Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
TABLE 4
; PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
Personnel #1-3,
subjects;
#4
-
6 learners/controls; #7-8,
experimenters.
V
q?
<0?
",
bv
<b
<b
\
<b
o,
g RI
O
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
Client
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001 rO
.
.
..
_
with remote stimuli was observed as in previous experiments, but essentially
nn'lv
i n the right hemisphere
(average alpha reduction
16 percent in right
hemisphere,
2 percent
in
left,
during the 16-Hzi trials as compared with
Jj
C
the no-flash trials).
The trial-to-trial variation
is
larger than in
previous work,
however,
due to use of
a wider-band filter for the alpha
,fj^
band,
and therefore the system is being modified before further work,
(b) Physiological Correlates
of Remote Viewing
In this series of experiments
a subject takes part in a remote
viewing protocol as described in Section A.l.
(c)
(Remote Viewing_with
Feedback):.
In this case,
however,
the subject
is connected to
ths^
physiological recording instruments
of the smaller
s emi-port able
four-channel polygraph described above.
Baseline and experimental
-tag
——
111
111
'
measures
of
the following observables are made:
1) Galvanic skin response
(GSR)
is recorded using finger electrodes taped in place on second and
fourth finger;
2) Blood volume/pulse height
is recorded using a
ref lected-light plethysmograph;
3) Unfiltered EEG
is recorded from the
right occipital region;
4) Percent -time
in alpha
(8-12 Hz)
is recorded
on the fourth channel.
The alpha filter is
a sharp cut-off digital type
with essentially zero-pass outside the prescribed bandpass
limits.
During the course of
an experiment the subject
is asked to describe
his perceptions
as to the nature of the remote target.
His
comments are
tape recorded and noted on the polygraph,
along with the time.
A
correlation
is
then attempted between those descriptions which are found
to be uniquely correct and accurate,
and the corresponding sections
of
polygraph recording
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
used to measure magnetic fields originating from processes within the
human body,
such
as action currents
in the heart which produce magneto-
cardiograms.
The sensitive tip of the instrument
is
simply placed near
the body area of interest.
In our application,
however,
the subject
is
located
at
a distance
of four meters from the gradiometer probe.
As
a result the Subject
is
located in
a zone of relative insensitivity;
e.g.,
standing up,
sitting
down,
leaning forward,
and arm and
leg movements produce no signals.
Prom this
location the subject
is
asked,
as
a mental task,
to affect the
probe.
The results
of his efforts
are available
to him as feedback from
three
sources*,
an oscilloscope,
a panel meter,
and a chart recorder,
the latter providing
a permanent record.
After initial difficulty with the instrument due to RP interference
effects, which required modificaton by the manufacturer,
the gradiometer
was available for use by the contractor from June
10 to June
21.
Some
RF interference effects remained,
due in part to environmental proximity
to other instrumentation,
but the device was usable nonetheless.
Protocol for subject participation was instituted
as follows.
The subject removes
all metal objects,
and the effects of body movements
are checked
at the start
of each experimental period.
The subject
then
works with the machine
in
a learning mode,
observing effects being produced
if
any,
via feedback from the instrumentation.
Once satisfied that
a
possibility exists of producing effects
on command under experimenter
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
work with
the machine seemed to essentially expand and refine these
perceptual processes that emerged
initially.
Direct Knowing
(Used approximately
to
15 percent of
the
time)—This
perceptual cue came
as
a
"gift"
that
I did not have
to. work for.
This
is not
to say that this
"cue" was always right,
but when there was
a
direct perception of
the appropriate response unmediated by any of the
other cues described
below,
my chances of being right seemed quite high
(say 75 percent of
the time).
Internally,
this was simply the feeling
that
I
should push one
specific button and the knowing was almost
immediate.
If
it were not immediate
then,
typically,
one of
the other
cues would
be used.
"Closure Cues"
(Used perhaps
75 percent of the
time)—This cue
manifested itself
in
a variety of ways;
a sense of "fullness" with respect
to
a particular button,
an internal anticipation of
the
bell ringing,
a
sense of
"hardness" or "firmness" and a sense of being "locked
into" the
correct;
response,.
The validity of
this cue could be tested
by acting
and thinking
as
if
I were going
to push
a particular button and
then
noting the extent to which these "closure cues" became present.
