Approved For Retease 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-0«r87R0002001 50003-3
I tend to agree with the notion that
it might be more appropriate
to call these processes "extraconceptual perception" rather than "extra-
sensory perception."
The perceptual cues were definitely present and
they had sensory dimensions even though they do not
fit into "our traditional
sensory categories.
Just
'where" and "how" these sensory. cues were present
is not clear to me—but these are essentially conceptual rather than
sensory
issues'.
~
3.
Problems
in Perceptual Translation
-
.
'
-
.
•
.
...
•*,
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
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50003-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-0GT87R0002001 50003-3
processes for perception and oftentimes,
rational or semirational knowledge
processes
to interpret 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 inter-
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.
.
Lawrence LeShan,
The Medium.
The Mystic,
and
the Physicist
(Viking Press,
New York,
1974)
.
J
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50003-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-W87R0002001 50003-3
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
^
[s
of awareness to another.
Is
it possible,
then,
that our means for testing
!
ESP may not be highly congruent with the nature of the phenomenon,
and
this may inherently reduce the significance of the test results that
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
i
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 imperfect
j*ut 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
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50003-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0
: CIA-RDP96-W87R0002Q01 50003-3
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-RDP96-00787R0002001 50003-3