toe tof Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4 CPYRGH 112 J Two recent examples, one involving cancer research (74) and the other involving parapsychology (57), serve to remind us of the importance of cross-validation in the assessment of any experimental finding. In both cases, it should be added, the fraudulent acts were detected in-house, by the researchers themselves. The point is that in the final analysis an expceri- mental finding is of value and is to be taken seriously only to the extent that it leads to further inquiry. To regard any experiment as an end in itself is to remove it from the domain of experimental science. It is obvious that hypothetical construct, such as ESP, cannot be validated by any isolated experiment, no matter how well contralled it might be. Inde. pendent replication is a necessary prerequisite. The claim that pst phenomena operate outside the framework of physical probability has been a major source of a priori arguments against acceptance of ESP. It has been suggested that to accept ESP requires the rejection of physics. This is absurd, and it is worth noting that such arguments have usually been advanced and defended by psychologists rather than by physicists. : The debate over the incompatibility of physics and ESP has been conducted almost exclusively within the framework of nineteenth-century deterministic physics, wherein the ultimate constituent of physical reality was still believed to be solid matter. Inasmuch as modern microphysics has exorcised the material out of matter and deals with processes which on our macrophysical level of sensory perception are every bit as erratic and anomalous as ESP, the a priori claim that ESP violates specifiable laws of physics can no longer be considered to be of more than historical interest. ESP and other psi phenomena, while no longer incompatible with physics, are not yet accounted for by physics; but then, neither are the more familiar processes of memory and conscious experience. Indeed, the transformation of “raw feels” into conscious experience is no less a problem for the neurophysiologists of today than it was for the speculative philos- ophers of classical antiquity. Sir John Eccles, among others, has repeatedly warned, “We should not pretend that consciousnes§ is not a mystery.” The ESP controversy illustrates several features of the paradigmatic view of science developed by Thomas Kulin (28). Normal science, according to Kuhn, is essentially a clean-up operation, constrained by a broad theoretical framework, or paradigm, which defines the boundaries of legiti- mate inquiry. Paradigms are scientific world views which provide coherence and structure and determine the types of questions to be posed of nature, as well as the manner in which answers are sought. Normal science is thus a process of paradigm-articulation, rather than of idiscovery. Within the paradigm structure of normal science, observations which conflict with Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R0031001 20001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4 CPYRGHT Paranormal Communication / “Error Some Place!' the paradigm are seldom made; anomalies are ignored. When the anomalies become sufficiently persistent that they can no longer be ignored, they are hotly disputed. Eventually, a new paradigm is (entatively erected which attracts a group of adherents, and a period of crisis ensues which Kuhn calls a paradigm clash. In this review I have focused at some length on the period of the 1930s, not because it provides the best available evidence for ESP or the best understanding of the processes underlying its operation—it does neither, but rather because it was during this period that the major substantive methodological issues were raised and to a large extent con- sensually resolved. Since 1940, well over 10,000 journal pages devoted to parapsychological research have been published, and at least 250 experi- mental studies have been reported. The methodological foundations of the research have gradually diversified, enlarging and enriching the scope of inquiry and providing a basis for morc sophisticated study. Automated testing equipment has replaced card-guessing in forced-choice ESP tasks, and quantitative methods have been developed for the objective assessment of psi interactions in nonguessing tasks. Psychophysiological techniques, permitting determination of psi-optimal organismic states, have been in- troduced and utilized in conjunction with experimental methods more closely approximating the conditions under which psi interactions occur in vivo. More important, parapsychological investigators have to a large extent shifted their attention away from the “proof-oriented” approach, which can only reaffirm the presence of anomaly, toward systematic at- tempts to identify the antecedent conditions necessary for the