This
sense of active intentionality—both physically and psychologically
seems
important
in that
it allowed me
to
sort out many real from imagined
perceptions.
Also,
this cue often gave a kind of veto power;
i.e.,
it
did not necessarily assure me as to
the right answer but
it would tend
to
tell me
if
I had picked the wrong
one,
i.e.,
I would not experience
the aforementioned
cues.
Pattern Recognition
(Negligible use
initially,
but then used
approximately
75 percent of
the time during Phase
IV)—Although
I used
this perceptual mode very infrequently during the initial stages of the
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
j
experiment,
it emerged rather naturally toward the end.
This was similar
to
the "direct knowing" but not isolated
to
a single button;
rather,
there
was
a
sense of the next
two
to
three buttons that would
be the correct
responses.
These perceptual cues were obtained
in
a
less objective/
rational way and
in more of
a meditative
state,
highly concentrated but
without specific
focus on a particular button.
Interestingly,
in using
this perceptual process,
I was
able
to go somewhat faster and have greater
access
to all
of
the buttons
in an equivalent way
(see the second point
under Section
2 next page)
.
Thus,
this mode had the advantage of loosening
.1
habituated perceptual patterns but
it also made selections
less amenable
to conscious control
and testing.
This process proved to be either highly
accurate or highly inaccurate.
Accuracy seemed to
be
a function of
the
degree to which
I could become synchronized with
the evolving pattern of
machine
selected choices—-and
it was easy to get out of phase/sequence
with
this pattern.
Rational Guessing
(Used approximately
5 percent
of
the
time)
Although
I virtually never did try
to superimpose some rationally predicted pattern
upon
the
random,
machine selection of buttons,
I would sometimes temper
my selections
(very seldom
for the better)
by noting that one button had
come up too often
for it
to be likely on the next
trial
or,
conversely,
it had come up
so seldom that
it should
be given special consideration
as
a likely possibility on the next
trial.
Again,
although this was
a
tempting strategy,
I
found that random processes were not amenable to
rational anticipations and my rational guesses seemed often
to
be wrong.
Tension/Vector Analysis
(Used approximately 75 percent of
the time)
Here the cue was manifested as
a sense of tension(s)
pulling
in one
direction or another with
the selection buttons
as
the
locus
for that
tension.
The cue was also manifested as
a feeling of
emptiness
and
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
3.
Problems
in Perceptual Translation
— —
A basic problem in using the ESP machine was not
so much the obtaining
of perceptual
data as
the translating of those data into sufficient
information to allow the action of selecting the correct button.
While
the act itself
is
so simple as
to
be trivial,
the information processes
(gathering,
filtering,
dynamically translating) underlying that act
seemed
to me very substantial.
It
is within this unseen and unrecorded
portion of the ESP testing process that most of
the "action'
takes place.
From this vantage point
I would
like to suggest two impediments that
might partially account
for relatively low scores.
First,
I
am still not
fluent in the "language" of extrasensory
perceptions—analogously,
it
is
like hearing many separate commands
in
Russian
(or another unfamiliar language),
each time spoken
in slightly
different ways and with different
intonations and inflections.
The
call
for action may be clearly heard
but the translation of that command
into operational reality
is an imprecise process until
the language can
be better understood.
Second
is the problem created
by shifting back and forth between
rational and intuitive knowledge processes during the course of the
experiment.
In selecting
a single button
I would use intuitive knowledge
processes
for perception and oftentimes,
rational or semirational knowledge
processes
to
in
J nrpret those perceptions.
This
is not
to
say that the
rational component
is absolutely necessary,
but
it did seem to be useful
for me.
In any
event,
since the experiment covers thousands of trials
(button selections)
it required thousands of translations from one knowledge
mode to another.
Although the rational mode did seem helpful for mter-
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
pretation,
it was also "costly"
(i.e.,
by shifting to
a rational mode,
I could be thrown slightly off-balance in maintaining contact with the
subtle and delicate intuitive processes—thereby introducing an additional
element of ambiguity and
error).
Related to
the problem of differential knowledge processes
is the
problem of having
to translate between states of consciousness
in order
to act upon extrasensory perceptions.
