Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-(io787R000700090017-0
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE
OF THE FOUR-STATE
ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR
*
The following notes are based solely upon my experience and
I there-
fore make no claim that they are generalizable to other persons.
Since
I am still learning about ESP phenomena,
I am confident
that additional
,
work in this area will expand,
modify,
and refine the perceptual processes
discussed below.
While
I have tried to describe these experiential
processes with as much precision as
possible,
the use of seemingly precise
language should not leave
the impression that the perceptions themselves
were equally precise.
To
the contrary,
I
found these perceptions
to
be
delicate,
transient and ephemeral—and yet,
at the same time—and somewhat
surprisingly—unmistakably real.
1.
Perceptual Processes
Working with the ESP machine proved to be a venture into unfamiliar
perceptual territory which functioned according to new and different
rules.
It took some time
(five hours or
so with
the ESP machine)
to begin
to learn not only which perceptual processes would work but,
equally
important which would not work.
There was clearly
a learning process
in finding those delicate and subtle internal cues
that would allow me
to make perceptually based choices.
After approximately 1000 trials
with the ESP machine,
five dominant perceptual modes emerged.
Subsequent
*
Prepared by
.
a policy research analyst at
SRI,
who was
a high-scoring subject
(p < 10-b
)
with the four-state electronic
rand
„
^
*
stimulus generator.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090017-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-q0787R000700090017-0
work with
the machine seemed
to essentially expand and refine these
perceptual processes
that emerged
initially.
•
.
t
•
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'
• l
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
f*
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
'A
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090017-0
-
——
—
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-Q6787R000700090017-0
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
.»•
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
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-O0787ROOO7OOO9OO17-O
conversely as
a sense of
"fullness."
To describe this process
further,
it felt analogous
to vector analysis
in physics where,
in sorting out
competing tugs and pulls,
one
finds
the "dominant" vector;
i.e.,
the one
with the strongest "pull" or the one that
best "balances
the other, vector
tensions.
Figure A-l illustrates
this phenomenon.
Although the tension/vector cues were very useful and among the
most reliable of all the cues,
I
found them
to be
at
times quite mis-
leading.
The source of confusion stemmed
from the role of
time as
a
variable rather than a constant in extrasensory reality
(discussed
in
more detail under~ section "Comments on Perceptual Processes
).
If my
assumptions as
to the temporal nature of my perceptions did not
fit with
the actual nature of those perceptions,
then the perceptions were quite
misleading.
(Recall that precognition refers here to
a button that will
be selected
in the future—typically
the next trial)
.
The nine-cell
matrix shown
in Figure. A-2 may clarify the complexity of the perceptual
process,
the need for discriminating awareness and the possibility
for
error.
Out of nine possible combinations of the assumed/actual nature
of perceptions,
only three are matched or congruent and yield accurate
understandings.
Each of these primary cases
is discussed below:
•
Clairvoyant—Here the feeling which allows sorting and
selection is like that described
in Figure A-l.
•
Precognitive—The
feeling,
sorting,
and selection is like
that described in Figure A-l with clairvoyance;
the primary
difference being
a shift
in
the time dimension
to
refer,
not
to the present
target of the machine,
but
to
the one to be
•
selected next.
To act on this perception
I would press the
pass button to bring the future
into
the present and then
press the button that corresponded to my precognitive per-
•s
ceptions.
•
Clairvoyant
and Precognitive—The perception
is of
a pattern
of buttons,
distributed through
time,
that are and will
be
selected by the machine— the "pattern
usually consisted of
two
to three buttons.
Again,
the
time variable was most
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090017-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-0$787R000700090017-0
FIGURE A-1
ILLUSTRATION OF TENSION/VECTOR ANALYSIS
IN OPERATION
With
Button C
being
the one
selected
using
these
cues.
ACTUAL
NATURE OF PERCEPTIONS
ASSUMED
NATURE OF
PERCEPTIONS
FIGURE A- 2
MATRIX SHOWING CORR EOT. PERCEPTION AND MISPERCEPTION
IN THE USE
OF TENSION/VECTOR CUES VIA THE INTERFACE BETWEEN ASSUMED AND
ACTUAL NATURE OF PERCEPTIONS
Clairvoyant
Precognitive
Clairvoyant
and
Precognitive
Clairvoyant
Correct
Perception
Misperception
Misperception
Pre cognitive
Misperception
’
Correct
Perception
Misperception
Clairvoyant
and
Precognitive
Misperception
Misperception
Correct
Perception
SA-2613-22
'
r
t
*
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090017-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-0(f787R000700090017-0
troublesome—typically with greater difficulty in determining
the order
in which
the buttons would appear as targets and
lesser difficulty
in determining which buttons were targets.
c
-
:
- -Confusion and error would, arise when
I
assumed
the tension/vector
perceptions were clairvoyant when
in fact
they were
(say)
clairvoyant
and precognitive.