occurrence and detection of psi interactions, the delineation of Positive attributes, and the study of individual differences. Only through the pursuit of such “process-oriented” research can we ever hope to achieve the goals of control, assured replicability (or at least predictability), and eventual understanding. REFERENCES 1. American Psychological Association. “ESP Symposium at the American Psychological Association.” Journal of Parapsychology 2, 1938, Pp. 247-272, 2. Bell, M. “Francis Bacon, Pioneer in Parapsychology.” International Journal of Para. psychology 6, 1964, pp. 199-208. - Bender, H. “The Case of Wga K.: Report of a Phenomenon of Unusual Perception.” Journal of Parapsychology 2, 1938, pp. 5-22. - Bozarth, J. D., and R. R. Roberts. “Signifying Significant Significance.” American Psychologist 27, 1972, pp. 774-775. - Bridgman, P. W. “Probability, Logic, and ESP.” Science 12%. 1956, pp. 15-17. » Camp, B. H. “Statement under ‘Notes. Journal of Parapsychology 1, 1987, p. 805. . Carpenter, C. R., and H. R. Phalen. “An Experiment in Card Guessing.” Journal of Parapsychology 1, 1937, pp. 31-43. . Crumbaugh, J. C. An Experimental Study of Exira-sensory Perception. M.A. Thesis, 1938, Southern Methodist University Library. y Feller, W. “Statistical Aspects of ESP.” Journal of Parapsychology 4, 1940, pp. 271-298. 0. Fisher, R. A. Letter to J. B. Rhine, cited in (50), p. 45. I , 1 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA- RDP96- 00788R009100120001- CPYRGHT Journal of Communication, Winter 1975 il¢ . Gibson, E. P. “A Study of Comparative Performance in Several ESP Procedures.” Journal of Parapsychology V, 1937, pp. 264-275. . Greenwood, J. A. Analysis of a Large Chance Control Series of ESP Data." Journal of Parapsychology 2, 1988, pp. 138-146. . Gurney, E., F. Myers, and F. Podmore, Phantasms a the Living (2 vols.). London: Trubner and Co., 1886. . Hansel, C. E. M. “Experiments on Telepathy in Children.” British Journal of Statistical Psychology 18, 1960, pp. 175-178. . Hansel, C. E. M. ESP—A Scientific Evaluation. New York: Scribners, 1966. . Hansen, F. C. C., and A. Lehmann. “Ober Unwillk dirliches Fliistern.” Philosophical Studies 17, 1895, pp. 471-530. . Heinlein, C. P., and J. H. Heinlein. “Critique of the Premises and Statistical Meth. odology of Parapsychology.” Journal of Psychology §, 1988, pp. 135-148. . Herbert, C. V. C. “Experiment in Extra-sensory Perc eption. * Journal of the Society for Psychical Research $0, 1938, pp. 215-218. . Humphrey, B. M., and J. A. Clark. “A Comparison of Clairvoyant and Chance Match- ing.” Journal of Parapsychology 2, 1938, pp. 31-37. . Huntington, E. V. “Is Jt Chance or ESP?" American Scholar 7, 1938, pp. 201-210. 21. Kellogg. C. E. “Dr. J. B. Rhine and Extra-sensory Perception. * Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 81, 1986, pp. 190-193. . Kellogg, C. E. “New Evidence (?) for Extra-sensory Perception." Scientific Monthly, 1987, pp.-381-341. | . Kellogg, C. E. Critical comments in (43), pp. 228-288. . Kennedy, J. L. “A Methodological Review of Extra- sensory Perception. Psychological Bulletin 36, 1939, pp. 59-108. . Kennedy, J. L. “The Visual Cues from the Backs of the ESP Cards.” Journal of Psychology 5, 1938, pp. 149-153. . Kennedy, J. L., and H. F. Uphoff. “Experiments on the Nature of Extra-scnsory Perception: IH. The Recording Error Criticism of Extra-chance Scores.” Journal of Parapsychology $, 1989, pp. 226-245. » Kennedy, J. L. Critical comments in (43), pp. 218-220. » Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. . Lemmon, V. W. “The Role of Selection in ESP Dau" Journal of Parapsychology 3, 1989, pp. 104-106. . Lemmon, V. W. Critical comments in (43), pp. 222-298, | . Leuba, C. “An Experiment to Test the Role of Chane in ESP Research,” Journal of Parapsychology 2, 1988, pp. 217-221. . MacFarland, J. D. “Discrimination Shown Between Experimenters by Subjects.” Journal of Parapsychology 2, 1938, pp. 160-170. . MacFarland, J. D., and R. W. George. “Extra- sensory Perception of Normal and Distorted Symbols,” Journal of Parapsychology 1, 1937, pp. 93-101. . Martin, D. R. “Chance and Extra-chance Results if Card-matching.” Journal of Parapsychology 1, 1987, pp. 185-190. . Martin, D. R., and F. P. Stribie. “Studies in Extra- ‘sengory Perception: I. An Analysis of 25,000 Trials; and 11. An Analysis of a Second Saries of 25,000 Trials.” Journal of Parapsychology 2, 1988, pp. 283-30; 287-295. . Mechl, P. E.. and M. Scriven. “Compatibility of Seienee and ESP.” Science 123, 1956, pp. 14-15. . Murphy, G. “On Limits of Recording Errors.” In (1), pp 262-266, . Murphy, G., and E. Taves. “Covariance Methods in the Comparison of Extra- sensory Tasks.” Journal of Parapsychology 8, 1939, pp. 88-78. | . Oram, A. T. “An Experiment with Random Numbers. " Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 37, 1954, pp. 869-377. . Oram, A. T. Correspondence. Journal of the Society fe Psychical Research 38, 1955, pp. 143-144. