�e v�ew���, M�� ��� L���z (1987) ����e�� �he
que���o� o� �he �u�u�e “���we� �ook”—�he �ee����k.
Wh�� �o�����u�e� �� “���we� �ook?” �e mo�� ���e�� “���we� �ook” m��h� �e �he �epo���
��� o� �he ����e� m��e���l �o �he v�ewe� �fte� �he �e���o� (�ee����k). U��o��u���el�, �he
���u���o� �� mo�e �omple�. �e�e ��e �o e��mple� �� ���u�e �h�� ��e �u���me���ll�
���h�opomo�ph��. I� ���o�m���o� ��om � �u�u�e ��me �� �v��l��le, �he� mo�� �e�����l� �� ��
�v��l��le �o ���o�e.

B��e� o� � �e��e� o� �emo�e v�ew��� e�pe��me���, L���z, M��, ��� P��������� (1990) �epo��,
“[…] v�ewe�� �oul� o����� ���o�m���o� �e����le�� o� �he �ee����k p���me�e��—���lu���� �o
�ee����k �� �ll.” �u�, �he �ole o� p�e�o�����o� (IΨ) ����o� �e �ule� ou� �o� ���� ��qu��e� ��
me��um�. ��� p�o�lem o� �he �ou��e o� ���o�m���o�—whe�he� ��qu��e� �� IΨ p�o�e��e� o� ��om
�he ���������e—�� well��e�o���ze� �mo���� �e�e���he��. K��pp�e�, Ro�k, Be���hel, F��e�m��,
��� F������o (2013; ���e� �� Ro�k, 2013: 11) ����e:
[…] we (�he e���o��) ��e �o� �w��e o� �he �e�ul�� o� � ����le ��u�� �� �he fiel� o� survival
of consciousness �e�e���h �h�� �llow� o�e �o �������u��h �e�wee� �wo ���o�m���o� �ou��e�:
survival psi (�. e., k�owle��e ��qu��e� �� �he me��um v�� �ommu������o� w��h � discarnate
o� �e�e��e� ����v��u�l ��� living agent psi (�. e., k�owle��e ��qu��e� �� �he me��um �ele�
p��h���ll� �� �������� �he m��� o� �he sitter o� love� o�e o� �he ���������e o� o�he� l�v���
people; �l���vo����l� �� ��qu����� ���o�m���o� ��om �o�ume���, pho�o�, o� o�he� o�je���
o� pl��e�; ���/o� p�e�o�����vel� ��om �u�u�e �ee����k (pp. 2–3).

Ou� lo����������� e�pe��e��e (40+ �e���) w��h �emo�e v�ewe�� �������e� �h�� �he� h�ve
���o��������� ��e�� o� ���k� �� wh��h �he� ��e p�ofi��e��. Fo� �������e, wh�le o�e v�ewe� m��
�e p�ofi��e�� w��h fi����� m������ people, ��o�he� m�� h�ve ���e���h� �� �e�������� �emo�e
lo����o��. �e me��um ��� �e �o����e�e� �� o�e who h�� p�� ���l��� ju�� l�ke � �emo�e v�ewe�,
�he o�l� ��ffe�e��e �e��� �he ����um�����e� ��� m���e� �� wh��h �he p�� ���o�m���o� ��
e�p�e��e�—wh��h �l�o m�� �e � �u����o� o� �ul�u�e.
A��o����� �o Roe ��� Ro��u��h (2013: 75) �he�e ��e �eve��l “[…] m������e�m e�pl�����o��
�o� me��um�h�p �� �e�m� o� �ol� �e����� �� �� ���ou�� o� me���l phe�ome��, m��pe��ep��o�
��� �ele���ve �e��ll �� �� ���ou�� o� ph�����l phe�ome��, ��� ����o�����o� �� �he p��m��� ��u�e
o� �he me��um����� e�pe��e��e ���el�.” �e�e e�pl�����o�� o� me��um�h�p h�ve �e�e�ve� l���le
emp�����l ���e���o�, �e�p��e �e��� mo�e p����mo��ou� ��� mo�e e���l� �e��e� �h�� �he �u�v�v�l
h�po�he��� (Ro�k, 2013: 15).
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 37

B��e� o� �h�� ����u���o� we ���e�� �h�� �he me��um�h�p ���� �� ���uffi��e�� �o �uppo�� �he
�u�v�v�l h�po�he���. �e p������e� ���� ��om me��um�h�p �e�e���h ���� �o �he IΨ �������e.

2. Reincarnation Investigations

B��e� o� fiel� �e�e���h, I�� S�eve��o� ��� o�he�� (1974/1966, 1983; P�����h�, 1990) h�ve
�e�o��e� �u��������l �um�e�� o� ���ou��� ��om ���o�� �he wo�l� o� ���e� �u��e���ve o� �e������
����o�. S�eve��o� ��� Ke�l (2000: 365) ����e �h�� �� “p����o�m�l �o��e���o�” w��h � �e�e��e�
pe��o� �he� me�� “[…] �he �ommu������o� o� ���o�m���o� w��hou� �he �e�o���ze� �e��o��
�h���el�.” S�eve��o� �epo��e� o� ����hm��k� ��� ����h �e�e���, wh��h �ppe�� �o �e �he �e��h
wou��� o� � p�ev�ou� �o��, �h�� o��u� ��eque��l� �� �h�l��e� who �emem�e� p��� l�ve�, ���lu��
��� o� �w��� (o�e o� �o�h o� whom �l��m �o �emem�e� � p��� l��e) (S�eve��o�, 1987, 1993,
1997). S�eve��o� (2006: 20) ����e�: “Le� �o o�e �h��k �h�� I k�ow �he ���we�. I �m ���ll �eek���.”
P�opo�e��� o� �h�� v�ew �ee� �o ����e�� que���o�� �u�h �� wh�� �� �o��m��e���l �oul/m���/
�o����ou��e��, how �oe� �� ����� �mp�e���o�� o� � p�ev�ou� e�pe��e��e, wh�� ��e �he �e�e��� ����
�o�� ��volve� �� �u�h �mp�e���o��. C�� � �o��m��e���l “�ome�h���” �ffe�� �he �e�e��� ���u��u�e
�u�h �h�� �� ��flue��e� �he ��o�� ph�����l �o�� ��u���� ����hm��k�? I� �� �� ���ee� po����le, �he�
wh� �� �� �h�� o�l� � ����h m��k �� ���pl��e� ��� �o� �he �o�m o� �he e����e ph�����l ���u��u�e o�
�he �e�e��e� �ow��e�o�� pe��o�? �e�e ��� �eve��l �u�h que���o�� �ee� �o �e ����e��e� �e�o�e
po���mo��em �u�v�v�l ��� �e �o����e�e� �� � v�l�� h�po�he���.

Rejecting the Survival Hypothesis

I� e��m����� �he ���ue o� �o����ou��e�� Be���� (2016) h�� p�ov��e� � �efi����o� o� �e��h. He
����e�,

�e irreversible [emph���� ���e�] �e�����o� o� ����� �u����o�� �e�ve� �� � ����e��o� o�


�e��h �e��u�e �� �� � �e�e����� ��� �uffi��e�� �o�����o� �o� �he �e�����o� o� �he o������m
�� � whole. […] �e ���eve����le lo�� o� �he �u����o�� o� �he ����� �h�� ��e �e�po����le �o�
�he eme��e�� �u����o�� o� �he o������m �� � whole �������e� �h�� �he �������e�� p���e�� ��
� me�h�����ll� �uppo��e�, l�v��� �ompo�e�� p��� o� � hum�� o������m who h�� �l�e���
��e� (p. 45).

I�w�� (2002: 20) �ev�ewe� ���e phe�ome��, NDE�, OBE�, pol�e��e��� ��� �pp�����o��l
e�pe��e��e�, ��� �e���������o� e�pe��e��e� ��� �o��lu�e� �h�� “�he ope����o� o� �u�h p�o�
�e��e�” �� LAP ��e “�mpo����le �o e��lu�e” ���, �hu�, �he ��o�eme���o�e� phe�ome�� “����o�
�e �o��lu��ve �o� �he �u�v�v�l h�po�he���.” Follow��� �� e��e���ve ���l����, Su��u�h (2016)
����e� “[…] �he �l������l emp�����l ���ume��� �o� �u�v�v�l �o �o� �u��ee� �� �how��� �h�� �he�e
�� �oo� ev��e��e �o� �u�v�v�l, howeve� p�ovo����ve �he ���ume��� m�� �e o�he�w��e.”
38 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

B��e� o� �he ���ume��� p�e�e��e� �� �h�� p�pe� we �eje�� �he po���mo��em �u�v�v�l h�po�he���
o� �he �ollow��� ��ou���:
1. �e �e�����o� o� �eu�o��l ����v��� �� �he ����� le��� �o �he �e�����o� o� ��� eme��e��
p�ope���e� ���lu���� m���/�o����ou��e��.
2. I� mo�� ���e� o��e����l� �u��e����� po���mo��em �u�v�v�l, IΨ �� � �uffi��e�� �l�e�����ve
e�pl�����o� �o ���ou�� �o� �he ����.
3. Ne����e��h� ��� ou��o���o�� e�pe��e��e� ��e p�o�ou�� e�pe��e��e� eme����� ��om �he
����� ofte� u��e� �����e�� (L�ke, 2017).
4. �e�e ���ume��� �l�o �e��e� ��v�l�� Lu��’� (2009; Su��u�h, 2013) ���ume�� �h�� �o�
��lle� �pp�����o�� o� �he �e�� ��e ��o�he� �ou��e o� ev��e��e �o� �u�v�v�l. B�ou�h�o�
(2006: 150) ����e�: “[…] ��om �he e��l�e�� ���� o� p���h���l �e�e���h �he�e w�� �� �w��e�
�e��, �� �o� � �o��e��u�, �h�� �l����� �ho�� e�pe��e��e� we�e e��e����ll� � p�o�u�� o� �he
m��� o� �he pe���p�e��—�� h�llu������o� �ompo�e� o� �m��e� ��ke� o� �o����u��e�
��om �he e�pe��e��e�’� memo��.”

Discussion
�e v���e��e� o� p�� phe�ome�� ����u��e� �o ��� ��� �e �oll�p�e� ���o ��� �e �o����e�e� ��
e�p�e���o�� o� ���o�m���o��l p�� (IΨ), �� �llu�����e� �� F��u�e 6. I� �umm��� we ����e:
1. I��o�m���o� �� �l������ll� �efi�e� �� �e�u���o� o� u��e�������: �he mo�e �ume�ou� �he
�l�e�����ve� �h�� ��e �ule� ou�, �he ��e��e� �he �e�u���o� o� u��e�������, ��� �hu� �he
��e��e� �he ���o�m���o�. I� �� u�u�ll� me��u�e� u���� �� e���op� �u����o�, wh��h �� �he
lo�����hm o� �he �um�e� o� �l�e�����ve� (���um��� �he� ��e equ�ll� l�kel�) (To�o��,
2008: 217).
◦ We ofte� �h��k o� ���o�m���o� �� �e��� equ�v�le�� �o me�����. Afte� �ll, �h�� �� �he
�u���me���l ����� o� l���u��e—�o p�ov��e “���o�m���o� �� me�����.” Howeve�,
���o�m���o� �heo����� �u�h �� Sh���o� ��� We�ve� (1949) ��� “pu�e” ���o�m���o�
�h�� m�� �o� �o����� me�����; me����� �� ������e� �o �he pu�e ���o�m���o� ���e�
o� ����v��u�l le������ ��� �o��o�ul�u��l ��flue��e�.
◦ Ou� ���e�����o� w��h �he e�v��o�me�� �� ���e� o� ���o�m���o� ��qu��e� �h�ou�h
ou� �e��o�� ����em�.
2. Co����ou��e�� �� �� eme��e�� p�ope��� o� ���o�m���o� p�o�e����� �h�ou�hou� �he �����.
◦ �e �e�����o� o� �eu�o��l ����v��� �� �he ����� le��� �o �he �e�����o� o� ��� eme��e��
p�ope���e� ���lu���� m���/�o����ou��e��.
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 39

3. I��o�m���o��l p�� (IΨ) �� �efi�e� �� �he ������e� o� ���o�m���o�, ���e� o� e���op�� �o��
���e����o��, ������� ��om � ������� po��� �� �p��e��me le����� �o �he lo��l ��qu�����o� o�
�o�����e�e����l ���o�m���o� �� �� ���p���l pe��ep�u�l ���l���.
4. �e�e �� ���uffi��e�� ev��e��e �o �uppo�� �he v�ew �h�� �he�e ��e �����l� em������� ��om
�he ����� o� p�op������� ove� lo�� �������e�; ������o��ll�, � ����le �hou�h� h�� �o �pe�
��fi� ������u�e� �h�� ��� �e “�e��” �� ��o�he� m���.
5. M���/�o����ou��e�� ����o� e�e�� �� effe��, e��ep� �� me��� o� �he mo�o� ����em, �u�h
�h�� �� ��� pe��u�� m���e� �� �he e��e���l wo�l�.
◦ �e �e����o� �u�me�����o� �heo�� (DAT) ��equ��el� ���e�p�e�� �he ���e�e����l
���������� ���e� CΨ ���� �� IΨ.
6. IΨ �� � �����l����e�, �o�����ll� p�o�e��e�, lo��l phe�ome�o�, ju�� �� �o� �ll �he o�he�
�e��o�� ����em�.
7. Al�hou�h ���o�m���o� ����e� ��om � ������� �p��e��me po���, ��om �he pe��o���e�����
pe��pe���ve, �ll pe��ep��o��, �e����le�� o� �he�� �empo��l o�����, �� lo��l �o �he pe���p�e��.
8. IΨ ���o�po���e� ���� ��om: �emo�e v�ew��� (�l���vo����e, p�e�o�����o�), ��e�m� ��u��e�
(p�e�o�����o�, �elep��h�), ���z�el� (�elep��h�), �u�v�v�l �e�e���h, m���o�PK ��u��e� (RNG,
REG, GCP, ��� o�he� me�ho�� ��� p�o�o�ol� ���e� o� ���e�e����l ���������� �o� ���� ���l����).
9. IΨ h�� �he po�e����l �o ����e�� que���o�� o� �he ���u�e o� ��me, ���o�m���o�, ��� ��u��l���.
Coll�p���� �he p�o�lem �p��e o� p�� phe�ome�� �o � ����le phe�ome�o�—IΨ—p�ov��e� �
p����mo��ou� �pp�o��h �o� �heo�e����l ��v���eme��� �� p�� �e�e���h. IΨ ��� �e e�plo�e� �� �he
ph����� ��� �eu�o���e��e �om����, ���e� o� �om��� �pe��fi� que���o��.
Some o� �he ke� que���o�� �� �he ph����� �om��� ���lu�e:
• Doe� �pe���l o� �e�e��l �el���v��� pl�� � �ole �� IΨ?
• I� � qu���um �e����p��o� �equ��e� �o� u��e��������� IΨ?
• Wh�� �� �he ���o�m���o� �����l �����e� �h�� ��� p�op����e ���kw��� �� ��me, ��� ��� �e
p�o�e��e� �� �he �����?
◦ Doe� �he �����l h�ve e�e���/m���?
◦ How ��e ��me p����o�e� �vo��e�?
◦ A �������� po��� �o� ����e����� �h�� que���o� �� �o �e�e�m��e how p�� ���o�m���o�
�� ������e��e� �� �e�l���me p�� ���u���o��, �. e., whe� ���o�m���o� �� eme����� ��om
� ������� po��� �� �p��e (�he�e �o he�e). ��� m�� le�� �o �lue� �o� �he eme��e��e o�
p�� ���o�m���o� �ep����e� �� ��me ��� �p��e (p�e�o�����o� �o�����o�).
40 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

