Send Them Peace

Send Them Peace

Q: "What was that PEAR thing, all about?"

A: Influencing Matter with Mind.


Have a look at this Introduction/ Summary to the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) work, its founders and staff.



Psyleron - Princeton Mind-Matter Interaction Research from Psyleron on Vimeo.



If you prefer, here are my notes from the above video :

Notes about PEAR:


Began 1976 by Robert Jahn, Dean of the School of Engineering at Princeton.
Began with an undergraduate student's proposal for a project to study the effects of human intention on a mechanical device, a REG or Random Event Generator, and this in the realm of psychokinesis.

Jahn's expertise was plasma propulsion systems for rockets, as used on spacecraft today.
He needed to be convinced ...

Initial data seemed unexplainable.

1979 - Brenda Dunne was hired as lab manager, and PEAR focused on further models and data gathering and analysis, each time moving towards tighter controls to see if "the unexplainable" still persisted. Some conclusions :
"The human mind has a small but measureable influence, on random physical systems." - Brenda Dunne

"The human mind, and the information processing machines, seem to be entering into some sort of a dialogue, which influences both the machine and the human mind that is interacting with it." - Robert Jahn


Data are quickly flipped through without presentation in a part of the video, here's one example that I gleaned (click to enlarge):


'Prolific females' - Z scores from PEAR data.jpgIn the above, what are the 11 "Prolific females" doing?!  Z score = 4.54 !


Characteristics of electronic and other devices used at PEAR ...

  • They are random event physical devices, some electronic, some mechanical
  • They are capable of calibration
  • And in most cases, they are capable of a theoretical expectation, (to use for comparison with observed frequencies).

1987 - York Dobbins, a theoretical physicist joined the PEAR staff. He has done much of the statistical analysis, and responds to critics.
The equipment that survived the search for perfect sources of random data, have been identified, and are calibrated in the experimental conditions, producing calibration results consistent with the null hypothesis.
A tripolar protocol is used, where the only difference in the results becomes the human being's mental state. Any physical confounding variable that can or has been proposed, has to get through equipment design and shielding, and calibration, yet still track what an operator is doing.


The phenomena observed remain, unexplained, with much resistance from mainstream science. How can peer review take place if there are no peers? Only irrational criticism emerges. Quality of work is passd over for topical disputes. 


"Science is about opening one's mind to learn something new." - Brenda Dunne.

"I wouldn't believe in this, even if it was true." - a critic of the PEAR results.


"As evidence and documentation accumulated, criteria for acceptability became more and more stringent." - York Dobbins.


So who is railroading whom here?


Can people affect objects and machines with their minds?


"Small effects compound over many occurrences." - Brenda Dunne

The effects are not associated with cognitive processes or cognitive psychology (no learning curves demonstrated), and people tend to do better, the first time ("beginner's luck" or series position effects).
Probabilities are being changed across entire distributions of output, rather than the physical activity. Cooperator effects are in evidence (bonded couples of opposite sex, for example, get stonger effects than individuals).


Field REG data show more effects with "lots of people who are 'on the same wavelength'."

"Effects are independant of distance and time."

I found the above statement rather impressive, even if glossed over in the video. It merits a "Wow!" that it did not receive.


"All these observations challenge any effects to model them. They don't fit with any understanding of the way the world works." - Brenda Dunne


"The physical theories, for dealing with the compounded data results from PEAR, need to be expanded... Were exploring the interactions between the human mind and random physical processes, the physical theories lack several important ingredients... Rigid, causal determinism and replication will not suffice to explain these data, in spite of the success of these methods to enoble many other areas in science." - Robert Jahn.


PEAR's theoretical models to explain "how," and "why" have yet to be fully developed, since so much effort and time were devoted to make the case that the phenomena measured at PEAR are real.

"The search is indeed for the mechanism by which such information is acquired, or indeed, possibly even created." - Robert Jahn.


PEAR is now done with generating all manner of random binary events.

"If these events are intrinsically, subjectively driven, then it follows clearly that the researcher must be experiencing them himself. So don't take our word for it, don't take other's words for it, go off and try it yourself, and come to your own conclusions based on your own experience." - Robert Jahn.


No, this is not rocket science.

And apparently, it is more difficult to understand and convert into applications, then rocket science, which Robert Jahn had mastered. Here, if the mastery is pronounced in undertones, rather than shouted from a roof at the University, is that due to the effects of a near total lack of support for the PEAR results?

To take it further, to pursue the implications and effects on other fields, is part of the inheritance from PEAR's 25 years of research, to the next generation. Out of simple experiments, extraordinarily difficult phenomena emerged.


Who will answer?


Part of what I sensed as I listened to the video was that these scientists dedicated to the correct performance of protocols at PEAR from its inception as an undergraduate project, had somewhere become tired out by the constant effort to inform a wider scientific audience. But an audience that had made up it's mind ahead of time, that it just wasn't going to listen.


Who will answer?  The PeaceTech Lab at the United States Institute for Peace? 

Still awaiting a response ...



0 Poster un commentaire