The goal of this unit is to give students an introduction to the PEAR lab's theoretical modeling. It includes a discussion of the new constraints of a Science of the Subjective,
and provides a brief introduction to a few of the theoretical frameworks that were developed by the PEAR lab.
New Constraints
Before diving in to the models themselves, it is helpful to remember the constraints that the new empirical evidence puts on possible future theories. It is especially important for the new Science of the Subjective, because the empirical data depart so dramatically from what one expects using conventional physical theory.
Consciousness Related Effects
First and foremost, there is the measurable influence on the physical world of the subjective interior states of the human participants (such as a stated intention, or group resonance or togetherness). Subjective internal states apparently influence external outcomes. Consciousness can also become aware of information through unknown channels. It is these influences and information gains that the new theories seek to explain.
Uncertainty
Secondly, the consciousness-related effects seem to only be possible in experimental designs where there is a degree of uncertainty. The random physical systems provide this, as do the early protocols in the Remote Perception experiments. If uncertainty is a requirement for experimental design, there are ramifications of that in theoretical work. Both the uncertainty itself (the 'ground plane', or source from which the effect arises), and how it gives rise to the consciousness-related effects need to be represented in the theoretical models.
Replicability of Subjective States
Just like the inner experience of consciousness, the physical influence of consciousness is highly variable. It does not have the case-to-case or moment-to-moment predictability that is so useful when repeating many experiments in the natural sciences. In this new scientific paradigm, one cannot assume that different operators will have similar effects, nor even that a single operator can reproduce prior subjective states, or prior experimental results. This consideration has wide-ranging implications not only for the theories that must be developed, but also for the scientific methodologies that must be employed for studying the topic.
A bit more on that before moving on:
In the traditional scientific method, experiments strive to be replicable, measurable, and objective. But consider what happens when subjective consciousness becomes your primary variable. Replicating experiments is no longer a simple matter. The objective external conditions for an experiment may be more or less identical to a prior experiment, but the subjective internal conditions - which are likely the most important factors - may be entirely different. Time passes, moods change, attitudes shift, and control over emotional states is difficult to achieve. Is it reasonable to instruct an operator to return to the exact emotional or subjective state they were in during a previous trial?
We have few tools for even describing those internal conditions scientifically, much less for creating identifiable conditions on command. The experimental ambiance, as well as the moods, attitudes, expectations, and values of participants and experimenters must now be considered as a part of future experiments. It may not be possible to completely replicate a previous experiment with identical subjective conditions.
This brings into question any assumptions we might have about the objectivity of scientific inquiry. If our physical measuring devices have become entangled with the subjective states of their operators, are they behaving in a consistent and reliably objective manner? Or are they reflecting the desires of the operator? Or even those of the researchers?
Independence of Distance and Time
Data collected by the PEAR lab show that the effect is not dependent on distance or time. An operator can influence an output from global distances as well as she can from right next to the machine. Additionally, an operator can influence today's (unobserved) data just as well today as yesterday's or tomorrow's.
These are very serious constraints. Long-distance transmissions of information in conventional physical models, like radio transmissions, decay over distance, which is not what is observed in the case of the anomalous consciousness-related effects. In addition, our current physical models of the world are invariably understood within a linear causal timeline. I turn the faucet, and THEN the water comes out - not tomorrow, not yesterday. This does not hold true for the intention-related effects, so we will need a model that allows for this.
Not to be discouraged...
This is a rather heavy list of constraints on the new models, so it may be a helpful reminder that there have been many other times when similar evolutions were necessary in science and philosophy. To name just one recent evolution, at the advent of modern physics in the 1890s, it was believed that the understanding of the natural world was nearly complete. At just that point, advances in instrumentation created a body of empirical evidence of anomalous physical phenomena: spectroscopic, solid state physics, astrophysical phenomena, etc., which demonstrated that the prior conception of a predictive Newtonian world was incomplete. New paradigms - quantum and relativistic - were born out of those new empirical findings.
Similarly, the empirical findings of the PEAR lab have been made possible by advances in information processing technology. Increased computing power has enhanced our ability to generate and analyze data. We can now discern small effects in large bodies of statistical data, and this has allowed us to make discoveries in many fields that were previously impossible. This new data processing power is turning up new anomalous phenomena that we simply couldn't see before.