• Wh�� �� �he �����m����o� ���e (����/��m�ol) o� �he IΨ �����l� ��� wh�� ��e ��� l�m���?
• F�om whe�e �oe� �he ���o�m���o� ����e—��om �� eve�� o� ��om l��e� �ee����k, ��om
���u�l o� po����le �u�u�e�?
• �e ����������l p�ope���e�/�������e o� IΨ v��� w��h �e���� �o whe� �he� ��e me��u�e�.
Whe�e �oe� �h�� �pp��e�� �o������o���� ���u�e o� IΨ ����e? U��e� � �����l mo�el, �he�e
��e o�l� �h�ee po�����l���e�—�� �he �ou��e, �� �he �����m����o� �h���el, o� �� �he �e�e��
��o� me�h����m.
Some o� �he ke� que���o�� �� �he �eu�o���e��e �om��� ���lu�e:
• Wh�� ��� whe�e �� �he po����le �����l ������u�e� �o� �he p�o�e����� o� IΨ �����l�?
• Wh�� ��e �he �����l ������u���o� p�o�e��e� (��� p�o�e�� �� wh��h � ��olo����l �ell �o��
ve��� o�e k��� o� �����l o� ���mulu� ���o ��o�he�) ��volve�?
• Wh��h ��e �he CNS �e��o�� ��volve� �� IΨ pe��ep��o�?
◦ Wh�� m�ke� �h�� �� ���p���l ���l���?
◦ Wh�� ��e �he u��e�l���� �e�e��� ����o��?
◦ Wh�� ��e �he ���o����e� �o�����ve ���l���e� ��� ��� ���p���l p�ope���e�?
◦ C�� �he ���we�� �o �he�e que���o�� e���le u� �o ��e����� o�he� �pe��e� w��h ��m�l��
���l���e�?
• I� �empo��l �e�m�, whe� ��� whe�e �oe� p�� h�ppe�; �. e., �e�o�e o� �u���� �he �e���o�?
• Fo� how lo�� �oe� � p�� e�pe��e��e l���?
• Wh�� �llow� �he p������p��� �o �o�u� upo� �he �elev��� IΨ �����l?
Wh�le �he ���we�� �o �ome o� �he�e que���o�� ��e k�ow� o� h�po�he��ze�, �eve��l ��e
u�k�ow�, ��� �eve��l mo�e �ee� �o �e ����e�; �� �� � ���e��e����p�o��e��. E�plo����o� o� �he�e
que���o�� w�ll �u�el� ��ve ���e �o mo�e que���o�� �e�o�e we ���� � �ull u��e��������� o� �h��
����������� ���p���l hum�� pe��ep�u�l ���l���. To �e��e���e, ���o�m���o��l p�� h�� �he po�e����l
�o ����e�� que���o�� o� �he ���u�e o� ��me, ��u��l���, ��� ���o�m���o�. ��� m�� �e o�e o� �he
����e�� �o�����u��o�� o� �he p�� �������e.

Acknowledgements

We ����e�el� ��k�owle��e �he effo�� o� Lo�� Aue����h ��� Pe�e� B���el �o� �he�� �������l �ev�ew�
o� e��l� ���ft� o� �h�� p�pe�, ��� �he �l��� �ev�ewe�� �o� �he�� v�lu��le �omme��� �h�� h�ve
e�h���e� �he qu�l��� o� �he p�pe�. We ����e�el� ��k�owle��e ��� �pp�e����e �he effo�� o� M���
W���m�� ��� Ge�h��� M��e� �o� e��ou������ ��� �uppo����� �he pu�l�����o� o� �h�� p�pe�.
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 41

References

B���el, P. A. (2014). A� ���l���� o� �he �lo��l �o����ou��e�� p�oje��. I� D. B�o�e���k & B. Goe��zel (E��.).
Evidence for psi: Thirteen empirical research reports (pp. 255–277). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l��� P�e��.
B���el, P. A. (2017). Se���h��� �o� �lo��l �o����ou��e��: A 17��e�� e�plo����o�. Explore: The Journal of
Science and Healing, 13(2), 94–101.
B���el, P. A., & Nel�o�, R. (2008). �e GCP eve�� e�pe��me��: De����, ���l�����l me�ho��, �e�ul��. Journal
of Scientific Exploration, 22(3), 309–333.
Be��hle�, J. E. (1998). �e �e���h �o� Spo�k: Develop��� �he �heo�e����l ����� o� p��. Journal of Paraphysics,
1(3), 303–374.
Be���hel, J. E. (2007). Co��empo���� me�ho�� u�e� �� l��o���o������e� me��um�h�p �e�e���h. Journal of
Parapsychology, 71, 37–68.
Be���hel, J. E. (2013). A�v���e� �� qu��������ve me��um�h�p �e�e���h. I� A. J. Ro�k (E�.). The survival
hypothesis: Essays on mediumship [1�� e�.]. Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
Be���hel, J., Mo�he�, C., & Bo��uzz�, M. (2017). Qu��������ve ��� qu�l�����ve ���l��e� o� me��um����� ���
p���h�� e�pe��e��e�. Threshold: Journal of Interdisciplinary Consciousness Studies, 1(2), 51–91.
Be���hel, J., & Ro�k, A. J. (2009). A���e����� �he �u�v�v�l ve��u� p�� �e���e �h�ou�h p�o�e����o�u�e�
me��um�h�p �e�e���h. Journal of Parapsychology, 73, 71.
Be���hel, J. E., & S�hw���z, G. E. (2007). A�om�lou� ���o�m���o� �e�ep��o� �� �e�e���h me��um� �emo��
�����e� u���� � �ovel ���ple��l��� p�o�o�ol. Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, 3(1), 23–27.
Bem, D. J., P�lme�, J., & B�ou�h�o�, R. S. (2001). Up������ �he ���z�el� �������e: A v����m o� ��� ow� �u��
�e��? Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 207–218.
Be����, J. L. (2016). Co����ou��e�� ��� �e��h: �e whole������ �o�mul���o� o� �e��h. I� W. S���o���A�m���o��
(E��.). F������ �o����ou��e��: �e �eu�o���e��e, e�h���, ��� l�w o� �eve�e ����� ��m��e (pp. 38–56).
New Yo�k, NY: O��o�� U��ve����� P�e��.
Bh�����h����, R. (2016). F�om p�o�o�m��e���l��m �o m��e���l��m: �e I����� ��e����o. Confluence: Journal
of World Philosophies, 3, 41–59.
Bö��h, H., S�e��k�mp, F., & Bolle�, E. (2006). E��m����� p���hok��e���: �e ���e�����o� o� hum�� ���e��
��o� w��h ����om �um�e� �e�e���o��: A me������l����. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 497–523.
B��u�, W. G. (2003). Distant mental influence: Its contributions to science, healing, and human interactions.
Ch��lo��e�v�lle, VA: H�mp�o� Ro��� Pu�l��h��� Comp���.
B��u�, W. G. (2008). P���ñj�l� �o�� ��� ����h��: �e�� �elev���e �o p���p���holo����l �heo�� ��� �e�e���h.
I� K. R. R�o, A. C. P����jpe, & A. K. D�l�l (E��.), Handbook of Indian psychology (pp. 217–243). Delh�:
Fou�����o� Book�.
B�ou�h�o�, R. S. (2006). Wh� �o �ho��� we�� �lo�he�? E��m����� �he �ole o� memo�� ��� emo��o� ��
��om�lou� e�pe��e��e�. European Journal of Parapsychology, 21, 148–165.
42 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

Bu��o�, R. A. (2008). On being certain: Believing you are right even when you’re not. New Yo�k, NY: S�.
M�����’� P�e��.
Ch�����, C. F., & S�mo��, D. J. (2010). The invisible gorilla: Thinking clearly in a world of illusions. Lo��o�:
H��pe� Coll���.
Ch���op��h����, D. (1959/1973). Lokāyatā: A study in ancient Indian materialism. New Delh�: People’�
Pu�. Hou�e.
Ch���op��h����, D., & G���op��h����, M. K. (E��.). (1990). Cārvāka/Lokāyatā: An anthology of source
materials and some recent studies. New Delh�: I����� Cou���l o� Ph�lo�oph���l Re�e���h.
Ch��, L. C. (2006). The path toward scientific enlightenment: A thermodynamic interpretation of history.
Re���eve� 19 Sep�em�e� 2009.
Chu��hl���, P. (1995). The engine of reason, the seat of the soul: A philosophical journey into the brain.
C�m�����e, MA: MIT P�e��.
C���k, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New Yo�k, NY: Tou�h��o�e.
D�m���o, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New Yo�k, NY: Pe��u��.
Do��e�, L. (2014) Sp����u�l��� ��� �o�lo��l m���: A �e�e����� ����. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 1(1),
29–42.
Du����, M., & T�e��ol��, P. (2018). P�e�����ve ph���olo����l ������p���o� p�e�e���� �eem���l� u�p�e�����
��le ���mul�: A� up���e o� Mo�������e e� �l.’� me������l����. F1000Research, 7. Re���eve� ��om h��p�://
�1000�e�e���h.�om/�����le�/7�407/v2
E��lem��, D. (2011). Incognito: The secret lives of the brain. New Yo�k, NY: P���heo� Book�.
Gokh�le, P. G. (2015). Lokāyatā/Cārvāka: A philosophical inquiry. Delh�: O��o�� U��ve����� P�e��.
Gokh�le, P. G. (2016). Tow���� �he �o��ep� o� hum�� em����p���o� �� �he �o��e�� o� I����� ph�lo�oph�.
Indian Philosophical Quarterly, 43(1–4), J��u����De�em�e� 2016.
H����, C. H. (2017). No�lo��l �o����ou��e�� �� �he u��ve��e: P��p���h��m, p�� ��� m��� ove� m���e� �� �
h�pe���me���o��l ph�����. Journal of Nonlocality, 5(1). Re���eve� ��om: h��p://jou���l�.��u.��/j�o�lo�
��l���/���e�.php/j�o�lo��l���/�����le/v�ew/67
Ho�o��o�, C. (1985) Me������l���� o� p�� ���z�el� �e�e���h: A �e�po��e �o H�m��. Journal of Parapsychol-
ogy, 49, 51–91.
H�m��, R. & Ho�o��o�, C. (1986). A jo��� �ommu��qué: �e p�� ���z�el� �o���ove���. Journal of Para-
psychology, 50, 351–402.
I�w��, H. (2002). I� ���e���fi� ��ve�������o� o� po��mo��em �u�v�v�l �� ����h�o���m? �e �em��e o� �he
�u�v�v�l h�po�he���. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 2, 19–27.
Kell�, E. F., C�����ee, A., & M���h�ll (E��.) (2015). Beyond physicalism: Toward reconciliation of science and
spirituality. L��h�m, MD: Rowm�� & L���lefiel�.
K�m, J. (1999). M�k��� �e��e o� eme��e��e. Philosophical Studies, 95, 3–36.
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 43

Ko���, I. M. (1966). I� �elep��h� po����le? Telecommunications and Radio Engineering, 21, 75–81.
Ko���, I. M. (1967). Telep��h�, h�po�he�e� ��� o��e�v���o��. Jo��� Pu�l�����o�� Re�e���h Se�v��e.
Telecommunications and Radio Engineering, 22, 141–144.
Ko���, I. M. (1968). I��o�m���o� �heo�� ���l���� o� �elep��h�� �ommu������o� e�pe��me���. Telecommu-
nications and Radio Engineering-USSR, 23, 122–130.
Ko���, I. M. (1969). The information theory aspect of telepathy. S���� Mo����, CA: R��� Co�po����o�.
K��pp�e�, S., Ro�k, A. J., Be���hel, J., F��e�m��, H. L., & F������o, C. L. (2013). I���o�u���o�: S��e��e ���
p��. I� S. K��pp�e�, A. J. Ro�k, J. Be���hel, H. L. F��e�m�� & C. L. F������o (E��.), Advances in parapsy-
chological research, 9 (pp. 1–8). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l��� & Comp���.
L�ke, J. (2017). �e �e����e��h e�pe��e��e: A �e����le �eu��l mo�el. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 4(1), 115–134.
L���z, N. D., M��, E. C., & P���������, T. (1990/2018). Remo�e v�ew���: F�om wh�� ��me ���me �oe� �he
���o�m���o� o�������e? I� E. C. M�� & S. B. M��w�h� (E��.), The Star Gate archives: Reports of the
United States Government sponsored psi program, 1972–1995. Volume 2. Remote Viewing, 1985–1995.
Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
Lu��, D. (2009). Persons, souls, and death: A philosophical investigation of an afterlife. Jeffe��o�, NC:
M�F��l���.
M���e, L. F. III, & L�Mo�he, J. D. (1975). Soviet and Czechoslovakian parapsychology research. U. S. A�m�
Me����l I��ell��e��e ��� I��o�m���o� A�e���, Offi�e o� �he Su��eo� Ge�e��l: DIA.
M��w�h�, S. B., & M��, E. C. (2015�). Re�h��k��� e�����e��o�� pe��ep��o�: Tow��� � mul��ph���� mo�el o�
p�e�o�����o�. SAGE Open, 5(1).
M��w�h�, S. B., & M��, E. C. (2015�). �e mul��ph���� mo�el o� p�e�o�����o�: �e ����o��le. Journal of
Parapsychology, 79, 5–19.
M��w�h�, S. B., & M��, E. C. (2015�). �e mul��ph���� mo�el o� p�e�o�����o�. I� E. C. M�� & S. B. M��w�h�
(E��.) E�����e��o�� pe��ep��o�: Suppo��, �kep�����m, ��� ���e��e, Volume II — �eo��e� o� p�� (pp.
145–170). S���� B������, CA: P��e�e� Pu�l�����o��.
M��w�h�, S. B., & M��, E. C. (2016). P�e�o�����o�: �e o�l� �o�m o� p��? Journal of Consciousness Studies,
23(3–4), 76–100.
M��, E. C. (2011/2014). Tow��� � �l������l �he�mo����m�� mo�el �o� �e��o��o�����o�. I� E. C. M�� & S. B.
M��w�h�, (E��.). Anomalous cognition: Remote viewing research and theory (pp. 327–338). Jeffe��o�,
NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C. (2014). A�om�lou� �o�����o�: A �epl�����o� ��� �o��el���o� w��h �he �����e�� o� Sh���o�
e���op�. I� E. C. M�� & S. B. M��w�h�, (E��.). Anomalous cognition: Remote viewing research and
theory (pp. 314–326). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C. (2015) E�pe��me��e� p��: A� e�p���e� v�ew o� �e����o� �u�me�����o� �heo��. I� E. C. M�� &
S. B. M��w�h� (E��.) E�����e��o�� pe��ep��o�: Suppo��, �kep�����m, ��� ���e��e, Volume II — �eo��e�
o� p�� (pp. 203–219). S���� B������, CA: P��e�e� Pu�l�����o��.
44 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

