PEAR Orientation

The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory carried out one of the longest-standing academic studies of consciousness-related anomalous phenomena.

Contents of this Unit The PEAR Laboratory PEAR Synopsis (video) PEAR origins PEAR's Research Topics Human Machine Interactions Remote Perception Theoretical Modeling PEAR's Environment and History Experimental Ambiance Critical Reception Closure and Continuance ICRL Psyleron GCP Unit Conclusion Suggested Activity Anomalies in Daily Life References

Its findings suggest that consciousness itself, unaided by known physical mechanisms, can influence physical reality.

The goal of this unit is to familiarize you with the general concepts and context of the work of the PEAR Laboratory. Later units will go into much more detail about experimental protocol, specific findings, theoretical work, and implications.

The PEAR Laboratory

PEAR operated out of Princeton University's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences from June 1979 until February 2007. The PEAR lab studied the interaction of human consciousness with various random physical systems and conducted studies in remote perception to scientifically approach the question, "What is the role of consciousness in the physical world?"

The following video offers a brief introduction to the PEAR laboratory. This introduction is also summarized below.

PEAR Synopsis (video)

PEAR SYNOPSIS - 22 min 35 sec
(produced by stripmindmedia (cache))

PEAR origins

The PEAR lab was founded by Prof. Robert Jahn, Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, an aerospace engineer who directed a program in advanced plasma propulsion systems. He became interested in topics surrounding human consciousness after he supervised an undergraduate student thesis that involved the construction of an electronic random event generator and experimentation to test whether the human mind could influence the output of the device. When the experiment unexpectedly produced positive results, Dean Jahn determined that the topic deserved more systematic study. With the encouragement of the program's first funder, James S. McDonnell of the McDonnell Douglas (cache) aerospace manufacturing company, Jahn hired Brenda Dunne, a Chicago-based developmental psychologist studying remote perception, as manager of the laboratory, and launched the PEAR program in June 1979.

PEAR's Research Topics

PEAR focused on three different aspects of research into consciousness related anomalies, which we will address individually in the upcoming units. These three points of focus were:

Human Machine Interactions

These experiments involved having volunteers attempt to influence, using only their intention, the outcome of various random physical devices. Much like hoping for heads in a coin toss, the operators willed these devices to produce non-chance outcomes. The devices were designed and calibrated by the PEAR staff to produce truly random data and to be free of environmental artifacts or other known sources of physical influence. When operators were not present during calibration trials, the devices did just that. They produced random data with the expected statistical distributions; however, when exposed to the intention of a human operator, the data output deviated from the chance expectation, and showed highly significant correlations with operator intention.

The operators were somehow able to influence the statistical output using only the power of their intention.

Remote Perception

Also known as precognitive remote perception or remote viewing, the remote perception experiments were designed to study the reported phenomena of anomalous human to human communication at a distance. The goal was to examine the notion that a person can somehow know what another distant person is thinking, feeling, or experiencing.

The PEAR lab worked primarily on developing methods for quantifying and measuring the amount of information transferred in these anomalous communications.

Theoretical Modeling

The third component of PEAR's work was an attempt to model and explain the very strange results that emerged from their experimental work. They developed conceptual frameworks and elucidated patterns and correlations in the data that could guide future theoretical work.

Since so much of the empirical work of the PEAR lab defied known physical theory, much theoretical work remains. Later we will discuss a number of the theories the PEAR lab developed to help explain the interaction between the self and the world.

PEAR's Environment and History

Experimental Ambiance

The PEAR lab maintained that in order to facilitate the appearance of subjective influence on objective data, it was important to take into account various subjective factors of the operator's experience. It actively developed a comfortable, homey, environment, and as a result, the PEAR lab had a distinctly different look and feel from many laboratory environments, and was designed as a social more than a dry clinical environment.

PEAR also made every effort to avoid making the operators feel self-conscious - operators were volunteers, and viewed as collaborators rather than subjects of the experiments. Importantly, the focus of the experiments was the interaction between the machines and the human operators. PEAR was not attempting to identify gifted operators. All volunteers were normal people who did not claim any special psychic abilities. Thus, these were not psychological studies of individuals, but engineering studies of a human/machine system.