Quantum Wave Conceptual Model
Quantum Wave Model lecture (video)
Robert Jahn introduces the first model that the PEAR lab worked on.
Quantum Wave Model, Robert Jahn - 19 min 58 sec
The Quantum Mechanical model, at heart, uses quantum wave mechanics as a metaphor for a new mechanics of consciousness, and begins the process of quantifying "Consciousness Mechanics" by asking what those consciousness mechanics would be like if they behaved similarly to quantum mechanics.
Quantum theory has many features which could prove very useful for beginning a quantitative study of features of consciousness. These features are: the wave/particle duality, the role of the observer, probabilistic computation, wave mechanics, and the principles of uncertainty, complementarity, indistinguishability, and exclusion.
Most notable in the above list is the role of the observer. In the famous double slit experiment, the experimental results changed depending on the presence of an observer. This is closely tied to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, in which the observer and the observed cannot be separated. As Werner Heisenburg put it:
;: Natural Science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is a part of the interplay between nature and ourselves; it describes nature as exposed to our method of questioning.
In quantum theory, our consciousness, or our methods of thinking about the world, is linked to the modes in which reality expresses itself. That is a positive indication that quantum theory could be a useful metaphor for beginning to model a consciousness mechanics.
Benefits and Implications
So, following this metaphor deeper, what are the implications for consciousness suggested by the quantum mechanical metaphor?
Wave Nature of Consciousness
The conventional model of consciousness is something like a 'particulate model' (pictured below). Consciousness is described as being in a defined place at a defined time, interacting only with the other consciousnesses and environmental factors in its immediate physical surroundings. Like molecules in a gas, consciousness bounces around against its neighbors. Events happen in the environment, and they can cause consciousness experiences in the brain. Similarly, intentions are stated in the consciousness, the body moves, and causes external events to unfold. It is a very clean and neat separation between the mind and the body, but this model will not help us understand the empirical results showing long distance effects, or many of the other strange results found in the PEAR studies. To account for those effects, we need a different conceptualization than a particulate model.
Waves, unlike particles, can penetrate barriers, travel long distances, diffract, turn corners, and superimpose on other waves. Many waves are also accepted in physical theory without an understanding of the medium in which the waves travel. All of these features of wave mechanics seem to be good starting points for describing the consciousness-related phenomena. Consciousness and the manner in which it influences the physical world may have wavelike properties, more so than a particulate nature.
This could mean that consciousness is not confined strictly to the brain, or the human body, but that it has a diffuse, penetrating, and oscillating nature.
Different Geometry of Reality
Again, in the conventional model, consciousness and the environment are deemed to be completely separate entities - 'reality' is 'out there' to be studied empirically and objectively (following Decartes and the conventional approach to the mind/body problem). But the quantum wave mechanical model of consciousness is entirely different. Following the observer effect, this model says that 'reality' is the result of conscious interacting with the environment. The consciousness is an active participant in the materialization of experience, an active creator of reality. This is also very clearly useful in an attempt to model the consciousness-related anomalies.
QM of Experience
Starting from quantum wave mechanics brings many benefits for describing conscious experience, functions, and influences. Not only does this model start with observer effects and wave mechanics, but it also implies that experience is quantized - it comes in discrete chunks. This suggestion matches very well with introspective observation and psychological experimentation. We do see things discretely; experience does not come as a perfectly smooth continuum, but rather bit by bit, frame by frame, which we piece together into a narrative.
Finally, we should also recognize another parallel between quantum mechanics and the observed consciousness effects. In many ways, both of these contradict more common human experience, seem paradoxical, and yet are experimentally evident. Quantum mechanics, just like the proposed consciousness mechanics, was inspired by stubborn and anomalous empirical evidence.
QM: Drawbacks
And what are the difficulties that this model brings to bear?
While this model may provide us with some mathematical formalizations, it is far from experiment-ready. In order to use this theory experimentally, we would need to be able to quantify the consciousness variables suggested by the model. There should be a consciousness-distance coordinate, consciousness-time, consciousness-mass, and more. Since methods for quantifying these terms have not been developed, the model remains a conceptual framework, rather than a testable theory.