M��, E. C., & Depp, J. (2015). E���op� ��� p�e�o�����o�: �e ph����� �om��� o� �he mul��ph���� mo�el o�
p�e�o�����o�. I� E. C. M�� & S. B. M��w�h� (E��.), Extrasensory perception: Support, skepticism, and
science, Volume II — Theories of psi (pp. 125–144). S���� B������, CA: P��e�e� Pu�l�����o��.
M��, E. C., H�wle�, L., & M��w�h�, S. B. (2017). Do �h���e� o� �he�mo����m�� e���op� �� � �emo�e ���e
e�h���e �he qu�l��� o� ��om�lou� �o�����o�? P�pe� p�e�e��e� �� �he 60�h A��u�l Co�ve���o� o� �he
P���p���holo����l A��o�����o�, Jul� 20�h–23��, 2017 A�he��, G�ee�e. P���p���holo����l A��o�����o�.
M��, E. C., Humph�e�, B. S., & Hu�����, G. S. (1980/2019). Ele���o��� ����em pe��u�����o� �e�h��que�.
P�oje�� 8585, F���l Repo��, Cove���� Pe��o� Ju�e 1979 �o Au�u�� 1980. Me�lo P��k, CA: SRI I��e��
����o��l. SECRET. I� E. C. M�� & S. B. M��w�h� (E��.), The Star Gate archives: Reports of the United
States government sponsored psi program, 1972–1995. Volume 3 Psychokinesis (���p����) Jeffe��o�, NC:
M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., & L���z, N. D. (1987/2018). Fee����k ��� p�e�o�����o� �epe��e�� �emo�e v�ew��� e�pe���
me���. I� E. C. M�� ��� S. B. M��w�h� (E��.), The Star Gate archives: Reports of the United States
government sponsored psi program, 1972–1995. Volume 2. Remote Viewing, 1985–1995 (pp. 178–183).
Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., & L���z, N. D. (2010/2014). A�om�lou� �o�����o� �e�h����l ����l�: I��p�����o� �o� �he ����e�
e���op� �o��ep�. I� E. C. M�� & S. B. M��w�h�, (E��.). Anomalous cognition: Remote viewing research
and theory (pp. 280–298). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., & M��w�h�, S. B. (E��.). (2015). Extrasensory perception: Support, skepticism, and science,
Volume II — Theories of psi. S���� B������, CA: P��e�e� Pu�l�����o��.
M��, E. C., & M��w�h�, S. B. (2016). A� �l�e�����ve h�po�he��� �o� �he Géz� M��ó�z� (v�� me��um Roll���)
v�. V�k�o� Ko��h�o� �he�� ��me. U�pu�l��he� �epo��.
M��, E. C., & M��w�h�, S. B. (2018�). The Star Gate archives: Reports of the United States government spon-
sored psi program, 1972–1995. Volume 1: Remote Viewing, 1972–1984. Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., & M��w�h�, S. B. (2018�). The Star Gate archives: Reports of the United States government
sponsored psi program, 1972–1995. Volume 2: Remote Viewing, 1985–1995. Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., & M��w�h�, S. B. (2019�). The Star Gate archives: Reports of the United States government spon-
sored psi program, 1972–1995. Volume 3: Psychokinesis. Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., & M��w�h�, S. B. (2019�). The Star Gate archives: Reports of the United States Government spon-
sored psi program, 1972–1995. Volume 4: Operational Remote Viewing: Memorandums and Reports.
Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., P�ul����, T., & V����, Z. (2005). A�om�lou� ������p��o�� �k�� �o��u�����e �e�po��e �o ��ou����
���mul�: E�pe��me���l �e�ul�� ��� �pe�ul���o� upo� � me�h����m. Journal of Alternative and Comple-
mentary Medicine, 11(4), 695–702.
M��, E. C., R����, D. I., Hu�����, G. S., Humph�e�, B. S., & U���, J. M. (1985). P�� e�pe��me��� w��h ����om
�um�e� �e�e���o��: A� ���o�m���o��l mo�el. I� E. C. M�� & S. B. M��w�h� (2019�). The Star Gate
archives: Reports of the United States government sponsored psi program, 1972–1995. Volume 3: Psycho-
kinesis. Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 45

M��, E. C., Ru�el, V., M�Mo�e��le, J. W., & Aue����h, L. (2015). ESP wars, East and West: An account of
the military use of psychic espionage as narrated by the key Russian and American players. He���o��, NC:
P���� Re�, C�o���o��� P�e��.
M��, E. C., & Spo����woo�e, S. J. P. (1994/2014). Sh���o� e���op�: A po����le ��������� ����e� p�ope���.
I� E. C. M�� & S. B. M��w�h�, (E��.), Anomalous cognition: Remote viewing research and theory (pp.
299–313). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., Spo����woo�e, S. J. P., & U���, J. M. (1995/2014). Appl�����o�� o� �e����o� �u�me�����o� �heo��.
I� E. C. M��, & S. B. M��w�h�, (E��.). Anomalous cognition: Remote viewing research and theory (pp.
244–267). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., & Spo����woo�e, S. J. P. (2003). Sk�� �o��u�����e �e�po��e �o �u�u�e �u��o �����le ���mul�. P�pe�
p�e�e��e� �� �he P���p���holo����l A��o�����o� 46�h A��u�l Co�ve���o�, V���ouve�, C�����.
M��, E. C., Spo����woo�e, S. J. P., & F���h, L. V. (2010). A me�ho�olo����l ���ue �� �he ��u�� o� �o��el���o�
�e�wee� p���hoph���olo����l v�����le�. European Journal of Parapsychology, 25, 5–24.
M��, E. C., & Spo����woo�e, S. J. P. (2011/2014). �e Glo��l Co����ou��e�� P�oje��: I�e�������� �he �ou��e
o� p��. I� E. C. M��, & S. B. M��w�h�, (E��.). Anomalous cognition: Remote viewing research and theory
(pp. 268–277). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., & Spo����woo�e, S. J. P. (2014). A�om�lou� ������p��o�� effe��� �� �he hum�� �u�o�om�� �e�v�
ou� ����em. I� E. C. M��, & S. B. M��w�h�, (E��.). Anomalous cognition: Remote viewing research and
theory (pp. 152–157). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., U���, J. M., & Spo����woo�e, S. J. P. (1995/2014). De����o� �u�me�����o� �heo��: Tow��� �
mo�el �o� ��om�lou� me���l phe�ome��. I� E. C. M��, & S. B. M��w�h�, (E��.). Anomalous cognition:
Remote viewing research and theory (pp. 222–243). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
M��, E. C., U���, J. M., T���k, V. V., Luke, W. W., F��vol�, T. J., & Humph�e�, B. S. (1989/2018). Rev�ew o� �he
p���hoe�e��e��� �e�e���h �o��u��e� �� SRI I��e�����o��l. (1973–1988). I� E.C. M�� ��� S.B. M��w�h�
(2018). The Star Gate archives: Reports of the United States government sponsored psi program, 1972–
1995. Volume 2: Remote Viewing (1985–1995) (pp. 316–325). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���
M��hlove, J. (2000). The PK man: A true story of mind over matter. Ch��lo��e�v�lle, VA: H�mp�o� Ro��� Pu�l��h���.
Mo�������e, J., T�e��ol��, P., & U���, J. (2012). P�e�����ve ph���olo����l ������p���o� p�e�e���� �eem���l�
u�p�e������le ���mul�: A me������l����. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. Re���eve� ��om h��p�://www.����.
�lm.��h.�ov/pm�/�����le�/PMC3478568/
Mo�������e, J. A., T�e��ol��, P., U���, J., Ive�, J. A., R����, D., & Jo���, W. B. (2014). P�e������� �he u�p�e�
������le: �������l ���l���� ��� p�������l �mpl�����o�� o� p�e�����ve ������p��o�� ����v���. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 8. Re���eve� ��om h��p�://www.����.�lm.��h.�ov/pu�me�/24723870
Nel�o�, R. D. (2014). �e Glo��l Co����ou��e�� P�oje��: Su��le ���e��o��e���o�� ��� �o��el���o�� �� ����
�om ����. I� D. B�o�e���k & B. Goe��zel (E��.), Evidence for psi: Thirteen empirical research reports
(pp. 474–510). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l��� P�e��.
Neppe, V. M., & Clo�e, E. R. (2012). Reality begins with consciousness: A paradigm shift that works [E��ook.
2�� e����o�]. A�: �����vo���e.�om, M���h 2012.
46 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

P�lme�, J. (1985). An evaluative report on the current status of parapsychology. Final Report. Ale�������,
VA: U.S. A�m� Re�e���h I�����u�e �o� �he Beh�v�o��l ��� So���l S��e��e�.
P��ke�, A., & B�u�ew��z, G. (2003). A �ompe���um o� �he ev��e��e �o� p��. European Journal of Parapsy-
chology, 18, 29–48.
P�����h�, S. (1990). Claims of reincarnation: An empirical study of cases in India. New Delh�: H��m��
Pu�l��h��� Hou�e.
P�ule�u, E., F���h, C. D., & F���kow��k, R. S. (1993). �e �eu��l �o��el��e� o� �he ve���l �ompo�e�� o�
wo�k��� memo��. Nature, 362(6418), 342–345.
Pe�o��mv�o�, L., B����, B., Se��ol�, M., R�e��e�, B., Bol�, M., & To�o��, G. (2017). �e phe�ome��l �o��
�e��� ��� �eu��l �o��el��e� o� �po����eou� �hou�h�� ���o�� w�ke�ul�e��, NREM �leep, ��� REM �leep.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(10), 1–12.
Pu�hoff, H. E. & T���, R. (1975/2018). Pe��ep�u�l �u�me�����o� �e�h��que�. P��� Two: Re�e���h �epo��.
SRI P�oje�� 3183. Me�lo P��k, CA: SRI. I� E. C. M�� & S. B. M��w�h� (E��.). The Star Gate archives:
Reports of the United States government sponsored psi program, 1972–1995. Volume 1: Remote Viewing,
1972–1984, (pp. 97–139). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
Pu�hoff, H. E., T���, R., & M��, E. C. (1977/2018). A�v���e� �h�e�� �e�h��que ���e��me��. P�oje�� 7403,
F���l Repo��, �ove���� �he Pe��o� 15 Ap��l 1976 �o 15 Ap��l 1977 (U). Me�lo P��k, CA: SRI ���e����
��o��l. SECRET. I� E. C. M�� & S. B. M��w�h� (E��.). The Star Gate archives: Reports of the United States
government sponsored psi program, 1972–1995. Volume 1: Remote Viewing, 1972–1984 (pp. 153–179).
Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
Pu�hoff, H. E., T���, R., M��, E. C., & Sw���, I. (1978/2018). A�v���e� �h�e�� �e�h��que ���e��me��. F���l
Repo��, Cove���� �he pe��o� 18 Ap��l 1977 �o 15 Ap��l 1978. I� E. C. M�� & S. B. M��w�h� (E��.). The
Star Gate archives: Reports of the United States government sponsored psi program, 1972–1995. Volume
1: Remote Viewing, 1972–1984 (pp. 193–223). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
R����, D., M��hel, L., & Delo�me, A. (2016). P���hoph�����l mo�ul���o� o� �����e v�����l��� �� � �������
�ou�le��l�� op����l ����em. Physics Essays, 29(1), 14–22.
R����, D. I., & Nel�o�, R. D. (2003). Me������l���� o� m����m���e� ���e�����o� e�pe��me���: 1959–2000.
I� W. Jo��� & C. C��w�o�� (E��.), He�l���, ���e���o� ��� e�e��� me�����e (pp. 39–48). Lo��o�: H���
�ou�� He�l�h S��e��e�.
R����, D., S�hl��z, M., & B�u�, C. (2015). D������ he�l��� ���e���o� �he��p�e�: A� ove�v�ew o� �he ���e���fi�
ev��e��e. Global advances in health and medicine, 4(Suppl), 67–71.
R�o, K. R. (1977). O� �he ���u�e o� p��. Journal of Parapsychology, 41, 294–351.
R�o, K. R. (1978). �eo��e� o� p��. I� S. K��pp�e� (E�.), Advances in parapsychological research 2: Extrasen-
sory perception (pp. 245–295). New Yo�k: Ple�um P�e��.
R�o, K. R. (2011). Cognitive anomalies, consciousness and yoga. New Delh�: Pu�l��he� �� Ce���e �o� S�u��
�e� �� C�v�l�z���o�� �o� �he P�oje�� o� H���o�� o� I����� S��e��e, Ph�lo�oph� ��� Cul�u�e ��� M�����
Pu�l��he��.
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 47

