|
|
|
|
Evolutionary Theory Research on Intentionality and Dream Telepathy
The first study that Schliz discussed was conducted at the Maimonides Medical Center in the 1960s and 70s, which looked at the effects of dream telepathy. Conducted by Stanley Krippner and others, this study was similar to the Ganzfeld studies that took place in the early twentieth century. The foundation of the experiment was to wake someone up out of REM (rapid eye movement) sleep in one room, while in another room, someone would be looking at a picture. They found that the person who was dreaming often had incorporated images from the person looking at a picture in the other room. A similar experiment was conducted at the Psychophysical Research Laboratory in Princeton by Charles Honorton, who also followed the Ganzfeld procedures. This time, however, one person would not be sleeping but rather had their senses restricted (sight, sound, etc.) in order to facilitate the ability to pick-up on subtler information. Someone would simultaneously be in the other room watching a video clip. According to this study, there was a 33% success rate of describing accurately the imagery that was being watched in the other room. In response to these studies, Schlitz has conducted similar experiments of her own also using the Ganzfeld protocols. In one study at Princeton, Schlitz had students from the Julliard School of the Arts in New York come to her laboratory. While average populations would generally score a 33% success rate in these experiments, the students of Julliard scored 50%. Classical musicians, in particular, stood out as strong participants. They scored as high as 75% in their ability to report images accurately. Interestingly, Schlitz has a colleague who conducted a similar study in Scotland for her Ph.D. thesis. She too sampled artists and creative-types in her experiment and likewise found that classical musicians stood out. In order to further confirm this classical musician phenomenon, Schlitz is currently conducting a study at Stanford along the same lines. Moving to another field of research, Schlitz then presented on other studies that are looking at the nature of human intentionality and its ability to physically affect others. This study grew out of Schlitz’ familiarity with reports from various indigenous cultures that often have spoken about the affect of the mind on the physical health of others. In one study, subjects were connected to a set of sensors that measure galvanic skin response in one room, while in another room someone intermittently would intentionally send thoughts to that person. Schlitz pointed out that the experiment was randomized to ensure that there was no pattern to the sending of thoughts. Although not every experiment showed results, when all of the trials were averaged out, there was a significant finding that revealed a greater galvanic skin response during the periods when thoughts were being intentionally sent. In another study conducted with Stephen LaBerge at Stanford, Schlitz looked at the nature of remote staring. The experiment was set up so that in one room a person was being monitored by a video camera, while in another room someone intermittently stared at that person through the video. Thus, the two participants were completely shielded from each other’s sense perception. Again, the person being stared at showed a higher galvanic skin response and greater autonomic nervous activity during the periods when stared at. What makes this last set of results even more interesting was what happened next. To ensure the validity of her data, Schlitz enrolled the assistance of a skeptical researcher from England, named Richard Wiseman. Following all of the same protocols that Schlitz did, Wiseman did not get any significant results. To see if he had done anything different, Schlitz went to England and did the experiment together with Wiseman. What they found is that the subjects who did the experiment with Schlitz got results, while Wiseman’s did not. These findings were repeated in a second study conducted in Schlitz’ lab in Califonia. Altogether, this has lead Schlitz to postulate that there is a significant “experimenter effect” that is occurring. She believes that it is likely that her own openness and positivity, in contrast to Wiseman’s skepticism, does in fact influence the results that they have gotten. Even Wiseman now believes there is something significant going on in the studies, although he is not certain what it is yet. One idea Schlitz has for the next round of experiments is to have Wiseman interview and set up the experiment with one group of subjects and then at the last minute have Schlitz do the actual testing, and vice versa. This way she can test to see if it is the preparation and setting of expectations that is creating the effect or if it occurs during the actual testing itself. Overall, Schlitz feels that the results from these experiments is that the new scientific paradigm needs to recognize that the ideal of pure objectivity in scientific research only works part of the time. What we need to begin to recognize is that our human consciousness, and our intention as well, has a significant influence upon the physical world. Our minds are more engaged with the world around us than our current paradigm allows for. Schlitz wants to continue to work with the so-called anomalies of our current scientific paradigm so that she can lay the groundwork for the next worldview. In response to her presentation, Richard Baker Roshi pointed out that in the Zen tradition we share minds. We all participate in the larger Mind, and we can grant permission to tune into each other, as was happening in the experiments where one person was picking up the images another person was watching on TV. Baker also mentioned that he feels it is crucial in Zen practice that the teacher believe in the potentiality of the student for that student to be a successful meditator. That very belief on the part of the teacher actually has an influence on the student’s practice. At this point in the discussion, Stuart Kauffman shared a poignant story that supports much of what Schlitz is trying to demonstrate in her research. Kauffman related that several years ago while living in Philadelphia, he had a striking image of his own daughter walking down the middle of a road and being struck by a car that crushed her. It was a stunning image that stopped him in his tracks and made him very concerned for his daughter. About a month later around the time of Halloween, his daughter died in a way that was strikingly similar to the image that he had seen. To this day, Kauffman is not sure how to explain this shocking experience. Was it clairvoyant or telepathic? He is not sure. But what Kauffman did offer is that time might have some kind of structure that we have not even begun to understand. Kauffman’s story seemed to open up the floor to some wilder explorations. Jenny Wade speculated openly and intuitively that if the quantum realm reveals non-local phenomenon, then perhaps our brains are capable of being quantum processors. We are capable of picking up a small piece of quantum information and then turning that into an image, just as Kauffman had seen the image of his daughter even though it had not happened yet. Kauffman too offered a open speculation about the nature of consciousness. Starting with the idea of quantum decoherence (meaning the collapse of the wave function into its classical particle state), Kauffman asked what it would be like to have a system that simultaneously decoheres and propagates coherent quantum phenomenon? In other words, how do the quantum possibilities become actual (the collapse of the wave function)? Somehow our measurement collapses the wave. Our minds affect matter. Kauffman then put out an open question: Can a quantum coherent phenomenon that is decohering give rise to qualia (consciousness)? In response, Tony Rothman stated that decoherence does not tell us what the results will be. Something will go from the quantum state to the classical state, but we do not know what it will be like. Furthermore, George Sudarshan noted that in the current paradigm of physics there is still no category for human intention and choice.
|
|
|