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4 CPYRGHT Paranormal Communication / “Error S Place!" . Pratt, J. G. “Clairvoyant Blind Matching.” Journal of Parapsychology 1, 1937. pp. 10-17; and “The Work of Dr. C. Hilton Rice in Extra-sensory Perception, pp. 239- 259, . Pratt, J. G., and M. Price. “The Experimenter-subject Relationship in Tests for ESP.” Journal of Parapsychology 2, 1988, pp. 84-94. . Pratt, J. G., J. B. Rhine, B. M. Smith, C. E. Stuart, and J. A. Greenwood. Extrasensory Perception After Sixty Years. Boston: Bruce Humphries, 1966. (Originally published in 1940 by Henry Holt, New York.) . Pratt, J. G., and J. L. Woodruff. “Size of Stimulus Symbols in Extra-sensory Percep- tion.” Journal of Parapsychology 3, 1939, pp. 121-158. . Price, M. “A Comparison of Blind and Seeing Subjects in ESP Tests.” Journal of Parapsychology 2. 1938, pp. 273-286. . Price, M., and M. Pegram. “Extrasensory Perception Among the Blind.” Journal of Parapsychology 1, 1937, pp. 143-155. . Price, G. R. “Science and the Supernatural.” Science 122, 1955, pp. 359-367. . Price, G. R, “Where is the Definitive Experiment?” Science 123, 1956, pp. 17-18. . Price, G. R. “Apology to Rhine and Soal.” Science 175, 1972, pp. 359. 50. Rhine, J. B. Extra-sensory Perception. Boston: Bruce Humphries, 1964. (Originally published in 1934.) . Rhine, J. B. “Telepathy and Clairvoyance in the Normal and Trance States of a Medium.” Character and Personality $, 1934, pp. 91-111. . Rhine, J. B. “Some Selected Experiments in Extra-sensory Perception.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 31, 1936, pp. 216-228. . Rhine, J. B. “The Question of Sensory Cues and the Evidence.” Journal of Para- psychology 1, 1937, pp. 276-291. . Rhine, J. B. “ESP Tests with Enclosed Cards.” Journal of Parapsychology 2. 1938, pp. 199-216. . Rhine, J. B. “Comments on ‘Science and the Supernatural.'” Science 123, 1956, pp. 11-14. . Rhine, J. B. “The Experiment Should Fit the Hypothesis.” Science 128, 1956, p. 19. . Rhine, J. B. Comments. Journal of Parapsychology, 1974, p. 38. . Rhine, J. B., and J. G. Pratt. “A Review of the Pearce-Pratt Distance Scries of ESP Tests.” Journal of Parapsychology 18, 1954, pp. 165-177. . Rhine, J. B. B. M. Smith, and J. L. Woodruff. “Experiments Bearing on the Pre- cognition Hypothesis: Il. The Role of ESP in the Shufiling of Cards." Journal of Parapsychology 2, 1938, pp. 119-13}. . Riess, B. F. “A Case of High Scores in Card Guessing at a Distance.” Journal of Parapsychology 1, 1937, pp. 260-268. . Shulman, R. “A Study of Card-guessing in Psychotic Subjects.” Journal of Parapsy- chology 2, 1938, pp. 96-107. . Sinclair, U. Mental Radio, with a Preface by Albert Einstein. Springfield, Il: Charles C. Thomas, 1962. (Originally published in 1930.) . Shapiro, A. “Review of ESP—A Scientific Evaluation by C. E. M. Hansel.” International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 16, 1968, pp. 183-134. . Scott, C. “G. Spencer Brown and Probability: A Critique.” Journal of the Society for Psychical Research $9, 1958, pp. 217-234. . Soal, S. G. “On ‘Science and the Supernatural.’ Science 123, 1956, pp. 9-11. . Soal, S. G., and F. Bateman. Modem Experiments in Telepathy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954. . Soal, S. G., and H. T. Bowden. The Mind Readers: Recent Experiments in Telepathy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1954. . Spencer Brown, G. “Statistical Significance in Psychical Research.” Nature 172, 1953, pp. 154-156. . Spencer Brown, G. Probability and Scientific Inference. New York: Longmans, Green, 1957. . Sterling, T. C. “Publication Decisions and Their Possible Effects of Inference Drawn Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
Approved bar release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4 Journal of Communication, Winter 1975 116 from Tests of Significance—Or Vice Versa.” Journat of the American Statistical As- sociation 54, 1959, pp. 30-34. . Stuart, C. E. “The Effect of Rate of Movement in Card Matching Tests of Extra- sensory Perception.” Journal of Parapsychology 2, 1938, pp- 171-183. . Stuart, C. E. “A Review of. Certain Proposed Hypotheses Alternative to Extra-sensory Perception.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology $3, 1938, pp. 57-70. - Stuart, C. E., and J. A. Greenwood. “A Review of (Criticisms of the Mathematical Evaluation of ESP Data.” Journal of Parapsychology I, 1987, pp. 295-804. . Time, April 29, 1974. . Tyrrel, G. N. M. “Some Experiments in Undifferenfated Extra-sensory Perception.” Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 29, 1985, pp. 52-68. . Warner, L. “The Role of Luck in ESP Data.” Journal of Parapsychology 1, 1937, pp. 84-92. . Warner, L. “A Test Case.” Journal of Parapsychology 1, 1987, pp. 284-238. . Willoughby, R. “Critical Comment: The Use of the Probable Error in Evaluating Clairvoyance.” Character and Personality 4, 1985, pp. (9-80. . Willoughby, R. “A Critique of Rhine's ‘Extra-sensory Perception.’” journal of Ab- normal and Social Psychology $0, 1935, pp. 199-207. . Willoughby, R. Critical comments in (48), pp. 220-221. . Wolins, L. “Needed: Publication of Negative Results." | |American Psychologist 14, 1959, p. 598. . Wolfle, D. L. “A Review of the Work on Extra- sensory Perception." American Journal of Psychiatry, 1988, pp. 943-955. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRG PROCEEDINGAPpIifew edt or_Re| ease 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4 A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research HAROLD E. PUTHOFF, MEMBER, IEEE, AND RUSSELL TARG, senior MEMBER, IEEE Absiract—For more than 100 years, scientists have attempted to determine the truth or falsity of claims for the existence of a perceptual channel whereby certain individuals are able to perceive and describe remote data not presented to any known sense. This paper presents an outline of the history of scientific inquiry into such so-called paranor- mal perception and surveys the current state of the art in parapsycho- logical research in the United States and abroad. The nature of this perceptual channel is examined in a series of experiments carried out in the Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory of Stanford Research Institute. The perceptual modality most extensively investigated is the ability of both experienced subjects and inexperienced volunteers to view, by innate mental processes, remote geographical or technical targets including buildings, roads, and laboratory apparatus. The ac- cumulated data indicate that the phenomenon is not a sensitive func- tion of distance, and Faraday cage shielding does not in any apparent way degrade the quality and accuracy of perception. On the basis of this research, some areas of physics are suggested from which a descrip- tion or explanation of the phenomenon could be forthcoming. nature, impartially and without prejudice” [1]. Nowhere in scientific inquiry has this dictum met as great a chal- lenge as in the area of so-called extrasensory perception (ESP), aE IS THE PROVINCE of natural science to investigate the detection of remote stimuli not mediated by the usual’ sensory processes. Such phenomena, although under scientific consideration for over a century, have historically been fraught with unreliability and controversy, and validation of the phe- nomena by accepted scientific methodology has been slow in coming. Even so, a recent survey conducted by the British publication New Scientist revealed that 67 percent of nearly 1500 responding readers (the majority of whom are working scientists and technologists) considered ESP to be an estab- lished fact or a likely possibility, and 88 percent held the investigation of ESP to be a legitimate scientific undertaking [2]. A review of the literature reveals that although experiments by reputable researchers yielding positive results were begun over a century ago (e.g., Sir William Crookes’ study of D. D. Home, 1860’s) [3], many consider the study of these phe- nomena as only recently emerging from the realm of quasi- science. One reason for this is that, despite experimental results, no satisfactory theoretical construct had been advanced to correlate data or to predict new experimental outcomes. Consequently, the area in question remained for a long time in the recipe stage reminiscent of electrodynamics before the Manuscript received July 25, 1975; revised November 7, 1975. The submission of this paper was encouraged after review of an advance proposal. This work was supported by the Foundation for Parasensory Investigation and the Parapsychology Foundation, New York, NY; the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Palo Alto, CA; and the National Aero- the authors ARMA R ONE EAC Ri ck en OLORIOR, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA 94025. CPYRGHT unification brought about by the work of Ampere, Faraday, and Maxwell. Since the early work, however, we have seen the development of information theory, quantum theory, and neurophysiological research, and these disciplines provide powerful conceptual tools that appear to bear directly on the issue. In fact, several physicists (Section V) are now of the opinion that these phenomena are not at all inconsistent with the framework of modern physics: the often-held view that observations of this type are a priori incompatible with known laws is erroneous in that such a concept is based on the naive realism prevalent before the development of quantum theory. In the emerging view, it is accepted that research in this area can be conducted so as to uncover not just a catalog of inter- esting events, but rather patterns