R�o, K. R. (2013). I����� p���holo��, p���p���holo�� ��� �p����u�l p���holo��. International Journal of
Yoga-Philosophy, Psychology and Parapsychology, 1(1), 4–14.
Rh��e, J. B. (1945). Telep��h� ��� �l���vo����e �e�o����e�e�. Journal of Parapsychology, 9, 176–193.
Rh��e, J. B. (1974). Telep��h� ��� o�he� u��e����le h�po�he�e�. Journal of Parapsychology, 38, 137–153.
Ro�k, A. J. (E�.). (2013). The survival hypothesis: Essays on mediumship. Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
Roe, C. A., & Ro��u��h, E. C. (2014). No��p���p���holo����l e�pl�����o�� o� o��e����le me��um�h�p. I� A. J.
Ro�k (E�.). �e �u�v�v�l h�po�he���: E����� o� me��um�h�p (pp. 65–78). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
Roe, C. A., So��e�, C., & Ro��u��h, E. C. (2015). Two me������l��e� o� �o��o����� he�l��� ��u��e�.
EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing, 11(1), 11–23.
Ro�e��h�l, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. E��� No�w�lk, CT: Apple�o��Ce��u���
C�oft�.
Rou��e�u, D. (2012). �e �mpl�����o�� o� �e����e��h e�pe��e��e� �o� �e�e���h ���o �he �u�v�v�l o�
�o����ou��e��. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 26(1), 43–80.
S�hl��z, M., R����, D., M�lle, B. F., S�hm���, S., U���, J., & You��, G. L. (2003). D������ he�l��� ���e���o�:
Defi����o�� ��� evolv��� �u��el��e� �o� l��o���o�� ��u��e�. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medi-
cine, 9(3 Suppl), A31.
S�hm���, H. (1969�). Anomalous prediction of quantum processes by some human subjects. Do�ume��
Dl�82�0821 (1969). Boe��� S��e���fi� Re�e���h L��o���o��e�, Se���le, W��h����o�. Av��l��le ��om
Cle����� Hou�e, U. S. Dep�. Comme��e, Sp����fiel�, VA.
S�hm���, H. (1969�). P�e�o�����o� o� � qu���um p�o�e��. Journal of Parapsychology, 33, 99–108.
S�hm���, H. (1970). A PK �e�� w��h ele���o��� equ�pme��. Journal of Parapsychology, 34, 175–181.
S�hm���, H. (1974). Comp����o� o� PK ����o� o� �wo ��ffe�e�� ����om �um�e� �e�e���o��. Journal of
Parapsychology, 38, 47–55.
S�hm���, S. (2012). C�� we help ju�� �� �oo� ���e���o��? A me������l���� o� e�pe��me��� o� ������� ���e��
��o� effe���. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 18(6), 529–533.
S�hm���, S., S�h�e��e�, R., U���, J., & W�l��h, H. (2004). D������ ���e���o��l��� ��� �he �eel��� o� �e���
����e� ��: Two me������l��e�. British Journal of Psychology, 95(2), 235–247.
Sh���o�, C. E., & We�ve�, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Ch�mp����, IL: U�����:
U��ve����� o� Ill��o�� P�e��.
S�l�e���e��, M. (2001). Co�ve����� o� eme��e��e. Co����ou��e��, ��u����o� ��� e�pl�����o�. Journal of
Consciousness Studies, 8(9�10), 61–98.
S��h�, A. K. (1994). T���e� o� m��e���l��m �� e��l� Ve��� �hou�h�: A ��u��. Annals of the Bhandarkar Ori-
ental Research Institute, 75(1/4), 235–241.
Spe���, R. W. (1969). A mo��fie� �o��ep� o� �o����ou��e��. Psychological Review, 76(6), 532–536.
48 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

Spe���, R. W. (1991). I� �e�e��e o� me���l��m ��� eme��e�� ���e�����o�. Journal of Mind and Behavior,
12(2), 221–246.
Spo����woo�e, S. J. P., & M��, E. C. (2003). Sk�� �o��u�����e p�e���mulu� �e�po��e: A��l��e�, ��������� ���
� p�lo� ��u��. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17(4), 617–641.
S����o��, R. G. (1974�). A� e�pe��me���ll� �e����le mo�el �o� �po����eou� p�� eve���: I. E�����e��o��
eve���. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 68(1), 34–57.
S����o��, R. G. (1974�). A� e�pe��me���ll� �e����le mo�el �o� �po����eou� p�� eve���: II. P���hok��e���
eve���. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 68, 321–356.
S����o��, R. G. (1976). A ��u�� o� mo��v���o��l ��ou��l ��� �el���o��ep� �� p�� me����e� �����ume���l
�e�po��e. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 70(2), 167–178.
S����o��, R. G., & �omp�o�, G. (1973). U��o����ou� p���me����e� �����ume���l �e�po��e ��� ��� �el���o�
�o �o����ou� ESP pe��o�m���e. Research in parapsychology, 1974, 99–103.
S�eph��, A. (2004). Phe�ome��l eme��e��e. Networks, 3(4), 91–102.
S�eve��o�, I. (1974). Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation. Ch��lo��e�v�lle, VA: U��ve����� P�e�� o� V�������.
S�eve��o�, I. (1983). Ame����� �h�l��e� who �l��m �o �emem�e� p�ev�ou� l�ve�. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 171(12), 742–748.
S�eve��o�, I. (1987/2016). Children who remember previous lives: A question of reincarnation. Jeffe��o�,
NC: M�F��l���.
S�eve��o�, I. (1993). B���hm��k� ��� ����h �e�e��� �o��e�po����� �o wou��� o� �e�e��e� pe��o��. Journal
of Scientific Exploration, 7(4), 403–416.
S�eve��o�, I. (1997). Where reincarnation and biology intersect. We��po��, CT: P��e�e� S��e���fi� Pu�l��he��.
S�eve��o�, I. (2006). H�l� � ���ee� w��h �he p����o�m�l. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 20(1), 13–21.
S�eve��o�, I., & Ke�l, J. (2000). �e �����l��� o� ���e��me��� o� p����o�m�l �o��e���o�� �� �e���������o��
��pe ���e�. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14(3), 365–382.
S�oke�, D. (1987). �eo�e����l p���p���holo��. I� S. K��pp�e� (E�.), Advances in Parapsychological Research
5 (pp. 77–189). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
S�o�m, L., She�woo�, S. J., Roe, C. A., T�e��ol��, P. E., Ro�k, A. J., & D� R���o, L. (2017). O� �he �o��e�po���
e��e �e�wee� ��e�m �o��e�� ��� ����e� m��e���l u��e� l��o���o�� �o�����o��: A me������l���� o�
��e�m�ESP ��u��e�, 1966–2016. International Journal of Dream Research, 10(2), 120–140.
S�o�m, L., T�e��ol��, P. E., & D� R���o, L. (2010). Me������l��e� o� ��ee��e�po��e ��u��e� 1992–2008: A��e�����
�he �o��e �e�u���o� mo�el �� p���p���holo��. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 471–485.
Su��u�h, M. (2009). Supe��p�� ��� �he �u�v�v�l��� ���e�p�e����o� o� me��um�h�p. Journal of Scientific
Exploration, 23(2), 167–193.
Su��u�h, M. (2013). A �������l �e�po��e �o D�v�� Lu��’� ���ume�� �o� po��mo��em �u�v�v�l. Journal of
Scientific Exploration, 27(2), 277–316.
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 49

Su��u�h, M. (2016). A philosophical critique of empirical arguments for postmortem survival. B�������oke:
P�l���ve M��m�ll��.
Sum�e�, P. J., Bell, I. H., & Ro��ell, S. L. (2017). A ����em���� �ev�ew o� �he ���u��u��l �eu�o�m����� �o��
�el��e� o� �hou�h� ���o��e�. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 84, 299–315.
T���, R., & Pu�hoff, H. R. (1974). I��o�m���o� �����m����o� u��e� �o�����o�� o� �e��o�� �h�el����. Nature,
252(5476), 602–607.
Te�m��k, M. (2015). Co����ou��e�� �� � ����e o� m���e�. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 76, 238–270.
To�o��, G. (2008). Co����ou��e�� �� ���e����e� ���o�m���o�: A p�ov���o��l m����e��o. The Biological
Bulletin, 215(3), 216–242.
To�o��, G., & Ko�h, C. (2008). �e �eu��l �o��el��e� o� �o����ou��e��: A� up���e. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 1124, 239–261.
Tw���he��, D. C., & Loewe, M. (1986). �e C�m�����e h���o�� o� Ch���: Vol. 1. C�m�����e: C�m�����e
U��ve����� P�e��.
U���, J. (2016). �e po����le �ole o� me���l ���e�����o� �� ev��e��e����e� me�����e. P�e�e�����o� �� �he
BIAL Fou�����o� 11�h S�mpo��um “Beh��� ��� Be�o�� �he B����”, Po��o, Po��u��l, 30 M���h �o 2
Ap��l 2016 (pp. 159–168).
W�l�, A. (1973). Sequential analysis. New Yo�k, NY: Dove� Pu�l��he��.
Z����o�e, N. L., & Alv����o, C. S. (1987). H���o����l ��pe��� o� p���p���holo����l �e�m��olo��. Journal of
Parapsychology, 51, 49–74.
Z����o�e, N., Alv����o, C. S., & Hövelm���, G. H. (2015). A� ove�v�ew o� mo�e�� �evelopme���. I� E.
C���eñ�; J. P�lme� & D. M���u��o��Cl�ve��z (E��.). Parapsychology. A handbook for the 21st century
(pp. 13–29). Jeffe��o�, NC: M�F��l���.
50 So��l� Bh��� M��w�h�, E�w�� C. M��

Erweiterte Zusammenfassung

Wäh�e�� u��e�e� h���o����he� Ve�����e�he�� u�� ü�e� �lle Kul�u�e� h��we� wu��e� P���Phä�ome�e
�eo���h�e� u�� �heo�e����h zu ����e� ve��u�h�. D�e�e um�����e��he� L��e���u� wu��e e��ä�z� �u��h
emp�����he U��e��u�hu��e�, ��e ze���e�ö�����he� Fo���he�� we�e��l��he Fo����h����e �e� �e� V�l��
��e�u�� �e� Phä�ome�e u�� �e� �eo��ee��w��klu�� e�mö�l��h� h��e�. E��e um����e��e P�ü�u��
�e� vo� �e� US�Re��e�u�� �e�ö��e��e� P���Fo���hu���p�o���mm� Star Gate h�� zu �em S�hlu��
�e�üh��, ���� Informationsgestütztes Psi (P�äko�����o�, E�h�ze���P��) e�� w���e���h�ftl��h v�l��e�
Phä�ome� ���, ��� e��ol��e��h �u� P�o�leme �e� US�N���o��l���he�he�� ���ewe��e� wu��e. E� ����
�u� ��hw��he ����������he Bewe��e �ü� ��e E����e�z �e� P���hok��e�e, ��e �� �e� Fol�e �l� Te�l �e�
I��o�m���o���e��ü�z�e� P�� (IΨ ) �e����h�e� w���.
Au� �e� Star Gate�Fo���hu�� e�������e� ve���h�e�e�e �heo�e����he Mo�elle: (1) e�� heu�������he�
Mo�ell ��me�� De����o� Au�me�����o� �eo�� (DAT), ��� zu �e���mme� h�lft, o� ���e�e���elle ����
�������he E��e�����e �u� K�u��l� o�e� I��o�m���o����k�o�e� zu�ü�kzu�üh�e� ����; (2) ��e E���op�eh��
po�he�e, ��e zu �e� Beo���h�u�� �e�üh�� h��, ���� e� e��e ����������he G�e�ze �e�e� kö���e, ����e�e��
�u� e���op���he� G�e�ze� �ü� IΨ, ��e �e� �ü� ���e�e �e��o����he S���eme äh�el�; u�� (3) ��� Meh�ph��
���e Mo�ell �e� I��o�m���o���e��ü�z�e� P�� (MMIΨ), ��� ��e Star Gate�D��e� u�� �lle P���Fo���hu��
�e� �� e��em �����l����e��e� p�oze��o��e���e��e� Mo�ell zu��mme��e�üh�� h��. D�� MMIΨ ve�o��e�
��� P�o�lem �� ��e ph���k�l���he Domä�e (���o�m���o��ze����e��e Pe��pek��ve) u�� ��hl�eß� ��e
E���op�eh�po�he�e u�� ��e �eu�ow���e���h�ftl��he Domä�e (pe��o�e�ze����e��e Pe��pek��ve) m��
e��. I��em w�� P�� vo� ��e�e� �e��e� Be�e��he� �u� u��e��u�he�, ���� w�� �� �e� L��e, ��� Phä�o�
me� �u� �e� Pe��pek��ve �e��e� ����������he� N��u� u�� �e� Ve����e��u�� �e� �ewo��e�e� I��o�m��
��o�e� zu e��o���he�.
I� ��e�em Be����� we��e� ve���h�e�e�e P���Phä�ome�e u�� ��e ��m�� ve��u��e�e� U��e��u�
�hu���me�ho�e� ���ku��e��, w�� u�� zu �e� A����h� �üh��, ���� �e� ���ze Be�e��h (p�o�lem �p��e)
�e� P���Phä�ome�e �u� e�� e��z��e� Phä�ome� �e�uz�e�� we��e� k��� – I��o�m���o���e��ü�z�e� P��
– �ü� �e��e� U��e��u�hu�� ��e Domä�e� �e� Ph���k u�� �e� Neu�ow���e���h�fte� m�� �h�e� �omä�
�e��pez�fi��he� F���e���ellu��e� zu��ä���� ����. IΨ ���, ����e�e�� �u� e���op���he� Ü�e�le�u��e�,
�efi��e�� �l� ��e �e�����u�� vo� I��o�m���o�e�, ��e ���h �u� e��em e���e���e� Pu�k� �� �e� R�um�
ze�� e��e�e� u�� zu� lok�le� E�����u�� ���h�����e�e�z�elle� I��o�m���o�e� �u��h e��e ���p���he
W�h��ehmu����äh��ke�� �üh�e�. D�e� ��� �u� u��e�e� S��h� e�� Fo����h���� �� �e� PSI�Fo���hu��.
D�e G�u������hme� ����: (�) ��� U��ve��um u��e�l�e�� ph���k�l���he� Ge�e�ze�; (��) I��o�m��
��o�e� ��l�e� ��e B���� (��ou�� fiel�) �e� �e��ä����e� Auße�wel�; (���) Ge���/Bewu����e�� ��� e��e
eme��e��e E��e���h�ft �e� u��e�����e� Geh����; u�� (�v) Ge���/Bewu����e�� k��� ke��e ���ek�e
K��ft �u� ��e Auße�wel� �u�ü�e�, �uße� m���el� �e� Bewe�u����pp����e�. D�e �heo�e����he� G�u���
l��e� �e� Telep��h�e (G��z�el�), �e� P�e�e���me��/P�e�S��mulu��Re�po��e, �e� ����������h ����e��e
P���hok��e�e (RNG, DMILS, GCP), �e� Po���Mo��em��e�le�e�� (Me��um��mu�, Re��k������o�)
we��e� ���ku��e��; ����e�e�� �u� e��e� A��l��e �e� N��u� vo� P��, e��em �u� D��e� u�� Mo�elle�
�e��ü��e�e� �heo�e����he� Ve���ä�����, u�� e��em Ve���ä����� �e� �heo�e����he� F���e�, ��e �e�
ve���h�e�e�e� e�pe��me��elle� Me�ho�e� zu� E��o���hu�� vo� P���Phä�ome�e� zu��u��e l�e�e�,
komme� w�� zu �em S�hlu��, ���� ��e ���he� ���ku��e��e� Phä�ome�e �� IΨ zu��mme��e�üh�� u��
�l� Au���u�k vo� IΨ �e����h�e� we��e� kö��e�. Zu��mme�����e�� lä��� ���h ���e�:
I��o�m���o��l P��: Coll�p���� �he P�o�lem Sp��e o� P�� Phe�ome�� 51