To. explain how this
felt,
refer back to Figure A-l.
If the actual sequence of correct answers were Buttons B and
D,
and if
I -were assuming the perceptions were clairvoyant
only,
then it was not
uncommon to have
the perception that
the intervening button
(C) was
the
correct choice.
The rationale for this perception was
that
it felt like
a balance point between Buttons B (present target)
and D
(next target).
In retrospect,
when
I
am more rationally aware of the room for
error
in the use of this cue mechanism,
I am somewhat surprised as
to
how useful
it was
in operation.
It should
be clear from the preceding descriptions that selections
were made by
a variety of processes which were used sometimes in isolation
and oftentimes
in combination.
A typical sequence in the selection
process was:
(1) Check for "direct knowing"
cues,
if not
there,
then
(2) Use "tension/vector"
cues,
then
(3) Make final selection with "closure
cues."
'•2 .
Comments on Perceptual Processes
Rather than work rapidly,
I
chose to work deliberately,
consciously,
and therefore slowly.
I would typically take five to thirty seconds
to select
a button—enough time
to have
a firm and conscious sense of
my internal cues
and what
I
thought they meant.
The typical sequence
would be as follows:
•
Clear mind and become quiet
•
Concentrate internal awareness
"A;
''
at
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090017-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-0^787R000700090017-0
•
Observe various cues
•
Rationally interact with cues
to sort them out
•
Select
a button and
press
it
-
-•*.
• —
•
Integrate feedback from response
.
.
•
Clear mind and become quiet.
rExcept during "pattern recognition/’ when all buttons
seemed equally
accessible,
I
found that
the
top
two buttons on the machine were much
more accessible than the bottom
two.
Three plausible explanations emerge
to account for this.
First
(and least
-1-ikely- 1 think)
is
a psychological
„
predisposition against
the bottom two buttons—perhaps because of the
color of the buttons or because of the pictures associated with the tar-
gets.
Second
is
the possibility that
the circuitry of
the ESP machine
in some way favors
the top two buttons or obscures the bottom two.
Third
(and most plausible to me)
is the possibility that
to the extent
I used
the
tension/vector
cue,
then the bottom two buttons would
be without
a vector below them—making it more difficult
to "bracket" the bottom two
buttons with this perceptual, process.
In later phases of
the experiment,
I was more able to access
the bottom two buttons and this seemed to cor-
respond with increasing use of the "pattern recognition" cues and the
decreasing use of tension/vector cues.
The longer
I worked with the ESP machine,
the more apparent
it be-
came that,
in an extrasensory perception reality,
time becomes
fluid.
In other words,
although the experiment was designed to test clairvoyance
(selecting the current
target)
only,
I
found that
the perceptual cues
would oftentimes
be equally applicable to precognition
(selecting
a future
target
usually the next one).
Therefore,
making
a correct selection
required doing
two
things;
first,
finding the correct
"pattern" of buttons
that would
be randomly selected
by
the machine
(typically
the pattern
consisted of
two
to
three buttons)
and
second,
associating a
time component
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090017-0
/V^>fi >
y A, qy
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-0(f787R000700090017-0
with the buttons
in that pattern.
Stated differently,
the
same cues
discussed above held equally well
for precognition or for clairvoyance
so the problem of making
a selection was compounded
by the additional
difficulty of having to determine whether
a perceptual
cue was associated
}) with the button that had already been selected by
the machine or the
-v
l>'
button that would
be selected
in the next or even subsequent trial.
I
Xv
hX
L/
x
definitely felt
that
if
1 could consistently separate clairvoyant from
ji)
^
Prec°gnitive dimensions of identical cues,
that
I could substantially
0^
i
"a-s
increase the accuracy of overall
scores.
(FWiP
/ vy
/ For example,
I might be obtaining good results with the use of tension/
The cues were not always consistent in their presence and meaning.
&
fyA
vAA
i x
vector cues and then find them becoming ambiguous,
with a commensurate
decline in my score.
Then
I would rely more heavily upon other cues.
Or,
the cues might work well
for clairvoyant perceptions for a while but
then shift
to operate for precognition—then
I would -have
to "recalibrate"
myself to
the cue mechanisms.
So,
it was
a fluid,
dynamic perceptual
process which required flexibility and patience.
Highly significant
scores and perceptions seemed
to
go in spurts of ten trials or
so,
then
I would fall back to a chance level until
I could resynchronize myself
ith
the machine
and
"the character of mv
onnc
I m
r
bTt
jii
.
i L
1 [ini
i
.
jmmm Jj
frg. machine
an d the character of my percept
r
<
^ u
i
"
o-
y»
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090017-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-0(f787R000700090017-0
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
:
'
•
-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
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090017-0