Of course, the lack of a quantifying method does not mean there are no suggestions as to what these consciousness-coordinates might look like. Our own metaphorical language for describing interior states is littered with references to measurables, with descriptions such as a close friend, or a distant memory, or a low-energy day.
Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations
M5 Model lecture (video)
Robert Jahn introduces the Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations, also called M5.
M5 Model, Robert Jahn - 16 min 52 sec
In this model, PEAR subdivided both consciousness and the physical world into their more and less apparent component parts. Namely, what could be called the mind, the observer, or the 'I', and was referred to in the previous model as consciousness, was now subdivided into Conscious (C) and Unconscious (U) components. Similarly, the physical world was subdivided into a Tangible (T) physical reality, and an Intangible (I) physical reality. There was also posited to be a "Source" (S) regime that encompassed all of these aspects of mind and the physical world.
The impetus for doing this is rooted in some empirical and some anecdotal evidence from the experimental work. In their experimentation, the PEAR lab used a wide variety of different feedback displays in an attempt to make the task more approachable, interesting, inspiring, pleasant, meditative, or attention grabbing. There were also experiments, such as the remote experiments, that provided the operators with no feedback at all. If anything, the no-feedback protocols seemed to produce larger effect sizes. Additionally, in experiments where the operators were unaware of devices or measurement, such as in FieldREG, or the early Remote Perception experiments, the effect sizes were larger than in the laboratory work with directed intention. Is it possible that the feedback displays interact with the conscious mind in ways that damp rather than amplify effect sizes?
In the realm of anecdotal operator experience, the strategies that operators employed included a considerable range in the degree of conscious attention that operators devoted to the task. Some exerted great intentional and attentive efforts, while some chose to distract themselves from the task, reading a book or a magazine, and paying the device only slight attention. While this reporting was not quantified, it is interesting to note that many of the higher-performing operators preferred not to pay the device as much attention.
The above observations all suggest that extended conscious attention to the task is not the driving factor in achieving larger effect sizes. The reverse may actually be true, and that is what this model explores.
In the M5 model, interactions between the conscious mind and the tangible physical world (C <-> T) are considered to be "normal" interactions, for example, one intends to raise an arm, and it raises (note that the human body and the brain are considered to be an aspect of the physical world, not of subjective inner experience).
Anomalous interactions, on the other hand, must follow other routes, namely through the unconscious mind and intangible physical reality. Neither of these realms are very well understood, but what we do suspect, from Jungian and Trans-personal Psychology, as well as from quantum theory and contemporary studies of the the elementary building blocks of matter, is that both time and space begin to act differently at very fundamental levels of the physical world. In addition, at a certain point, the nature of the intangible physical world begins to depend more and more on mental states - on the intentions of the observing mind.
Two different schematics for this anomalous interaction are presented here.
In the schematic on the left, we see pictured the conscious mind posing an intention, which the unconscious mind then acts upon in some as yet unknown fashion, which causes effects in the probabilistic intangible physical reality, which then becomes tangible in some form. Effectively, the consciousness is 'submitting' the anomalous task to the functioning of the unconscious mind. In PEAR's REG experiments, the conscious mind said "GO HIGH." The unconscious mind, then, may have somehow influenced the intangible quantum states in the electronic noise diode to produce a higher sequence of numbers, which then becomes a tangible physical measurable.
This process may also work in reverse. During anomalous information acquisition about the tangible physical world, that tangible world would first be resolved into intangible impressions, accessible to some degree by the unconscious mind, whose subjective impressions could then emerge into a more organized conscious awareness.
The right hand schematic shows another conceptualization of anomalous information sharing. In this representation, the complementary elements of the physical world and the mind meet at some sub-physical, unconscious, non-spatial and non-time related moment, and have brought into being a new event/experience. This event/experience, or "subliminal seed," then percolates up through intangibles and unconsciousness until it arrives in both the conscious mind and the physical world. The tangible event and the conscious experience will then show correlations since they are complementary interpretations of a single subliminal event.