• E� ���� ke��e �u��e��he��e� Bewe��e zu� U��e�m�ue�u�� �e� A����h�, ���� e� S����le ����,
��e vom Geh��� �u��ehe� o�e� ���h ü�e� we��e S��e�ke� �u���e��e�; �uße��em h�� e�� e��zel�
�e� Ge���ke ke��e �pez�fi��he� S�����u�e�, ��e vo� e��em ���e�e� Ge��� „�ele�e�“ we��e�
kö��e�.
• Ge���/Bewu����e�� k��� ke��e W��ku�� e����l�e�, �uße� m�� H�l�e �e� Bewe�u����pp����
�e�, �o ���� e� ��e M��e��e �� �e� Auße�wel� �ee��flu��e� k���; ��e De����o� Au�me�����o�
�eo�� (DAT) ���e�p�e��e�� ��e �u� ���e�e���elle� S�������ke� ����e�e��e� k�u��le� P���D��e�
��äqu�� �l� IΨ.
• IΨ ��� e�� �����l����e��e�, ko���k�l ve����e��e�e�, lok�le� Phä�ome� – ve��le��h��� �e�
���e�e� �e��o����he� S���eme�.
• O�wohl I��o�m���o�e� vo� e��em e���e���e� R�umze��pu�k� he��üh�e�, ���� �u� �e� pe��o�
�e�ze����e��e� Pe��pek��ve �lle W�h��ehmu��e� lok�l �ü� �e� W�h��ehme��e�, u���hä��
��� vo� �h�em ze��l��he� U��p�u��.
• IΨ um����� D��e� �u� �emo�e v�ew��� (Hell�ehe�, P�äko�����o�), T��um�o���hu�� (P�äko�
�����o�, Telep��h�e), G��z�el��S�u��e� (Telep��h�e), Su�v�v�l�Fo���hu�� u�� M�k�o�PK�
S�u��e� (RNG, REG, GCP u�� ���e�e� Me�ho�e� u�� Fo���hu������ä�ze�, ��e �u� I��e�
�e�z��������ke� zu� D��e����l��e ����e�e�).
• IΨ h�� ��� Po�e�z��l, F���e� ���h �e� N��u� vo� Ze��, I��o�m���o� u�� K�u��l��ä� zu �eh���
�el�.
• D�� Zu��mme��üh�e� �e� Be�e��h� vo� PSI�Phä�ome�e� zu e��em e��z��e� Phä�ome� –
IΨ – ��e�e� e��e� öko�om���he� A����z �ü� �heo�e����he Fo����h����e �� �e� PSI�Fo���hu��.
IΨ k���, ����e�e�� �u� �omä�e��pez�fi��he� F���e�, �� �e� Be�e��he� Ph���k u�� Neu�o�
w���e���h�fte� e��o���h� we��e�.

E� we��e� meh�e�e �heo�e����he F���e� zum Ve���ä����� vo� IΨ �e��ell�, ��e �� �e� Be�e��he�
Ph���k u�� Neu�ow���e���h�fte� �eh���el� we��e� mü��e�. Wäh�e�� ��e A��wo��e� �u� e����e ��e�
�e� F���e� �ek���� ���� o�e� �emu�m�ß� we��e�, ���� e�l��he u��ek����, u�� e����e we��e�e mü��
�e� �u��ewo��e� we��e� – ��e� ��� �e� G��� �e� W���e���h�ft. D�e E��o���hu�� ��e�e� F���e� w���
���he�l��h we��e�e F���e� �u�we��e�, �evo� w�� e�� voll�����e� Ve������� ��e�e� ���z���e�e��e�
���p���he� me���hl��he� W�h��ehmu����äh��ke�� e�l���e�. I��o�m���o���e��ü�z�e� P�� h�� ��� Po�
�e�z��l, F���e� ���h �e� A�� vo� Ze��, K�u��l��ä� u�� I��o�m���o� zu �e���wo��e�. D�e� kö���e e��e�
�e� ��öß�e� Be���ä�e �e� D��e� �u� �e� P���Fo���hu�� we��e�.
Zeitschrift für Anomalistik Volume 19 (2019), pp. 52–72

Comments on Sonali Bhatt Marwaha & Edwin C. May:


Informational Psi: Collapsing the Problem Space of Psi Phenomena

Hartmut Grote1
A Brief Commentary on IΨ

The article from May and Marwaha presents ideas and hypotheses aimed at reducing the mul-
titude of psi phenomena in order make them potentially explicable under the paradigm of
information flow from “distant points in space-time” to an observer.
While simplification seems welcome under the idea of underlying unifying concepts, I am
not too sure of the hypothesis that science always evolves towards simplicity in general. Particle
physics with its zoo of fundamental particles may be an example to the contrary. Of course a
search for a simpler underlying model is going on in particle physics as well, but it seems fair to
say the outcome of that is unknown.
The term of “IΨ“ is proposed for the underlying unifying process, and while a new name
can be helpful for a new concept, I wonder if this name does not also evoke the contrary notion,
namely that there then also have to be other forms of psi different from IΨ.
Leaving the name question aside I would agree with the authors that an “influence” of
observers or agents onto physical systems (other than by the motor-system of the body) seems
unlikely given the history and findings of the field. The example of the experiment the authors
cite in this context is convincing. I find less convincing though how DAT can operate in mak-
ing an agent make fine-tuned decisions in choosing, for example, the right time when to press
a button to start a random sequence of events, while this type of fine tuning was excluded by
arguments about neurology in the former cited experiment.
I also do not follow the logic about how the DAT protocol can be incorporated into any research
protocols that use randomization and inferential statistics. The point is correct, but it is not a point
to support DAT in particular. The same would also be true for a causal-psi model, where an agent
may actively “influence” the randomization process. This process is not specific to DAT.

1 Hartmut Grote is a physicist and worked at the Max-Planck-Institute for Gravitational Physics in
Germany. He is now a faculty member in the school of physics and astronomy, Cardiff University.

http://dx.doi.org/10.23793/zfa.2019.52
I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme��� 53

The authors suggest that IΨ, as they understand it, may be split into the physics and neurol-
ogy domains, and that all laws of physics have to be obeyed. Obviously, all physical laws have to
be obeyed by a viable explanation of psi, but it may well be that physics needs to be extended to
accommodate psi phenomena, if they exist. That current physics models are incomplete is long
known and there are several puzzles in particle physics and cosmology that call for new physics
beyond the standard model.
After all, I think its fair to say that none of the standard physics forces or fields are viable
candidates to transport psi information, and I would assume the authors mostly agree with
this.
Also in this context I was a bit surprised by the statement that the brain would not send
out IΨ signals. If the signaling process is a physics-based one, then why would the brain (a
physical system after all) not be able to send out psi information as well? Some remarks about
how the “distant events in space-time” are different from processes in the brain may have
been helpful here.
What I also miss in the article is a mention of alternatives to signal models, mainly theo-
ries that hypothesize entanglement correlations to explain psi phenomena. While perhaps not
usable to transmit information, they would at least provide a possibility how to bridge space-
like distances which otherwise cannot communicate to each other, being restricted by the finite
speed of light.
And as a last remark, I find the term “collaps” for the reduction of the problem space slightly
over the top. For my taste this analogy is too close to physics, like a conscious mind is observing
the problem, and is has no choice other than to collapse. I would find a simple “reduction” of
the problem space more adequate. But surely, a matter of taste.
54 I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme���

Walter von Lucadou2


Neither Causal nor Information – Psi Always Slips Away and yet is
Powerful
Since Hartmann Römer (see his comment in this issue) has already taken a detailed position
from a theoretical point of view of the General Quantum Theory (GQT) and the Model of Prag-
matic Information (MPI) in his comment on the article by Sonali Bhatt Marwaha and Edwin
C. May: “Informational Psi: Collapsing the Problem Space of Psi Phenomena”, I would like to
restrict myself here to some empirical findings that the authors apparently disregarded in their
presentation, although they should know them.
In September 1995, I have met Edwin May at the IGPP, at that time located at Eichhalde 12
in Freiburg, and discussed the IDS model—as he called it at the time—with him and explained
my theoretical concerns as well as my experimental data to him in detail. Even then, I can’t
remember if he could not or did not want to say anything substantial about my arguments.
All psi experiments conducted according to the correlation matrix method (CMM) which
started in 1982 until today (Kirmse, 2018; Lucadou, 1983, 2015b; Lucadou & Mischo, 1983)
have shown that there are numerous significant correlations between psychological variables
(questionnaires or behavioural variables) and the physical variables of the random process that
do not appear in the equivalent matrix of the control runs, where the number of significant cor-
relations usually does not differ very much from the expectation value. A recent meta-analysis
(Lucadou, in press) of these experiments (10 independent studies with a total of 2,209 subjects)
resulted in an alpha error of 1.0 * 10-8.
Nevertheless, the respective hit rates of all studies show no significant deviation from the
expected mean-values. Due to the IΨ-model, this would not initially be expected, since a devia-
tion from the expected mean was precisely the instruction for the subjects in these experiments.
Of course, one could bring these results into agreement with the IΨ-model by certain post-hoc
assumptions—but from such a point of view it seems to be rather unfalsifiable. However, it
had been additionally shown with identical replications that even the most significant correla-
tions never occur with the same psycho-physical variable pairs of the matrix, but “jump” to
another matrix cell in strict replications. This behaviour is a direct consequence of the NT

2 Walter v. Lucadou, studied physics and psychology in Freiburg i. Br. and Berlin. 1974 research assistant
at the Physics Institute of the University of Freiburg and 1977 at the Kiepenheuer Institute for Solar
Astronomy in Freiburg. 1979 Scientific assistant at the Department of Psychology and Border Areas of
Psychology at the University of Freiburg. 1985 Visiting professor at the Parapsychological Laboratory
of the University of Utrecht (Netherlands). Since 1989 head of the „Parapsychological Counselling
Office“ in Freiburg i. Br.
I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme��� 55

���om (Lu���ou, 2015�; Lu���ou, Röme�, & W�l��h, 2007) ��� �hu� � �le�� ��������o� �h��
�he me��u�e� �o��el���o�� ��e e�����leme�� �o��el���o�� ��� �o� � �e�ul� o� ��u��l p�o�e��e�.
I��o��� �� woul� �e �� ���eeme�� w��h o�e ����� ���ump��o� of IΨ namely that psi effects cannot
be explained by causal influences in the sense of a physical causa efficiens. On the other hand,
in the IΨ model, one would expect that the underlying neuronal information processes leads
to a more or less stable structure in the matrix, otherwise intrinsic information could not be
reconstructed.
The clearest indication, however, that the IDS- or IΨ model cannot be correct is the fact that
the comparison of different random generators REGs (Schmidt and Markow) revealed that the
generator with the smaller scattering (Markow SD = 1/√(n/12), n = number of trials) produced
clearer and stronger correlations than the Schmidt REG (SD = 1/√(n/4)). From an information
and entropy point of view one would expect the opposite.
I have published these facts over the years in several English-speaking peer-reviewed jour-
nals, so that the authors cannot claim to have known nothing about it—otherwise they didn’t
their homework properly. I wrote (Lucadou, Lay & Kunzmann, 1987): “Moreover, based on our
data we can rule out the GESP-assumption of the IDS model. If the subjects could precogni-
tively foresee fluctuations in a “prestabilized” sequence of random events which they then select
for their own purpose by pushing the start-button in the right moment, it can be expected that
random sequences which show large fluctuations at the display would be a better target that
those with small fluctuations. Hence, the subjects should be more successful with the Schmidt
runs than with the Markow ones. As pointed out above, we found the opposite.” And further
(Lucadou, 1987, 2006): “These findings raise a lot of theoretical problems concerning the so-
called “observational theories”. […] These correlations between psychological and physical
variables are regarded as being non-local and they reflect the meaning (pragmatic information)
of the display and the instruction given to the subjects. The assumption that the effect is due to
precognition or intuitive data selection (IDS) is not supported.”
Finally, it must be mentioned that on the basis of the GQT and the MPI it is not necessary
to negate a large part of the spontaneous phenomena such as RSPK just because it does not fit
the IΨ model. This shows that entanglement relationships (embodiment) can be quite powerful
(Lucadou & Zahradnik, 2004, 2006).
One should at least expect that the authors of the article should discuss these well-known
issues before they claim that “The varieties of psi phenomena discussed so far can be collapsed
into and be considered as expressions of informational psi (IΨ)” and further: “[...] informational
psi has the potential to address questions on the nature of time, causality, and information. This
may be one of the biggest contribution” (Marwaha & May, 2019: 40, this issue).
56 I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme���

