Human-Machine Anomalies Images

Benchmark REG
PEAR benchmark REG and display.  Click to enlarge.

single-operator graph
Example PEAR REG data.  Click to enlarge.

Random Mechanical Cascade
Random Mechanical Cascade.  Click to enlarge.

REG Robot
REG Robot.  Click to enlarge.

fountain
The Linear Pendulum Experiment.

fountain
The Fountain Experiment.


Remote Perception Images

Remote Perception
Remote Perception.  Click to enlarge.

Experimental Research

I. Human-Machine Anomalies

The most substantial portion of the PEAR experimental program examined anomalies arising in human/machine interactions.

In these studies human operators attempted to bias the output of a variety of mechanical, electronic, optical, acoustical, and fluid devices to conform to pre-stated intentions, without recourse to any known physical influences. In unattended calibrations all of these sophisticated machines produced strictly random data, yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the consciousness of their human operators.

Over the laboratory's 28-year history, thousands of such experiments, involving many millions of trials, were performed by several hundred operators. The observed effects were usually quite small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand on average, but they compounded to highly significant statistical deviations from chance expectations. These results are summarized in "Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention" and "The PEAR Proposition."

A number of secondary correlations revealed other anomalous structural features within these human/machine databases. In many instances, the effects appeared to be operator-specific in their details and the results of given operators on widely different machines frequently tended to be similar in character and scale. Pairs of operators with shared intentions were found to induce further anomalies in the experimental outputs, especially when the two individuals shared an emotional bond. The data also displayed significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent series position effects were observed in individual and collective results. These anomalies were demonstrated with the operators located up to thousands of miles from the laboratory, exerting their efforts many hours before or after the actual operation of the devices.

The random devices were also shown to respond to group activities of larger numbers of people, even when they were unaware of the presence of the machine. Such "FieldREG" data produced in environments fostering relatively intense or profound subjective resonance showed larger deviations than those generated in more pragmatic assemblies. (See "FieldREG II: Consciousness Field Effects: Replications and Explorations.") Venues that appear to be particularly conducive to such field anomalies include small intimate groups, group rituals, sacred sites, musical and theatrical performances, and other charismatic events. In contrast, data generated during most academic conferences, business meetings, or other mundane venues showed less deviation than would be expected by chance.

Elaborate analytical methods were developed to extract as much understanding as possible from all of these results, and to guarantee their integrity against any experimental or data processing flaws.



II. Remote Perception

In another class of studies, the ability of human participants to acquire information about spatially and temporally remote geographical targets, otherwise inaccessible by any of the usual sensory channels, has been thoroughly demonstrated over several hundred carefully conducted experiments. The protocol required one participant, the "agent," to be stationed at a randomly selected location at a given time, and there to observe and record impressions of the details and ambiance of the scene. A second participant, the "percipient," located far from the scene and with no prior information about it, tried to sense its composition and character and to report these in a similar format to the agent’s description.

Even casual comparison of the agent and percipient narratives produced in this body of experiments reveals striking correspondences in both their general and specific aspects, indicative of some anomalous channel of information acquisition, well beyond any chance expectation. Incisive analytical techniques have been developed and applied to these data to establish more precisely the quantity and quality of objective and subjective information acquired and to guide the design of more effective experiments. Beyond confirming the validity of this anomalous mode of information acquisition, these analyses demonstrate that this capacity of human consciousness is also largely independent of the distance between the percipient and the target, and similarly independent of the time between the specification of the target and the perception effort.

Over its long history, PEAR has accumulated over 650 remote perception trials, performed over several phases of investigation. Numerous scoring methods have involved various arrays of descriptor queries that have been addressed to both the physical targets and the percipients' subjective descriptions thereof, the responses to which have provided the basis for numerical evaluation and statistical assessment of the degree of anomalous information acquired under a variety of experimental protocols. Twenty-four such recipes were employed, with queries posed in binary, ternary, quaternary, and ten-level distributive formats. Thus treated, the composite database yields a probability against chance of approximately three parts in ten billion.

The overall results are not noticeably affected by any of the secondary protocol parameters tested, or by variations in descriptor effectiveness, possible participant response biases, target distances from the percipients, or time intervals between perception efforts and target visitations by the agents. However, over the evolution of the analysis programs 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. An intrinsic complementarity is thereby suggested between the analytical and intuitive aspects of the remote perception process that appears to limit the extent to which such anomalous effects can be simultaneously produced and evaluated (see "Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research").