Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
Volume 3, Issue 3 , Pages 254-269, May 2007

Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research

Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17, No. 2 (2003), reprinted with permission

Abstract 

This article has four purposes: 1) to present for the first time in archival form all results of some 25 years of remote perception research at this laboratory; 2) to describe all of the analytical scoring methods developed over the course of this program to quantify the amount of anomalous information acquired in the experiments; 3) to display a remarkable anti-correlation between the objective specificity of those methods and the anomalous yield of the experiments; and 4) to discuss the phenomenological and pragmatic implications of this complementarity. The formal database comprises 653 experimental trials performed over several phases of investigation. The scoring methods involve various arrays of descriptor queries that can be addressed to both the physical targets and the percipients’ description thereof, the responses to which provide the basis for numerical evaluation and statistical assessment of the degree of anomalous information acquired. Twenty-four such recipes have been employed, with queries posed in binary, ternary, quaternary, and ten-level distributive formats. Thus treated, the database yields a composite z-score against chance of 5.418 (p = 3 × 10−8, one-tailed).

Numerous subsidiary analyses agree that these overall results are not significantly affected by any of the secondary protocol parameters tested, or by variations in descriptor effectiveness, possible participant response biases, target distance from the percipient, or time interval between perception effort and agent target visitation. However, over the course of the program there has been a striking diminution of the anomalous yield that appears to be associated with the participants’ growing attention to, and dependence upon, the progressively more detailed descriptor formats and with the corresponding reduction in the content of the accompanying free-response transcripts. The possibility that increased emphasis on objective quantification of the phenomenon somehow may have inhibited its inherently subjective expression is explored in several contexts, ranging from contemporary signal processing technologies to ancient divination traditions. An intrinsic complementarity is suggested between the analytical and intuitive aspects of the remote perception process that, like its more familiar counterpart in quantum science, brings with it an inescapable uncertainty that limits the extent to which such anomalous effects can be simultaneously produced and evaluated.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 12.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This paper reviews the strategic history of our major experimental research component in remote perception, and attempts to distill from its large accumulation of data some phenomenological understanding to complement that achieved in the human/machine portion. From the outset of the PEAR program there were strong indications that both of these extraordinary capacities of consciousness draw from the same ontological well, i.e., in one case consciousness is apparently extracting information from random sources by anomalous means; in the other, it is evidently inserting it. In the human/machine case, however, quantitative specification of the anomalous effect size is inherent in the output of the machines. In the remote perception investigations, quantification of effects becomes the central challenge and, as described this article, has dominated the research effort, eventually leading to profound insights into the basic nature of the phenomenon.

PII: S1550-8307(07)00063-8

doi:10.1016/j.explore.2007.03.010

Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
Volume 3, Issue 3 , Pages 254-269, May 2007