LeShan* analyzed the experiential
properties of what he has termed Clairvoyant Reality and found that while
certain events
(such as
telepathy,
precognition,
and clairvoyance)
are
"normal"
to
this
reality,
certain other events
(such as being able to
take
directed action toward a goal)
are "paranormal."
For me this was manifested
experientially as
the feeling that when
I obtain extrasensory perceptions,
I am
so much a part
of,
and immersed
in the Clairvoyant Reality that in
order to
act,
I must causally separate myself from
the Clairvoyant Reality
and enter the dualistic,
subject/object Reality that LeShan terms "Sensory
Reality."
Encouragingly,
the "pattern recognition" process
seemed to
offer
a means of both perception and action,
which did not require the
same degree of transfer between these subtly different states of con-
sciousness.
The preceding points suggest
that one difficulty in testing and
assessing extrasensory perception may be the apparent need
to translate
it
into an output
that
is not isomorphic with the perceptions themselves
a person must translate
the perceptual "language"
to
a familiar
form,
across rational and intuitive dimensions,
and relatedly,
from one state
of awareness
to another.
Is
it possible,
then,
that our means for testing
Lawrence LeShan,
The Medium,
The Mystic,
and
the Physicist
(Viking Press,
New York,
1974)
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
ESP may not be highly congruent „ith the nature of the phenomenon,
and
this may inherently reduce the significance of the test results
can
be obtained?
»
4.
Two Views of the ESP Process
I
suspect
that,
to an external observer,
my work with the ESP machine
might appear as
fairly consistent scoring slightly above chance-the
logical inference could then be made that
a small amount of extrasensory
perception was mixed with a substantial amount of pure guessing.
While
the scoring data may support this
inference,
my awareness of the input
process does not.
Consider the following:
on the
first
run,
a person
could get six "hits" out of twenty-five
by pushing buttons at random:
then
on the second run,
he could get six "hits" out of twenty-five by using
extrasensory perception.
To the statistician who looks only at the output,
the scores are identical-they are no more than would occur by chance-
and the logical inference would be that the input processes were identical
or at least very similar.
However alike they might appear externally,
internally they could
feel like quite different runs.
In the second
instance,
the chance level of scoring would be the result of an
but operative extrasensory perception process.
Obviously,
then,
measure-
ment of ESP by statistical output alone obscures the nature and extent
of the extrasensory
input.
A relatively modest score on the ESP machine
can-I think—substantially understate
the amount of learning and perceptual
development that actually occurs.
The foregoing
is consistent with my
impression that my
scores,
though statistically
significant,
still did
not reflect
the actual amount of learning that had occurred.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
/
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0
5 ,
Supportive Mind Set
There emerged,
after a
time,
what seemed to be a series of pre-
conditions
to good performance
in terms of mind
set.
These were.
.
A high level of motivation seemed essential.
The task of
pushing one of
four buttons over thousands of trials could
he rather boring-enough to allow one's attention to wander.
With each trial,
it was necessary
to have a high
e
motivation
to ensure adequate
levels of concentration and
focused attention.
.
Although motivation,
concentration,
and attention were
important,
it was also necessary not to be too “nc“"
with the success or failure associated with each selection.
If
I became "attached" to
the outcome of a previous
tri
,
whether
a success or
a failure,
it could divert a significant
amount of attention from the present trial.
trial must
bo separate/fresh/clear/unconditioned by the actual
success or failure of previous trials and separate from the
imagined successes or failures of upcoming trials.
.' A relatively
stable,
undisturbed emotional state also seems
Crtllt!
I noticed the most substantial fluctuation in
my scores when
I was emotionally stressed
(angry,
hassle
,
and
so on)
.
.
Feeling rested physically also seemed important
•
This. was
particularly true
if
I were to work with the machine for
hour or two—as this required
a substantial amount of energy.
.
A positive attitude—a feeling that
I could do well and could
always score at least at the chance level-.as also important
.
A corollary to this was that
I found
I did better when
I
"always liked myself" even
if
I did poorly.
seemed to be a sure way of rapidly diminishing the accura y
of the perceptual processes.
6. The Environment
There were attributes of the surrounding environment that seemed
to enhance the accuracy of my selections.
The more significant factors
seemed to be the following.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00020001-0