Experimental Implications
What this model suggests for experimental work is that working out the details of new feedback displays or interfaces for the operator is not going to enhance effect size. What could be beneficial for the experimental results, however, are experimental protocols that somehow enhance the functioning of the unconscious processes involved. Subtler, subconscious forms of feedback should be explored, as should methods of inducing different conscious states in the operators, such as hypnotic states, or using "ganzfeld" procedures(cache).
Difficulties and Drawbacks
First and foremost, none of the interfaces between the various modules have been adequately studied. The most crucial interaction in this model, the interaction between the Unconscious mind (U), and Intangible physical reality (I), is virtually unstudied. So this model, too, is a long ways away from having a predictive quantifiable experimental procedure that could verify it, or falsify it.
There's another problem that also arises when trying to implement this model experimentally. Using consciousness as a primary variable has proven to be difficult, because consciousness is so variable, but at least the conscious mind is able to give some reporting on what it is doing. There are at least the beginnings of what the consciousness-related variables are, and a momentary subjective quantification of conscious states is at least possible. The unconscious mind, by its very definition, is not immediately accessible for even subjective reporting. Correlating measurable physical influences with purely unconscious states will certainly be more difficult. At present, the experimental suggestions made by this model are that consciousness needs to be present, but with minimized distractions and cognitive activity. This is an indirect method for studying the unconscious influences posited by this model, but direct study of unconscious anomalous influence will need considerably more experimental sophistication.
Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality
Filters Model lecture (video)
Robert Jahn Introduces Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality.
Sensors, Filters Model, Robert Jahn - 19 min 13 sec
In this theoretical effort, the PEAR lab suggested the use of the metaphors of sensors and filters as a way to conceptualize the interface between mind and environment. In this model, consciousness has numerous different possible channels (sensors) for receiving information from the external world. These are the usual senses, sight, smell, touch, hearing, taste, as well as other senses that could accommodate the anomalous effects, intuition, inspiration, psi-related information, and so on (conceptual sketch shown below).
Each of these sensors is equipped with a filter that hones the information prior to its perception. This is much like how the eyes and ears only perceive certain frequencies (either the electromagnetic radiation of visible light, or the physical oscillations of sound), or how taste and touch only perceive certain molecular interactions.
The metaphor of the filter is further refined to describe it as a resonant oscillator, a mechanism that is sensitive to particular frequencies of waves or oscillations, and that responds to those frequencies by enhancing them, much as a tuning fork will begin to ring if its precise pitch is played nearby. This resonant oscillator is postulated in this theory because it will later allow consciousness and the environment to establish two-way communication channels. Thinking of the filter in this way, rather than as a particulate filter (like a water filter), the filter's resonant frequencies are the modulating mechanism.
Taking the ear as an example, the vibrations that we perceive as sounds are the ones that the ear is tuned to listen for. Those frequencies set up standing waves that enhance and amplify those particular frequencies within the ear canal, while dampening other frequencies. These standing waves resonate in the ear, are picked up by the ear drum, and are sent to the brain for processing, but they also emerge from the ear, effectively reflecting the modulated signal back out into the environment.
Moving away from the physicality of conventional senses and filters, and toward a more metaphorical conceptualization, the model then posits that these filters are tunable. The conscious mind is able to change what it listens for. By doing this, it changes the frequencies that are honed and enhanced for perception, and it also changes the frequencies of the re-emitted standing waves. In this way, the attention of the consciousness becomes coupled with (small but significant) physical emissions.
Implications
By tuning filters, the consciousness makes perception an active participation with the environment. Conscious tuning thus influences the environment.
Not only that, but this tuning changes what is capable of being perceived; it changes the experience of reality. Many classical psychological experiments show how selective attention, cultural expectations, and other cognitive filters of various kinds place limits on what we are able to perceive, so this is not surprising. But reflecting on what this observation may mean in regard to the anomalous sensors, the implications are expanded.
This model rests on the idea, confirmed again and again by the expansion of physical science, that the environmental surround, the 'Source' of experience, Nature, contains a much broader range of phenomena than we can experience through our physical senses, or even through our tools that enhance what we are able to perceive. Filter tuning then, especially in regard to perceptual sensors that have been less well explored (such as the 'anomalous' channels) then becomes a very exciting ground for renewed scientific exploration. What kind sorts of realities may be expanded and explored by tuning anomalous channels of information?