of cause-effect relationships of the type that lend themselves to analysis and hypothesis in the forms with which we are familiar in the physical conditions of sensory shielding is mediated by extremely low-frequency (ELF) electromagnetic waves, a proposal that does not seem to be ruled out by any obvious physical or “biological facts. Further, the development of information theory makes it possible to characterize and quantify the performance of a communications channel regardless of the underlying mechanism. For the past three years, we have had a program in the Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory of the Stan- ford Research Institute (SRI) to investigate those facets of human perception that appear to fall outside the range of well- understood perceptual/processing capabilities. Of particular interest is a human information-accessing capability that we call “remote viewing.” This phenomenon pertains to the ability of certain individuals to access and describe, by means of mental processes, information sources blocked from ordi- nary perception, and generally accepted as secure against such access. In particular, the phenomenon we have investigated most extensively is the ability of a subject to view remote geograph- ical locations up to several thousand kilometers distant from his physical location (given only a known person on whom to target).' We have carried out more than fifty experiments under controlled laboratory conditions with several individuals whose remote perceptual abilities have been developed suf- ficiently to allow them at times to describe correctly—often in great detail—geographical or technical material such as build- ings, roads, laboratory apparatus, and the like. As observed in the laboratory, the basic phenomenon appears to cover a range of subjective experiences variously referred to CIA;RRP96:09789 BNQ3100120001.4 [4], and re- printed in the JEEE Commun. Soc. Newsletter, vol. 13, Jan. 1975.
“ Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROUSFORPIOURATHE EEE, MancH 157 Sare/ Fig. 1. Airport in San Andres, Colombia, used as remote-viewing target, along with sketch produced by subject in California. in the literature as autoscopy (in the medical literature); exteri- orization or disassociation (psychological literature); simple clairvoyance, traveling clairvoyance, or out-of-body experience (parapsychological literature); or astral projection (occult liter- ature). We choose the term “remote viewing’ as a neutral descriptive term free from prior associations and bias as to mechanisms. The development at SRI of a successful experimental pro- cedure to elicit this capability has evolved to the point where persons such as visiting government scientists and contract monitors, with no previous exposure to such concepts, have learned to perform well; and subjects who have trained over a one-year period have performed excellently under a variety of experimental conditions. Our accumulated data thus indicate that both specially selected and unselected persons can be assisted in developing remote perceptual abilities up to a level of useful information transfer. In experiments of this type, we have three principal findings. First, we have established that it is possible to obtain signifi- cant amounts of accurate descriptive information about remote locations. Second, an increase in the distance from a few meters up to 4000 km separating the subject from the scene to be perceived does not in any apparent way degrade the quality or accuracy of perception. Finally, the use of Faraday cage electrical shielding does not prevent high-quality descrip- tions from being obtained. To build a coherent theory for the explanation of these phenomena, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of what constitutes the phenomena. In this paper, we first briefly I than fifty experiments with nine subjects carried out in our own laboratory, which represent a sufficiently stable data base to permit testing of various hypotheses concerning the func- tioning of this channel. Finally, in Section V, we indicate those areas of physics and information theory that appear to be relevant to an understanding of certain aspects of the phenomena. i First, however, we present an illustrative example generated in an early pilot experiment. As will be clear from our later ‘discussion, this is not a “best-ever” example, but rather a typical sample of the level of proficiency that can be reached and that we have come to expect in our research. Three subjects participated in a long-distance experiment focusing on a series of targets in Costa Rica. These subjects said they had never been to Costa Rica. In this experiment, one of the experimenters (Dr. Puthoff) spent ten days traveling through Costa Rica on a combination business/pleasure trip. This information was all that was known to the subjects