References

K��m�e, K. A. (2018). Matrix reloaded: Replikation des Matrix-Experiments mit Variation der psychologischen
Variablen (U�pu�l��he� m���e�’� �he���). Te�h����he U��ve����ä� Chem���z, Chem���z.
Lu���ou, W. v. (1983). A �ew �ompu�e���o���olle� �ev��e �o� �e����g different PK-hypotheses. In W. G.
Roll, J. Beloff, & R. A. White (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1982 (pp. 165–168). Metuchen, NJ:
Scarecrow Press.
Lucadou, W. v. (1987). A multivariate PK experiment, part III: Is PK a real force? The results and their
interpretation. European Journal of Parapsychology, 6, 369–428.
Lucadou, W. v. (2006). Self-organization of temporal structures – a possible solution for the intervention
problem. In D. P. Sheehan (Ed.), Frontiers of time: retrocausation – experiment and theory; San Diego,
California, 20 – 22 June 2006; [FTR 2006, one of sixteen symposia comprising the 87th annual meeting of
the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)] (pp. 293–315).
Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics.
Lucadou, W. v. (2015a). The Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI). In E. C. May, & S. B. Marwaha (Eds.),
Extrasensory perception: Support, skepticism, and science. Theories and the future of the field (pp.
221–242). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Lucadou, W. v. (2015b). The Correlation-Matrix Method (CMM): A new light upon the repeatability prob-
lem of parapsychology. Paper for the 58th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association
and 39th SPR International Annual Conference. 2015 July 16–19. University of Greenwich, Great-
Britain. Journal of Parapsychology, 79, 145–146.
Lucadou, W. v. (in press). Homoeopathy and the action of meaning: A theoretical approach. Journal of
Scientific Exploration (submitted for publication).
Lucadou, W. v., Lay, B., & Kunzmann, H. (1987). A multivariate PK experiment: Part II: Relationships
between psychological variables. European Journal of Parapsychology, 6, 347–368.
Lucadou, W. v., & Mischo, J. (1983). Outlines of a multivariate PK experiment. In W. G. Roll, J. Beloff, &
R. A. White (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1982 (pp. 168–169). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Lucadou, W. v., Römer, H, & Walach, H. (2007). Synchronistic phenomena as entanglement correlations
in Generalized Quantum Theory. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14(4), 50–74.
Lucadou, W. v., & Zahradnik, F. (2004). Predictions of the Model of Pragmatic Information about RSPK.
Paper for the Parapsychological Association Convention 2004. In S. Schmidt (Ed.), Proceedings of
Presented Papers, The Parapsychological Association 47rd Annual Convention August 5–8, 2004, Vienna
University (pp. 99–112). Parapsychological Association.
Lucadou, W. v., & Zahradnik, F. (2006). Predictions of the Model of Pragmatic Information about RSPK.
Paper for the Parapsychological Association Convention 2004, abstracts of presented papers from the
Parapsychological Association. Journal of Parapsychology, 69, 31–32.
I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme��� 57

Michael Nahm3
Assessing the Problem Space of Precognition: Can it be the Only Form of
Psi? A Commentary on the Multiphasic Model of Informational Psi
Parapsychologists are typically concerned with unusual phenomena that do not easily fit into
mainstream theories about the functioning of nature and the world. Hence, they are forced to
develop new and often controversial theories to account for the observed phenomena. One of
these theories developed by parapsychologists is the multiphasic model of precognition (MMPC;
Marwaha & May, 2015a, b, c), which has been renamed by the authors to the multiphasic model
of informational psi in the present publication without changing its basic structure and content
(MMIΨ; Marwaha & May, 2019). In this model, informational psi (IΨ) is equated with precog-
nition, and the MMIΨ rests fundamentally on the assumption that precognition is the only
existing form of psi. Obviously, this is an unusual claim that challenges scientific researchers and
theorists, especially parapsychologists. In fact, it is prone to running into several conceptual dif-
ficulties, especially when it builds on a reductionist physicalist world view like that promoted by
Marwaha and May, in which mind/consciousness is regarded as a mere emergent phenomenon
of brain chemistry that cannot have any effect on its environment. In the following, I will outline
some of the difficulties with the MMIΨ, drawing from empirical findings of parapsychological
research that Marwaha and May also seem to accept.

Scrutinizing the Central Axiom of the MMIΨ: Is Precognition the Only Form of Psi?
Fundamental problems of wave-based models of psi. Wave-base models of psi have a long
tradition in parapsychology, but they have usually found only a few supporters. The MMIΨ
belongs to the category of wave-based models because it rests on the postulate that IΨ must be
loaded onto physical energy carriers such as gravity waves to be able to propagate backwards
in time. Hence, the traditionally discussed problems for physicalist wave-based models also
apply to the MMIΨ. These concern questions of how the percipients of extrasensory perception
(ESP) are successfully selected among the millions of other potential percipients, how the often
delicate timing of the ESP reception is accomplished, how mind/consciousness-related infor-
mation including emotional content is loaded onto physical waves, and how this information is
decoded to result in perceptions of events that mimic usual perceptions obtained via the normal

3 Dr. Michael Nahm is a Research Associate at the Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and
Mental Health (IGPP) in Freiburg. His research interests include enigmas of evolution, unusual
phenomena in near-death states, physical mediumship, and the history of parapsychology. He has
authored or co-authored more than 100 publications in scientific journals and other research out-
lets, and published two books on psychical matters in German.
58 I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme���

�e��o�� �h���el�. No�e o� �he�e �u���me���l p�o�lem� �o� ph�����l��� w�ve����e� mo�el� h��
�ee� �olve�. A� � �o��eque��e, w�ve����e� ph�����l mo�el� h�ve, �� me���o�e� ��ove, �lw���
pl��e� � �e�l����le �ole �� p���p���holo����l �heo��z���. M��w�h� ��� M�� ����kl� ��m�� �h��
�he po��ul��e� ���o�m���o� �����e��, po�e����l me�h����m� �o� lo����� ���o�m���o� o��o �u�h
�����e��, ��� po�����l���e� o� �he�� pe��ep��o� ��� �he �u��eque�� ���o�m���o� �e�o���� �����e
�he ����� ��e ���ee� �o� �e� k�ow�. Howeve�, �he� �o�’� me���o� �he p�o�lem� o� pe���p�e��
�ele���o� ��� ��m���, wh��h ��e o� �� le��� ��m�l�� �mpo�����e, e�pe���ll� �� �olle���ve ���/o�
�e��p�o��l ESP e�pe��e��e�. All �he�e �u���me���l ���ue� o� p�� �heo��e� ��e ve�y difficult to
account for in physicalist wave-based ESP models like the MMIΨ.
Varieties of extrasensory perception. Extrasensory perception is usually considered to
include telepathy, clairvoyance and precognition. Interestingly, early psychical researchers had
already noted that some of the gifted individuals they worked with seemed to be selectively
gifted for one mode of ESP but not for another. An early example was provided by Sir William
Barrett, who found that a girl he hypnotized was able to identify hidden targets correctly—but
only when he knew the targets himself (Barrett, 1882–1883). Thus, telepathy seemed to work
well with this girl, but not clairvoyance.4 There are many more examples of such peculiar
idiosyncrasies in the parapsychological literature. One of the best studied cases concerns
the mediumship of Leonora Piper. After entering a state of deep trance, she often performed
brilliantly with regard to retrieving information that was known to other living people who
were present or absent (a telepathy condition), but she usually had great difficulty unearthing
information that was not known to anybody alive (a clairvoyance condition. For a discus-
sion of this aspect of Mrs. Piper’s mediumship, see Moser, 1974). These idiosyncrasies pose
difficulties for the MMIΨ. It should have been irrelevant for the hypnotized girl’s and Mrs.
Piper’s supposed precognitive ability, be it based on direct precognition or on precognition
relying on feedback, if other people knew the information to be gained at the time of the
experiment, or not.
Moreover, drawing from the enormous amount of material on spontaneous cases but also
certain experimental telepathy studies (e. g., Puharich, 1975), the following requirements have
been identified as promoters for inducing a successful telepathic experience in which a “message”
is conveyed (after Playfair, 2012):

4 Barrett regarded these phenomena as an example of “rapport”, which, in its highest degree, has been
described as the temporary unification of the minds of a mesmerized/hypnotized subject and the mes-
merizer/hypnotizer. There are numerous fascinating and seemingly well-documented examples for
rapport phenomena in the older literature of the 19th century, and they can be regarded as the highest
form of telepathy (Moser, 1974). I believe some of them are difficult to explain with precognition, but
space prohibits a more detailed discussion.
I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme��� 59

1. A� emph���� �o�� �e�wee� ��e�� (�e��e�) ��� pe���p�e�� (�e�e�ve�) ��e��l� e�h���e�
�he �u��e�� o� �elep��h�� e�pe��e��e�; ��� �he �lo�e� �h�� �o�� ��, �he �e��e�.
2. The sender should be in an “adrenalized” or even frightened state, the receiver in a calm
and relaxed state.
3. The sender must be faced with a fairly powerful emotional stimulus.
These conditions indicate that the mental state of the assumed sender can play a crucial role
in successful telepathic events. Yet, the MMIΨ is exclusively concerned with the perceptions of
the receiver, and it attributes them to precognition. As I understand the MMIΨ, an active sender
of IΨ cannot even exist, and much less can a sender’s emotions play a role as they merely belong
to the emergent mind/consciousness and possess no objective properties that might affect the
environment. The way in which an emotional bond between the two actors and the emotional
state of one of these actors can promote the other’s perception of IΨ that is presumed to arise
from a future point in spacetime thus remains unexplained in the MMIΨ.
Apparitions. Analyses and discussions of apparitions have a long-standing tradition in the
history of psychical research as well. Thus, they also need to be accounted for in the MMIΨ.
In this context, Marwaha and May (2019: 38) cite a statement from a publication by Richard
Broughton (2006: 150) stating that “from the earliest days of psychical research there was an
awareness, if not a consensus, that classic ghost experiences were essentially a product of the
mind of the percipient—an hallucination composed of images taken or constructed from the
experiencer’s memory.” By citing this sentence, Marwaha and May seem to say that apparitions
cannot have intersubjective or even objective attributes, and that their appraisal would be in
agreement with that of the authors alluded to, namely Edmund Gurney, Frederic Myers, and
Frank Podmore (1886), as well as Henry Sidgwick et al. (1894). This, however, is at best only
half of the truth because these authors included telepathy as a crucial and indispensable part
of veridical apparitional experiences. For example, in cases of veridical crisis apparitions, the
initial impulse was assumed to originate from the person undergoing the crisis (the agent or
sender discussed in the previous section). In cases in which apparitions were collectively and
congruently perceived, Gurney assumed that the original and telepathically received impulse was
transferred further by the primordial percipient to the other percipients by means of telepathy.
Myers (1903) even assumed that telepathically transmitted impulses of the deceased might
play a part in the formation of apparitions of deceased individuals (for a brief overview of
these theories, see Gauld, 1968). Hence, because Marwaha and May deny the existence of telepa-
thy, the MMIΨ disagrees with the theories of the early psychical researchers in fundamental
respects and the latter cannot be used to legitimize the MMIΨ. Rather, the MMIΨ must offer
alternative hypotheses about how veridical (crisis) apparitions that have been collectively and
congruently perceived from different visual angles by different percipients can be explained by
60 I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme���

p�e�o�����o� �lo�e. Su�h �olle���ve ��� ve������l �pp�����o� ���h����� ��� �l�o ���lu�e ���m�l�
�� �o�pe���p�e���, eve� �� p��mo����l pe���p�e��� �h�� pe��e�ve �he �pp�����on first, as in a noted
case described by Sidgwick et al. (1894: 227; see Nahm, 2016, for a discussion). Classical studies
of collective cases that should be considered are, for example, represented by Hart et al. (1956),
Hart & Hart (1932–1933), and Mattiesen (1936–1939). For reasons of space limitation, I won’t
expound on theoretical possibilities to explain such collective apparition sightings via precog-
nition, but it is obvious that creating plausible explanatory models is quite challenging for the
MMIΨ. The same goes for reciprocal ESP experiences of two or more people.
Cases of the reincarnation type. Events that happened before a supposed ESP-percipient
was born cannot be perceived or known by direct precognition because such events are already
past and cannot enter the mind of the percipient from a future point in spacetime. Thus, in the
MMIΨ, if events from a pre-birth past are perceived via ESP, they must be attributed to pre-
cognition of feedback arising, for example, from discussions about the past events in question.
This constellation applies, among others, to typical cases of the reincarnation type (CORT).
In rather a superficial attempt to explain CORT, Marwaha and May refer to Michael Sudduth
(2016), who argued that all survival-related phenomena can be accounted for at least equally
well by living agent psi (Marwaha & May, 2019: 35). Marwaha and May then equate IΨ with
living agent psi. Yet, as in their discussion of apparitions, in which they simply skip telepathy,
the move to equate IΨ with living agent psi is highly problematic. Living agent psi is often called
superpsi to highlight the very high quantity and quality of telepathy and clairvoyance required
in this model. As a consequence, and because superpsi implies rather convoluted streams of
reasoning to account for all survival-related phenomena, most parapsychologists who have
considered the multifaceted phenomenology of CORT in detail still lean towards a survivalist
interpretation regarding the best cases. For example, Stephen Braude (2003) argued that the
“crippling complexity” of such CORT would ultimately tilt the scales towards survival.
Consequently, the elimination of telepathy and clairvoyance from the superpsi approach, as
in the MMIΨ, results in a kind of super-precognition of received feedback arising from discus-
sions and investigations of the case by the subjects’ contemporaries. In addition, the feedback
information perceived in this manner from a future point in spacetime would have to be trans-
formed in such a way that it causes the young children to identify themselves with the personal-
ity of the supposed previous life. Simultaneously, all traces of the actual feedback situations need
to be eliminated, never to enter the consciousness of the affected children. This information
transformation would then have to have a rather powerful effect on the affected child, often still
a baby, that can lead to such a strong identification with the former personality that it elicits night-
mares related to the other life, phobias, peculiar behavioral habits and (language) skills, correct
descriptions of earthly events pertaining to the time of the intermission period between the
two lives, and even affect non-verbal fetuses and trigger the formation of birthmarks and birth
I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme��� 61