The implications of this model for experimental work reside predominantly in the concept of resonance, and in instructed protocols for operators. Experimental work proceeding from this theoretical frame would make use of physical processes that would perceivably be resonance-related. These resonances would not necessarily be physical, but would relate to emotional experience and the anomalous channels of perception. Exploring what experimental processes may resonate with anomalous channels could be fertile ground for experimental work.
The instructed protocols for operators that could be suggested by this model have to do with filter tuning strategies. Many of our modes of behavior become calcified into routines and habits as we learn, age, and automate our perceptual filters. Intentionally maintaining flexibility in what we allow ourselves to perceive may be a crucial component to learning how to interact with anomalous phenomena, both in the laboratory, and in daily life.
Drawbacks
The Filters/Sensors model, just like other models, has its most crucial interfaces mostly undefined. So it, too, lacks empirical explanatory power. This is both an opportunity for and a limitation on future experimenters.
Neither does it deal explicitly with the non-local and a-temporal empirical evidence, leaving that to further investigation within hypothesized anomalous sensors which remain undefined.
Unit Conclusion
In the work of the PEAR lab, a lot of new ground has been broken empirically, and there are numerous suggestions for what is to be done with this evidence in future theoretical modeling. Many of the competing views regarding consciousness will be challenged by this new evidence.
For instance, we have seen a measurable, empirical breakdown of the dualistic separation between mind and body. If consciousness has a concrete influence on physical outcomes, the dualistic, Cartesian interpretation of the world will need to be revised.
Similarly, the many subtle presumptions of the scientific materialist world view will also need to be carefully examined as the new empirical evidence gets incorporated into our body of scientific knowledge.
In many ways, the theoretical models that the PEAR lab has laid out could be the beginning of a new experiment-based middle road between the materialist and mystical idealist ways of conceptualizing consciousness and the physical world. Consciousness may not be either an emergent phenomenon, or the ground of all existence, but rather a complementary component, participating with a largely unexplored physical world at a point where mind meets matter in a complex interplay of mutual influence.
The models discussed in this unit, and the data discussed throughout the course, offer quite a bit of fodder to chew, giving explorers of consciousness some stimulating concepts for follow-up. But these are still very preliminary conceptual models. While they offer very little in the way of falsifiable hypotheses, they still offer useful guidelines for developing new experimental and theoretical frameworks.
Filter tuning strategies may prove useful for suggesting certain attitudes to adopt when conducting new experiments. Newly devised experiments may focus on creating resonant, indeterminate, or subconsciously priming systems.
As we continue to discover more, we should keep in mind the concepts discussed in this unit, looking for parallels in the data to ideas like: wave mechanics (and resonance) of consciousness; the various suggested geometries and schematics of consciousness; the role of the unconscious; the role of uncertainty; sensing, filtering, and tuning; and the observer effects, and the quantum mechanical complementarity of both the mind/material and event/experience. It will certainly be interesting to see how these concepts co-evolve as we continue to refine our understanding of these truly strange experimental results.
Suggested Activity
The activity for this unit is simple but difficult: thinking, then discussion. Participate in the forums, and discuss with your friends and fellow students. Choose a conceptual model and pick it apart, reading the original papers below. Or apply the concepts here to other fields. What would these subjective influences mean for biology, medicine, psychology, or statistics?
The principal authors of the PEAR lab call for a new field of research, the Science of the Subjective, a field that studies not only these anomalous consciousness-related phenomena, but one that can also inform other fields of research on how they may include and account for the subjective variables that will frequently be in play. What might this Science of the Subjective look like?
Namely, what could be called the mind, the observer, or the 'I', and was referred to in the previous model as consciousness, was now subdivided into Conscious (C) and Unconscious (U) components. Similarly, the physical world was subdivided into a Tangible (T) physical reality, and an Intangible (I) physical reality. There was also posited to be a "Source" (S) regime that encompassed all of these aspects of mind and the physical world.
(cache).