about the traveler’s itinerary. The experiment called for Dr. Puthoff to keep a detailed record of his location and activities, includ- ing photographs of éach of seven target days at 1330 PDT. A total of twelve daily descriptions were collected before the traveler's return: six|responses from one subject, five from another, and one from a third. The third subject who submitted the single response supplied a drawing for a day in the middle of the series. (The subject’s response, together with the photographs taken at the site, are shown in Fig. 1), Although Costa Rica is a mountainous country, the subject unexpectedly perceived the traveler at a summarize previous efforts in this field i NY Hoye REPSE- ; Horz00er ivigg, he described an present ApHonawe dihAL Raleaseiz 60 m [A- port™o Ores RE 7034 an airstrip with the ocean at the ‘ | I
PUTHOFF AWD BYOVEERFUFIREGASE=2 00/08/08 4 CHALRDP96 -00789R003100A20OUG EAT end (correct), An airport building also was drawn, and shown to have a large rectangular overhang (correct). The traveler had taken an unplanned one-day side trip to an offshore island and at the time of the experiment had just disembarked from a plane at a small island airport as described by the subject 4000 km away. The sole discrepancy was that the subject’s drawing showed a Quonset-hut type of building in place of the rectangular structure. The above description was chosen as an example to illustrate a major point observed a number of times throughout the program to be described. Contrary to what may be expected, a subject’s description does not necessarily portray what may reasonably be expected to be correct (an educated or “‘safe”’ guess), but often runs counter even to the subject’s own expectations. We wish to stress again that a result such as the above is not unusual. The remaining submissions in this experiment pro- vided further examples of excellent correspondences between target and response. (A target period of poolside relaxation was identified; a drive through a tropical forest at the base of a truncated volcano was described as a drive through a jungle below a large bare table mountain; a hotel-room target descrip- tion, including such details as rug color, was correct; and so on.) So as to determine whether such matches were simply fortuitous—that is, could reasonably be expected on the basis of chance alone—Dr, Puthoff was asked after he had returned to blind match the twelve descriptions to his seven target locations. On the basis of this conservative evaluation proce- dure, which vastly underestimates the statistical significance of the individual descriptions, five correct matches were ob- tained. “his number of matches is significant at p = 0.02 by exact binomial calculation,” The observation of such unexpectedly high-quality descrip- tions early in our program led to a large-scale study of the phenomenon at SRI under secure double-blind conditions (Le., target unknown to experimenters as well as subjects), with independent random target selection and blind judging. The results, presented in Sections III and IV, provide strong evi- dence for the robustness of this phenomenon whereby a human perceptual modality of extreme sensitivity can detect complex remote stimuli. Il. BACKGROUND Although we are approaching the study of these phenomena as physicists, it is not yet possible to separate ourselves entirely from the language of the nineteenth century when the labora- tory study of the paranormal was begun. Consequently, we continue to use terms such as “paranormal,” “telepathy,” and the like. However, we intend only to indicate a process of information transfer under conditions generally accepted as secure against such transfer and with no prejudice or occult assumptions as to the mechanisms involved. As in any other scientific pursuit, the purpose is to collect the observables that result from experiments and to try to determine the functional relationships between these observables and the laws of physics as they are currently understood. *The probability of a correct daily match by chance for any given transcript is p= +. Therefore, the probability of at least five correct matches by chance out of twelve tries can be calculated from 12 1! i (12-1) .  