�e�e��� (S�eve��o�, 1997). Re������� �he �u�u�e ��m�l�e� o� �he �u�je��� o� �he ��m�l�e� o� �he
p�ev�ou� pe��o��l���e�, CORT m�� �l�o ���lu�e ���ou��eme�� ��� �ep���u�e ��e�m�, �� well ��
o�he� �ompl�����o�� (e. �., N�hm & H���le�, 2011). The MMIΨ must also be able to account for
the question of why this assumed super-precognition of CORT subjects is exclusively limited to
feedback concerning the life of one particular deceased person, and to nothing else. Obviously,
trying to explain all these diverse CORT facets with super-precognition alone results in a drastic
increase in theoretical complications and questionable ad-hoc assumptions—a super-crippling
complexity that renders the MMIΨ barely tenable. But the worst for the MMIΨ is still to come.
The need to distinguish between unknown information about the past and unknown
information from the future. As mentioned above, young children who claim to remember a
previous life in CORT cannot have obtained paranormally gained knowledge about the previ-
ous personality’s life via direct precognition, but only via precognition of feedback received,
for instance, via discussions about this previous personality. But where does the paranormally
gained knowledge about the previous person’s life come from in the first place? In the case of
James Leininger, for example (Leininger & Leininger, 2009; Tucker, 2016; numerous alterna-
tive cases could be named), the parents and the other people involved in the unfolding of the
CORT also had no knowledge about the previous person’s life at first. They only started to
collect information about the previous personality’s life after the strange behavior and claims of
little James motivated them to do so. Yet, in the parlance of the MMIΨ, one must assume that
James first received precognitive information about the previous personality’s life via feedback
derived from his parents’ activities. These activities, however, were in fact triggered by James’
behavior, which must have already been influenced by the precognitively perceived information
that should have been gained only later through the future activities of his parents.
At this point, the MMIΨ boils down to mere circular reasoning: A is presupposed to lead
to B, but B is presupposed to lead to A. In this way, the true origins of A and B can never be
explained. The issue to be explained always needs to be presupposed and is considered explained
already. This is similar to the story of the Baron of Münchhausen who claimed to have drawn
himself out of a swamp by pulling his own hair. This logical circle and unsolvable paradox is
rooted in a grave conceptual problem of the MMIΨ.
This conceptual problem is that in explanatory models for precognition like the MMIΨ,
which are based on an assumed entropy-driven linear time flow that runs from the past into the
future in a physicalist macrocosm, it is of crucial importance to distinguish between unknown
information from the past and unknown information from the future. Such a distinction is,
however, not contained in the MMIΨ. Yet, it is important to understand that information
gained precognitively from a future point in spacetime principally cannot contain information
from the past that is unknown to all individuals involved in the presently occurring precognitive
62 I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme���

affair (�u�h �� �� �he �e������� o� Le�����e�’� CORT). The reason is that, from the perspective
of the percipient(s) involved, such information is exclusively located in the “past light cone”
(see Figure 3 of Marwaha & May, 2019: 18, this issue). And in the MMIΨ, information about an
event that happened in an unknown past cannot transfer itself from the past light cone into the
future light cone, and miraculously appear in there. The assumed entropy-driven precognitive
information channel of the MMIΨ does not allow unknown past information to migrate into
the future of a physicalist universe. Presently unknown information in the past light cone can
thus also not be loaded onto gravity waves originating in the future light cone, and therefore
also not travel backwards in time again to result in the assumed precognitive perception of this
information in the present.
In other words: In the MMIΨ, retrocausation cannot be triggered by information from the
past that is unknown in the present and at the future point in spacetime that is presumed to
trigger the retrocausation that leads to the obtaining of this past information. Consequently, the
origin of paranormally gained knowledge about the past in CORT, such as in Leininger’s case,
cannot, in principal, be explained by the MMIΨ, as this necessarily results in the demonstrated
loop of circular reasoning.
However, if one still assumes that information from the past that is unknown to everybody
involved in the unfolding of a CORT can somehow be perceived precognitively, as the MMIΨ
implies, one cannot avoid introducing at least one more different ESP-like bypass or shortcut
channel into the MMIΨ to render this information from the past light cone accessible in the
future light cone. Then, however, the assumption that precognition is the only form of psi can-
not be upheld in the MMIΨ, and it therefore needs to be refuted.5

5 The importance of distinguishing between unknown information about the past and unknown in-
formation about the future in precognition models like the MMIΨ cannot be overestimated. I would,
therefore, like to elaborate a little further on this. Typical forms of precognition, such as the antici-
pation of accidents and precognition studied in laboratory settings or the Star Gate program, con-
cern presently unknown information about the future. Thus, they match the conceptualization of the
MMIΨ. ESP regarding unknown information about the past is, by contrast, usually not regarded as
precognition, but as a retrocognitive form of clairvoyance. To regard retrocognition as precognition,
as in the interpretation of CORT in the MMIΨ, necessarily results in the described paradox when it
concerns information about the past that is unknown to the people involved.
This is also true for numerous other examples of ESP-mediated knowledge, such as all cases in which
unknown veridical information from the past is obtained via afterlife communications, and certain
data obtained in the context of mediumship research. A noted example is the case of Runki’s leg
(Haraldsson & Stevenson, 1975). Also here, the relevant information about Runki’s life was not known
to anybody involved in the unfolding of the case, and thus it cannot be accounted for by pure entropy-
driven precognition. It can only be explained in the frames of survival or conventional concepts of
living agent psi.
I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme��� 63

Wormholes undermining the MMIΨ. I� �� �omewh�� ��o����l �h�� E�w�� M�� h�m�el� h��
e�pl����l� ���e� �u�h �omp�om����� ESP��h���el� �o �he MMIΨ in collaboration with Joseph
Depp (May & Depp, 2015). They suggested that IΨ might travel through wormholes in a hyper-
dimensional space. According to May and Depp (2015: 140), time as we know it does not exist
in that hyperdimensional space, but “all events that have happened, are happening, or will ever
happen in our spacetime exist simultaneously.” In this hyperdimensional space, wormholes are
assumed to function as shortcuts that connect “any two points in spacetime regardless as to
where they are in that four-dimensional space” (May & Depp, 2015: 141; emphasis in the origi-
nal). This means that these wormholes are thought to be able to mediate the flow of IΨ between
all possible points in the past, present, and future spacetime. Concerning explanatory frames
for psi phenomena, I sympathize with hyperdimensional models of the universe as well (Nahm,
2007). However, the above-mentioned properties of the supposed wormholes contradict the very
essence of the MMIΨ: Obviously, real-time clairvoyance, retrocognition, and even telepathy (in
case that people’s brains are directly connected in real-time) must also then be allowed to exist
in addition to precognition. Therefore, Marwaha and May’s laborious attempts to substantiate
that precognition must be regarded as the only form of psi are redundant and dispensable. In a
hyperdimensional universe full of potential wormholes that can mediate the flow of information
between all points in spacetime, precognition can only be regarded as one type of manifestation
of ESP among others, just like in previous and more conventional models of ESP.

Concluding Comments
If one accepts the general veracity of the empirical findings of parapsychology considered in
this article, precognition cannot be the only form of psi. Hence, if the conceptual implications
of the MMIΨ for ESP are thought through to the end, the fundamental axiom of the MMIΨ
must be regarded as refuted. Yet, that is not true for every aspect of the MMIΨ. For example,
I am particularly intrigued by the possibility that the amount of entropy generated in a given
situation might exert a decisive effect on the success of a precognition experiment. I can well
imagine that this might indeed be the case, and would thus encourage further studies on this
topic. A potentially related issue that could be addressed in precognition experiments con-
cerns the question of whether occurrences that involve exceptionally intense emotions in large

The same is true for a theoretical mediumistic case constructed by Marwaha and May (2016: 92).
When the experimenter dies and takes the outcome of the experiment (which is known to nobody
else) to his grave in this constructed case, this outcome becomes inaccessible information in the past
light cones of all surviving individuals. Hence, it cannot be retrieved by these surviving individuals
via an entropy-driven backward flow of information from within the future light cone, as assumed by
Marwaha and May.
64 I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme���

�um�e�� o� people woul� �e mo�e �u��e���ul �h�� ���v��l o��u��e��e� �o��e����� o�l� � �ew
����v��u�l�. Su�h emo��o��ll� ���e��e eve��� often accompany increased physical entropy gen-
eration as well and it would be an interesting and challenging task to differentiate between the
two possible triggers.
Moreover, I perfectly agree with Marwaha and May’s notion that psi is a fundamentally unitary
phenomenon that transcends the properties of our familiar spacetime. The available mass of
parapsychological research results strongly suggests that ESP and also psychokinesis (PK) are
best regarded as belonging to a phenomenological continuum of psi that manifests in differ-
ent facets reflecting different poles or properties of it.6 It might therefore well be that aspects
of the MMIΨ, but also aspects of other theories and philosophical frameworks outlined, for
example, by May & Marwaha (2015) and Kelly, Crabtree, & Marshall (2015) have their place in
an encompassing theoretical frame that can account for the similarities and variances of differ-
ent psi phenomena. However, one should be careful when regarding any of the more specific
theories as potentially able to account for all reported psi phenomena. Although I regard psi
to be a unitary phenomenon, it is also likely to be an utterly complicated affair that is very dif-
ficult to penetrate with our familiar logical thinking, which developed over the course of evolu-
tion to cope with the more reliably occurring macroscopic events within our small window of
conventionally perceived spacetime. In addition, it is my impression that many of the more
specific theories, such as the MMIΨ, stand largely separate and that a real constructive dialogue
between the proponents of different psi models in parapsychology has so far not taken place.
Marwaha and May have already offered a tentative comparison of other available models else-
where (e. g., Marwaha, 2018; Marwaha & May, 2015c, d), and I hope that recent developments
such as the presentation of some theories and possible relations to other models, as in a recent
issue of the Mindfield Bulletin of the Parapsychological Association (issue 10/3, 2018), will trig-
ger such a constructive dialogue. Only such dialogue can lead to a “Modern Synthesis” of psi
theories, similar to the “Modern Synthesis” developed by 20th century evolutionary biologists
in which several seemingly separate and disparate theoretical concepts were successfully united
into an encompassing frame subsuming different sub-theories (Mayr & Provine, 1980). Should
such a “Modern Synthesis” of psi theories be developed, it would require an active and vivid
dialogue between the different protagonists in which seemingly negligible details of hypoth-

6 I abstained from commenting on PK in this Commentary, but one remark seems apt. One might al-
ready regard telepathy as a special form of PK, thus emphasizing the unitary nature of all psi phenom-
ena. At least, if the mental state of one person can affect the mental state of another, this results inevi-
tably in accompanying changes of the correlated neurophysiological processes in the latter’s brain. A
particularly promising method for investigating these phenomena further consists of applying physi-
ological measurements in experiments with identical twins who share a close empathic bond (Jensen
& Parker, 2012; Parker & Jensen, 2013; Playfair, 2012, 2017).
I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme��� 65

e�e� ��� �heo��e� woul� �l�o h�ve �o �e �o����e�e�. Mo�eove�, �he�e ����u���o�� �houl� �e
�u��e� ��� �h�pe� �� �� o�je���ve ���e��me�� o� �v��l��le emp�����l ���� ��om p���p���holo����l
�e�e���h ��� � �ho�ou�h ��qu�������e w��h �hem, �o� o� p�e�o��e�ve� ���ump��o�� �h�� �e�e��
m��e a priori wh��h phe�ome�� ��e �llowe� �o o��u� ��� wh��h ��e �ot. This process would
be expected to involve controversial discussions, but after all, such discussions in which the
strengths and weaknesses of particular theoretical approaches are meticulously carved out are
necessary for real progress in theorizing about psi. I hope that my criticism of the MMIΨ will
be received in this constructive spirit.

References

Barrett, W. F. (1882–1883). On some phenomena associated with abnormal conditions of mind. Proceedings
of the Society for Psychical Research, 1, 238–244.
Braude, S. E. (2003). Immortal remains: The evidence for life after death. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Broughton, R. S. (2006). Why do ghosts wear clothes? Examining the role of memory and emotion in
anomalous experiences. European Journal of Parapsychology, 21, 148–165.
Gauld, A. (1968). The founders of psychical research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gurney, E., Myers, F. W. H., & Podmore, F. (1886). Phantasms of the living (2 Vols.). London: Trübner.
Haraldsson, E., & Stevenson, I. (1975). A communicator of the “drop in” type in Iceland: The case of
Runolfur Runolfsson. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 69, 33–59.
Hart, H., & Hart, E. B. (1932–1933). Visions and apparitions collectively and reciprocally perceived.
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 41, 205–249.
Hart, H., & collaborators (1956). Six theories about apparitions. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical
Research, 50, 153–239.
Jensen, C. G., & Parker, A. (2012). Entanglement in the womb: A pilot study on the possible physiological
connections between identical twins with different embryonic backgrounds. Explore, 8, 339–347.
Kelly, E. F., Crabtree, A., & Marshall, P. (2015). Beyond physicalism: Toward reconciliation of science and
spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Leininger, B., & Leininger, A., with Gross, J. (2009). Soul survivor: The reincarnation of a World War II
fighter pilot. New York: Grand Central Publishing.
Marwaha, S. B., & May, E. C. (2015a). The multiphasic model of precognition. In E. C. May, & S. B.
Marwaha (Eds.), Extrasensory perception. Support, skepticism, and science (vol. 2, pp. 145–170). Santa
Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Marwaha, S. B., & May, E. C. (2015b). The multiphasic model of precognition: The rationale. Journal of
Parapsychology, 79, 5–16.
66 I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme���

M��w�h�, S. B., & M��, E. C. (2015�). Re�h��k��� e�����e��o�� pe��ep��o�: Tow��� � mul��ph���� mo�el o�
p�e�o�����o�. SAGE Open, January-March, 1�17.
M��w�h�, S. B., & M��, E. C. (2015�). A �e�u����o� o� �he �u�l��� pe��pe���ve �� p�� �e�e���h. Journal of
Consciousness Studies, 22, 70–95.
M��w�h�, S. B., & M��, E. C. (2016). P�e�o�����on: The only form of psi? Journal of Consciousness Studies,
23, 76–100.
Marwaha, S. B., & May, E. C. (2019). Informational psi. Collapsing the problem space of psi phenomena.
Zeitschrift für Anomalistik, 19, 12–51.
Marwaha, S. B. (2018). Multiphasic model of informational psi: A signal-based process-oriented model.
Mindfield, 10, 91–97.
Mattiesen, E. (1936–1939). Das persönliche Überleben des Todes (3 Vols.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
May, E. C., & Depp, J. G. (2015). Entropy and precognition: The physics domain of the multiphasic model
of precognition. In E. C. May, & S. B. Marwaha (Eds.), Extrasensory perception. Support, skepticism,
and science (Vol. 2, pp. 125-144). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
May, E. C., & Marwaha, S. B. (Eds.). (2015). Extrasensory perception. Support, skepticism, and science (2
Vols.). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Mayr, E., & Provine, W. B. (Eds.). (1980). The evolutionary synthesis: Perspectives on the unification of biology.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moser, F. (1974). Das große Buch des Okkultismus. Originalgetreue Wiedergabe das zweibändigen Werkes
Okkultismus – Täuschungen und Tatsachen. Freiburg: Hermann Bauer-Verlag.
Myers, F. W. H. (1903). Human personality and its survival of bodily death (2 Vols.). London: Longmans,
Green.
Nahm, M. (2007). Evolution und Parapsychologie. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.
Nahm, M. (2016). The role of animals as co-percipients of apparitions in the work of Emil Mattiesen
(1875–1939). Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 80, 119–121.
Nahm, M., & Hassler, D. (2011). Thoughts about thought bundles: A commentary on Jürgen Keil’s paper
“Questions of the reincarnation type”. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 25, 305–318.
Parker, A., & Jensen, C. G. (2013). Further possible physiological connections between identical twins.
Explore, 9, 26–31.
Playfair, G. L. (2012). Twin telepathy. Guildford: White Crow Books.
Playfair, G. L. (2017). Monozygotic twins and macro-entanglement [Special issue on psi and nonlocal
mind]. Journal of Nonlocality, 5(1).
Puharich, A. (1975). Beyond telepathy. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Sidgwick, H., Johnson, A., Myers, A. T., Myers, F. W. H., Podmore, F., & Sidgwick, E. M. (1894). Report on
the census of hallucinations. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 10, 25–422.
I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme��� 67

S�eve��o�, I. (1997). Reincarnation and biology: A contribution to the etiology of birthmarks and birth
defects (2 Vol�.). We��po��, CT: P��e�e�.
Su��u�h, M. (2016). A philosophical critique of empirical arguments for post-mortem survival. B�������oke:
P�l���ve M��m�ll��.
Tu�ke�, J. B. (2016). The case of James Leininger: An American case of the reincarnation type. Explore, 12,
200–207.

