Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
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.
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
ft
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
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
•
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.
Except 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 likely
I
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 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
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
button that would
be selected
in the next or even subsequent
trial.
I
definitely felt
that
if
I
could consistently separate clairvoyant from
precognitive dimensions of identical cues,
that
I could substantially
increase the accuracy of overall
scores.
The cues were not always consistent
in their presence and meaning.
For example,
I might be obtaining good results with the use of tension/
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 my perceptual cues.
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.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
•
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 ’rpret 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-
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4