Appraved fED{ Release.2000/08/08 ; 331 Organized research into so-called psychic functioning began roughly in the time of J, J. Thomson, Sir Oliver Lodge, and Sir William Crookes, ail of whom took part in the founding of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in 1882 in England. Crookes, for example, carried out his principal investigations with D. D. Home, a Scotsman who grew up in America and returned to England in 1855 [3]. According to the notebooks and published reports of Crookes, Home had demonstrated the ability to cause objects to move without touching them. We should note in passing that, Home, unlike most subjects, worked only in the light and spoke out in the strongest pos- sible terms against the darkened seance rooms popular at the time [5]. Sir William Crookes was a pioneer in the study of electrical discharge in gases and in the development of vacuum tubes, some types of which still bear his name. Although everything Crookes said about electron beams and plasmas was accepted, nothing he said about the achievements of D. D. Home ever achieved that status. Many of his colleagues, who had not observed the experiments with Home, stated publicly that they thought Crookes had been deceived, to which Crookes angrily responded: Will not my critics give me credit for some amount of common sense? Do they not imagine that the obvious precautions, which occur to them as soon as they sit down to pick holes in my experiments, have occurred to me also in the course of my pro- longed and patient investigation? The answer to this, as to all other objections is, prove it to be an error, by showing where the error lies, or if a trick, by showing how the trick is per- formed. Try the experiment fully and fairly. If then fraud be found, expose it; if it be a truth, proclaim it. This is the only i procedure, and it is that I propose steadily to pursue 3). In the United States, scientific interest in the paranormal was centered in the universities. In 1912, John Coover [6] was established in the endowed Chair of Psychical Research at Stanford University. In the 1920's, Harvard University set up research programs with George Estabrooks and L. T. Troland [7], [8]. It was in this framework that, in 1930, William McDougall invited Dr. J. B. Rhine and Dr. Louisa Rhine to join the Psychology Department at Duke University [9]. For mote than 30 years, significant work was carried out at Rhine’s Duke University Laboratory. To examine the existence of paranormal perception, he used the now-famous ESP cards containing a boldly printed picture of a star, cross, square, circle, or wavy lines. Subjects were asked to name the order of these cards in a freshly shuffled deck of twenty-five such cards. To test for telepathy, an experimenter would look at the cards one at a time, and a subject suitably separated from the sender would attempt to determine which card was being viewed, Dr. J. B. Rhine together with Dr. J. G. Pratt carried out thousands of experiments of this type under widely varying conditions {10}. The statistical results from these experiments indicated that some individuals did indeed possess a paranor- mal perceptual ability in that it was possible to obtain an arbitrarily high degree of improbability by continued testing of a gifted subject. The work of Rhine has been challenged on many grounds, however, including accusations of improper handling of statis- tics,:error, and fraud. With regard to the statistics, the general consensus of statisticians today is that if fault is to be found GIAKRDPO6-00788R0035 004.2000 thdn statistical grounds [11]. With regard to the accusations of fraud, the
CPYRGHT most celebrated case of criticism of Rhine’s work, that of G. R. Price [12], ended 17 years after it began when the accusation of fraud was retracted by its author in an article entitled “‘Apology to Rhine and Soal,” published in the same journal in which it was first put forward [13]. It should also be noted that parapsychological researchers themselves re- cently exposed fraud in their own laboratory when they encountered it [14]. At the end of the 1940’s, Prof. S. G. Soal, an English mathe- matician working with the SPR, had carried out hundreds of card guessing experiments involving tens of thousands of calls {15]. Many of these experiments were carried out over ex- tended distances. One of the most notable experiments was conducted with Mrs. Gloria Stewart between London and Antwerp. This experiment gave results whose probability of occurring by chance were less than 107°, With the publication of Modern Experiments in Telepathy by Soal and Bateman (both of whom were statisticians), it appeared that card guess- ing experiments produced significant results, on the average. The most severe criticism of all this work, a criticism diffi- cult to defend against in principle, is that leveled by the well- known British parapsychological critic C. E. M. Hansel {17], who began his examination of the ESP hypothesis with the stated assumption, “In view of the a prior’ arguments against it we know in advance that telepathy, etc., cannot occur,” Therefore, based on the ‘a priori unlikelihood” of ESP, Hansel’s examination of the literature centered primarily on the possibility of fraud, by subjects or investigators. He reviewed in depth four experiments which he regarded as providing the best evidence of ESP: the Pearce-Pratt distance series [18]; the Pratt-Woodruff [19] series, both conducted at Duke; and Soal’s work with Mrs. Stewart and