Dean Radin7
Yes, But What is New?
Marwaha and May’s (M&M) physicalist model of “informational psi” aims to unify the various
ways that psi experiences manifest, offering the promise that descriptive terms of apparently
different experiences, like telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis and survival
phenomena, can ultimately be collapsed into a single phenomenon. The urge to identify com-
monalities among apparently different phenomena is laudable because when successful, it can
lead to a much deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms.
Readers unfamiliar with M&M’s previously published articles may find elements of this
single target article insufficiently detailed, but even without the full details the point of their
proposal is clear. To paraphrase, psi is conceived as a unitary psychophysical phenomenon
involving the transfer of nonlocal information carried via signals, which are perceived by
unknown processes in the brain.
This proposal is straightforward enough, but it is not a new idea. That is, as M&M men-
tion in their article, the idea that telepathy and clairvoyance might be a unitary process was
discussed by J. B. Rhine in 1945 (Rhine, 1945), and a year later R. H. Thouless and B. P. Wiesner
(Thouless & Wiesner, 1946) proposed thinking about different psi phenomena “not as effects
of different paranormal capacities (telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition) but rather as
manifestations of one single paranormal capacity […]” (p. 107), adding that “psychokinesis
[…] is probably to be regarded as a phenomenon of the same order and it may be considered

7 Dean Radin PhD (psychology) is currently Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and
Associated Distinguished Professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies. He previously
worked at AT&T Bell Labs, Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, and SRI International,
has given over 500 invited presentations and interviews worldwide, and is the author or coauthor of
over 250 technical and popular articles, 50 book chapters, and four best-selling books that have been
translated into 15 languages: The Conscious Universe (1997), Entangled Minds (2006), Supernormal
(2013), and Real Magic (2018).
68 I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme���

�� �he mo�o� ��pe�� o� p��” (p. 116). S�m�l��l�, �he ��e� o� �ppl���� ���o�m���o��l �o��ep�� �o
u��e��������� p�� w�� p�opo�e� ove� � h�l���e��u�� ��o (C��o�e�, 1961), ��� p�� �� � ��pe o�
�����l w�� u�e� me��pho����ll� ove� � �e��u�� ��o �� M��k Tw��� �� � �e��e� o� e�pe��e��e� he
�e�����e� �� “me���l �ele���ph�” (Tw���, 1891).
This is not to say that the proposal is wrong. But what makes M&M’s article unsatisfying is
that it provides no new answers to the key questions that have been discussed without resolu-
tion for many decades. The only accepted physical theory that allows for the kinds of nonlocal
connections required by M&M’s proposal is quantum mechanics (QM), but in its orthodox
form QM disallows any form of signaling. In addition, no clues are provided for what processes
in the brain might be able to receive nonlocal signals, nor are there any hints about the source
of such signals.
Proposing a physical theory for psi is understandable, and even desirable, because it would
provide an explanatory framework for the ample empirical evidence for psi without challenging
the prevailing scientific worldview. That in turn might allow psi to become mainstreamed more
easily. However, even if the problem of transmission and reception of nonlocal signals were
solved, the proposal still fails to solve an important problem raised by J. Beloff (1970):

For all their ingenuity, such [physicalist] theories are really nonstarters. They concentrate
on the energetics of the psi process while ignoring its even more intractable informational
aspects. For the crux of the problem, as I see it, lies, not so much in specifying what kind
of energy might surmount spatial and temporal distances or material barriers, but rather
in explaining how it comes about that the subject is able to discriminate the target from
the infinite number of other objects in his environment. Perhaps my point can best be
illustrated with the help of an analogy: Imagine that sound waves were no longer attenu-
ated with distance. It would follow that every conversation going on for miles around
would be equally audible to you. But by this very fact, every conversation would be equally
unintelligible. (p. 138)

In the above quote, Beloff ’s use of the term “informational aspects” was not meant in the
entropic sense, but rather in the sense of meaning. If we reside in a spacetime with a potentially
infinite number of nonlocal signals floating about, how can one focus on the one signal of interest?
M&M appropriately noted this as an unsolved question, but this problem has been repeatedly
asked for a long time with no clear resolution in sight. One conceivable answer is that the brain
can only perceive its own future state, perhaps because of the presence of time-symmetry in
the elementary particles that compose the brain. If that were the case, one could argue that
all forms of psi must involve the brain acting in some sort of temporal resonance with its own
future state. An earlier formulation of M&M’s (2015) theory proposed something like this, but
perhaps that idea was dropped because precognition experiments indicate that precognition
I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme��� 69

��� ope���e �� m��� o��e�� o� m�����u�e lo��e� �h�� �he �u�����o�e�o�� ��me ���me whe�e
��me���mme��� e����� �� �he �u����om�� �e�lm.
I� �um, �e�p��e �he �ho���om���� �� M&M’� p�opo��l, �� �� u�e�ul �o pe��o����ll� �epe��
p�opo�e� mo�el� o� p�� �� �he hope� �h�� �omeo�e �o� ��m�l��� w��h �he e��l�e� l��e���u�e w�ll
e��ou��e� �he �h�lle��e ���e�h ��� offer a novel solution. For those who do know the relevant
literature, it is interesting to see how difficult it has been to move beyond established concepts,
which in turn suggests that a conventional physicalist model may simply be inadequate. How-
ever, there is one interesting clue that is very briefly mentioned in M&M’s paper: Evidence that
changes in entropy seem to be correlated with psi performance. That provides a constructive
clue because a similar relationship is observed in the ordinary senses, thus supporting the
idea that psi is processed like an ordinary sensory system. Such similarities are discussed in
theories like J. Carpenter’s First Sight, indicating that maybe some aspects of brain processing
are involved in psi perception. This possibility does not solve the signaling problem, but it’s
a start.

References

Beloff, J. (1970). Parapsychology and its neighbors. Journal of Parapsychology, 34, 129–142.
Cadoret, R. J. (1961). Some applications of information theory to card-calling performance in ESP. Journal
of General Psychology, 65, 89–107.
Carpenter, J. (2015 ). First sight: ESP and parapsychology in everyday life. New York, NY: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Marwaha, S. B., & May, E. C. (2015). Rethinking extrasensory perception: Toward a multiphasic model of
precognition. SAGE Open, 5(1). doi:10.1177%2F2158244015576056
Rhine, J. B. (1945). Telepathy and clairvoyance reconsidered. Journal of Parapsychology, 9, 176–193.
Thouless, R. H. & Wiesner, B. P. (1946). On the nature of psi phenomena. Journal of Parapsychology, 10,
107–119.
Twain, M. (1891). Mental telegraphy: A manuscript with a history. Retrieved from https://www.nitrosyn-
cretic.com/rah/telepath.html
70 I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme���

Hartmann Römer8
Remarks on Informational Psi
The main message I infer from reading the paper of Sonali Bhatt Marwaha and Edwin May
published in this issue is twofold:
1. Psi effects cannot be explained by causal influences in the sense of a physical causa efficiens.
2. All psi phenomena can be reduced to precognition which, in turn, is due to a physical
entropic mechanism of information flow from the future and localisation in a percep-
tional apparatus.
While I fully agree to the first statement I have strong reservations with respect to the
second one.
• There may in principle be a way to insist on reducing all psi phenomena to precognition,
but it seems to be very hard to reconcile this view with observed phenomena (see e. g the
comment by M. Nahm, 2019, in this issue).
• A decidedly physicalist-reductionist world-view forces the authors to employ Shannon’s
notion of quantified information, stripping off from information any aspect of meaning.
On the other hand, multiple experience with psi phenomena points to a crucial impor-
tance of meaning and emotion.
• Physical mechanisms for the transfer of information from the future are not established
and have to be very unusual and speculative if not bizarre.
• Even if such a mechanism were identified, it would be very difficult both to reject causal
influences and to keep information flow.
• It is not clear how a receiver’s mind would tune in to filter and capture very specific
signals from the future and to reconstruct their meaning.
Searches for stable and reliably usable signals in psi research were consistently frustrated.
Even the big and extensive Star Gate project, in which one of the authors played a leading role
did not identify a clear, unambiguous and unanimously accepted psi signal. This accumulated

8 Hartmann Römer is a retired full professor of Theoretical Physics. He studied physics and philosophy
in Bonn. After his postdoctoral research in Bonn, at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot/Israel, and at
CERN in Geneva/Switzerland, he received a full professorship for Theoretical Physics at the University of
Freiburg in 1979. He had longer research stays at CERN, Geneva, Helsinki, São Paulo and Mexico City.
His research and publications concern particle theory, quantum field theory, in particular geometrical
and topological methods: symplectic geometry, quantization theory, classical limit and short wave as-
ymptotics as well as natural philosophy. He wrote several textbooks on theoretical physics.
I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme��� 71

�e����ve ev��e��e �houl� le�ve o�e p�ep��e� �e��ou�l� �o �o����e� �he �o��o� o� synchronicity ��
e�v����e� �� C. G. Ju�� ��� W. P�ul�, ���o����� �o wh��h p�� phe�ome�� �houl� �o� �e u��e��
��oo� �� ��u��l influences or informational signals but rather as meaningful coincidences, i. e.
as merely constellational holistic features of some systems. Admittedly, a physical reductionist
does not tend to be sympathetic with such a view, but countless examples show that such situ-
ations undeniably exist. For instance, the correlations between angles or lengths in a triangle
are meaningful but certainly not a result of causal influences or transmission of information.
Moreover, they are completely unrelated to time.
The models of Pragmatic Information (MPI) (Kornwachs & Lucadou, 1982; Lucadou,
2015a) and Generalised Quantum Theory (GQT) (Atmanspacher, Römer & Walach, 2002; Filk
& Römer, 2011) are attempts to cast the idea of synchronicity into a more concrete and workable
form. GQT is not a physical theory but rather some kind of a general non-commutative system
theory. MPI can be understood as a special case of GQT. Just like synchronistic correlations, the
entanglement correlations of GQT are unrelated to time and neither causal nor informational
in their nature (Lucadou, Römer & Walach, 2007). The impossibility to transmit controllable
causal actions or informations by entanglement correlations is expressed as an “Axiom NT” in
GQT. In spite of its negative formulation it has several positive consequences in accordance
with many observations:
• What looks like a causal or informational signal at first sight is in danger to be wiped
out in the sequel by “decline” or “evasion” (shift and reappearance at unexpected places).
• A reciprocity of effect size and reliability of psi effects is predicted.
• “Matrix” strategies for efficient psi experiments can be developed on the basis of GQT.
(Lucadou, Römer & Walach, 2007; Lucadou, 2015b, in press)
In contrast to this, informational psi (IΨ) does not seem to offer a good explanation for the
smallness and elusiveness of psi effects. Moreover, the above-mentioned theoretical difficulties
of IΨ are absent in synchronistic “no signal” theories. In this sense, IΨ is not the unchallenged
sweeping theoretical breakthrough and one wonders, why apparently viable synchronistic alter-
natives are not mentioned by the authors.

References

Atmanspacher, H., Römer, H., & Walach, H. (2002). Weak quantum theory: Complementarity and entan-
glement in physics and beyond. Foundations of Physics, 32, 379–406.
Filk, T., & Römer, H. (2011). Generalized quantum theory: Overview and latest developments. Axiomathes,
21, 211–220. doi:10.1007/s10516-010-9136-6
72 I��o�m���o��l P�� – Comme���

Ko��w��h�, K., & Lu���ou, W. v. (1982). P���m���� ���o�m���o� ��� �o��l������l ����em�. I� R. T��ppl
(E�.), Cybernetics and systems research (pp. 191–197). Am��e���m: No��h Holl���.
Lu���ou, W. v. (2015a). The Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI). In E. C. May, & S. B. Marwaha (Eds.),
Extrasensory perception: Support, skepticism, and science. Theories and the future of the field (pp.
221–242). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Lucadou, W. v. (2015b). The Correlation-Matrix Method (CMM): A new light upon the repeatability prob-
lem of parapsychology. Paper for the 58th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association
and 39th SPR International Annual Conference. 2015 July 16–19. University of Greenwich, Great-
Britain. Journal of Parapsychology, 79, 145–146.
Lucadou, W. v. (in press). Homoeopathy and the action of meaning: A theoretical approach. Journal of
Scientific Exploration (submitted for publication).
Lucadou, W. v., Römer, H. & Walach, H. (2007). Synchronistic phenomena as entanglement correlations in
Generalized Quantum Theory. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14(4), 50–74.
Nahm, M. (2019). Assessing the problem space of precognition: Can it be the only form of psi? A com-
mentary on the multiphasic model of Informational Psi. Zeitschrift für Anomalistik, 19, 57–67.

You might also like