Although PEAR approached the studied phenomena from an engineering perspective, it is important to note that the staff of the laboratory came from a variety of disciplines including aerospace engineering, developmental and experimental psychology, theoretical physics, and the humanities. It was a core philosophy of the PEAR lab that these topics required an interdisciplinary approach to advance a Science of the Subjective.

Critical Reception

---

The PEAR lab received a mixed critical reception. While some lauded their empirical and novel approach to the topic, much of the scientific community was quite resistant to consideration of this area of research.

Although some criticism was constructive and contained useful statistical critiques, much of the criticism amounted to accusations that the data could only be the result of tampering because the findings were patently impossible.

Statements such as, "Even if it were true, I wouldn't believe it," typify the resistance to serious consideration that pervaded the scientific reaction to PEAR's work. Overcoming the stigma associated with the topical matter has proven to be a barrier for all researchers in this area.

Closure and Continuance

---

In 2007, after the retirement of the core faculty, the PEAR lab closed its doors, and the retired staff turn their attention to facilitating consciousness research outside of the university context. A number of companies, labs, and non-profit endeavors house former PEAR colleagues and continue the research.

ICRL

International Consciousness Research Laboratories (ICRL) (cache) is a consortium and coordinating hub of interdisciplinary researchers and collaborators working to extend the work of PEAR into a broader range of inquiry. ICRL encourages a new generation of investigators to expand the boundaries of scientific understanding, via collaborative initiatives in basic research, educational outreach, and pragmatic applications.

Psyleron

Psyleron (cache) is a company and research organization founded by PEAR scientists and associates with the purpose of developing products and materials that enable ongoing research and public exploration of mind-matter effects.

GCP

The Global Consciousness Project (GCP) (cache), uses continuously running statistical devices (like those used at the PEAR lab) located around the world, and tracks the correlations between their output and the occurrence of noteworthy global events.

Unit Conclusion

The work done by the PEAR lab challenges many deeply held beliefs about physical reality and the nature of human experience.

Humanity has pondered the supernatural, and what might be 'beyond' the physical world since ancient times. Since the rise of empirical science as the dominant method for understanding the world, however, there has been a dramatic decline in the credibility of consciousness-related experiences that lack conventionally measurable physical properties.

Up to the present day, the scientific method has done very little to advance our understanding of these non-physical subjective experiences. Spirituality, emotion, as well as supernatural, or anomalous phenomena, have been ignored by most scientific investigators, even though they remain unchallenged as among the most awe-inspiring of human experiences. In part, this lack of investigation stems from the difficulty of the subject matter and its inconsistency with known physical theories. The phenomena themselves are inherently subjective, infrequent, and, often irreplicable. This made them very difficult to study until recently.

The PEAR lab, however, managed to bring some of those previously extremely evasive phenomena into the reach of an empirical science, and shed new light on some of the most subjective aspects of human experience. By directing the new tools of increased computing power and modern information processing at these topics, the PEAR lab has opened up new ground for study, areas of human experience that had previously been left to belief or derided as superstition.

As students of consciousness, we might ask ourselves how we have conceptualized consciousness in relationship with the natural physical world. Is this inner life that interests us something that could be categorized as supernatural? Extra-physical? separate, or integrated? The work of the PEAR lab calls us to question the boundary between consciousness and the physical world.

Suggested Activity

---

Anomalies in Daily Life

The experimental results seen at the PEAR lab may relate to everyday experiences that defy conventional explanation.

Many people report machinery malfunctions during times of high stress, as well as phenomena such as knowing who is on the telephone when it rings, dreaming about something before it happens, or thinking of a distant loved one at the same time that they were involved in an accident.

These anecdotal experiences can be personally compelling, but are also very difficult to analyze or quantify. They can become confusing and unsettling precisely because they don't fit into the current scientific understanding of the way the world works.

Although surely some of these experiences can be accounted for through conventional mechanisms or by random chance, it is interesting to consider how PEAR's scientific explorations into consciousness may relate to these unexplained anecdotal experiences.

We would like to collect the consciousness-related unexplained experiences of the users of this website. Please share in our Anomalous Anecdotes forum.

References

---

Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne (2005). "The PEAR Proposition". Journal of Scientific Exploration, 19, No.2, pp. 195-246.

Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne (1988). Margins of Reality (cache). Harcourt Brace, ISBN: 978-0156572460.

Aaron Michels (director) (2005).The PEAR Proposition (multimedia set) (cache). [DVD/CD]]. Strip Mind Media.

---