Basil Shackle- ton [15], as well as a more recent series by Soal and Bowden {20}. Hansel showed, in each case, how fraud could have been committed (by the experimenters in the Pratt-Woodruff and Soal-Bateman series, or by the subjects in the Pearce-Pratt and Soal~Bowden experiments). He gave no direct evidence that fraud was committed in these experiments, but said, “If the result could have arisen through a trick, the experiment must be considered unsatisfactory proof of ESP, whether or not it is finally decided that such a trick was in fact used” (17 ; p. 18]. As discussed by Honorton in a review of the field [21], Hansel’s conclusion after 241 pages of careful scrutiny therefore was that these experiments were not “fraud-proof” and therefore in principle could not serve as conclusive proof of ESP. Even among the supporters of ESP research and its results, there remained the consistent problem that many successful subjects eventually lost their ability and their scores gradually drifted toward chance results. This decline effect in no way erased their previous astronomical success; but it was a disap- pointment since if paranormal perception is a natural ability, one would like to see subjects improving with practice rather than getting worse. One of the first successful attempts to overcome the decline effect was in Czechoslovakia in the work of Dr. Milan Ryzl,a chemist with the Institute of Biology of the Czechoslovakian Academy of Science and also an amateur hypnotist [22]. Through the use of hypnosis, together with feedback and 3Recently, some of the early Soal experiments have been criticized [16]. However, his long-distance experiments cited here were judged IEEE, MARCH 1976 reinforcement, he developed several outstanding subjects, ond of whom, Pavel Stepanek, has worked with experimenters around the world for more than 10 years. ; Ryzl’s pioneering) work came as an answer to the questions raised by the 1956 CIBA Foundation conference on extra sensory perception.: The CIBA Chemical Company has annua meetings on topics of biological and chemical interest, and that same year they assembled several prominent parapsy chologists to have a state-of-the-art conference on ESP [23]. The conference concluded that little progress would be made in parapsychology jresearch until a repeatable experiment could be found; namely, an experiment that different experi menters could repeat at will and that would reliably yield a statistically significant result. Ryzl had by 1962) accomplished that goal. His primary con- tribution was a decision to interact with the subject as a per- son, to try to build up his confidence and ability. His protocol depended on i with” rather than “running” his sub- jects. Ryzl’s star subject, Pavel Stepanek, has produced highly significant results with many contemporary researchers (24]- [29]. In these experiments, he was able to tell with 60-percent reliability whether a hidden card was green side or white side up, yielding statistics of a million to one with only a thousand trials. As significant as such results are statistically, the information channel is imperfect, containing noise along with the signal. When considering how best to use such a channel, one is led to the communication theory concept of the introduction of redundancy as a means of coding a message to combat the effects of a noisy channel [30}. A prototype experiment by Ryzl using such techniques has proved to be successful. Ryzl had an assistant select randomly five groups of three digits each. These 15 digits were then encoded into binary form and translated into a sequence of green and white cards in sealed envelopes. By means of repeated calling and an elaborate majority vote protocol, Ryzt was able after 19 350 calls by Stepanek (averaging 9s per call) to correctly identify all 15 numbers, a result significant at p=107'* The hit rate for individual calls was él 9 percent, 11 978 hits, and 7372 misses (31). Note Added in Proof’ It has been brought to our attention that a similar procedure was recently used to transmit without error the word “peace” in International Morse Code (J. C. Carpenter, “‘Toward| the effective utilization of enhanced weak-signal ESP effects,” presented at the Annual Meeting of the American pagent for the Advancement of Science, New York, NY, Jan. 27, 1975). The characteristics) of such a channel can be specified in accordance with the precepts of communication theory. The bit rate associated with the information channel is calculated from (30] R= H(x)~- Hy(x) (1) where H(x) is the uncertainty of the source message containing symbols with a priori probability Di: (2) imi | 2 H(x) =~ ° p; logs p; and Hy (x) is the conditional entropy based on the a posteriori probabilities that a received signal was actually transmitted: culy gupproved For Release SUOb/OaIO8 °'ClA-RDP96-00789I Roog bt sb6HT4 . (3)