Approved For Resease 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-0@787R000200150003-3 | processes ‘for perception and oftentimes, rational or semirational knowledge - ‘processes to interpret those perceptions. This is not to say that the oo -" ‘yaticnal componerit is absolutely necessary, but it did seem to be useful “gor me. In any event, since the experiment covers thousands of trials ~ (button selections) it required thousands of translations from one knowledge " ‘nde 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, 4a 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... ; aa, r Lawrence LeShan, The Medium, The Mystic, and the Physicist (Viking Press, New York, 1974). ; “* ‘ . . . Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150003-3
ae ee, LL re Aa me! ML. LI. ML Approved For Rejease 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-GQ787R000200150003-3 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 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 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 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 . 7 ‘Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150003-3 ee ern ener ne ae
Approved For Rgjease 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-6@787R000200150003-3 i. development _ that actually occurs. The foregoing is consistent with my impression that, or ated Fhe ae ee ame tenia HeLa i te te nN ot “& Dees obs =~ not reflect. the : e my scores, ‘though statistically significant, still did a actual. amount.of learning that had occurred. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150003-3
Approved For Rgjease 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-€Q787R000200150003-3 5. Supportive Mind Set ; PO REET Se There emerged, after a time, what seemed to be a series of pre- conditions to ‘good ‘performance in terms ‘of mind. set. These were: e A high level of motivation seemed essential. The task of pushing one of four buttons over thousands of trials could be rather ‘boring-~enough to allow one's attention to wander. With each trial, it was necessary to have a high level of 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 concerned } with the success or failure associated with each selection. If I became "attached" to the outcome of a previous trial, ‘Whether a success or a failure, it could divert a significant amount of attention from the present trial. Therefore, each trial must be 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 important. I noticed the most substantial fluctuation in ; my scores when I was emotionally stressed (angry, hassled, ‘ee oot and so on). . e Feeling rested physically also seemed important. This was particularly true if I were to work with the machine for an 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--was also important. A corollary to this was that I found I did better when I "always liked myself" even if I did poorly. Self-deprecation | seemed to be a sure way of rapidly diminishing the accuracy of the perceptual processes. 6. The Environment 4 t 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-RDP96-00787R000200150003-3