One of the most well-researched and fascinating branches of psi science is active-psi or Psychokinesis (PK). Also known as Telekinesis and mind over matter, PK is the ability to mentally influence a physical system or object.The most common method to test for active-psi is to isolate a volunteer from a target such as an inanimate object or a random system like a coin toss, dice roll or radioactive decay, then see if the person can mentally influence the target in a repeatable manner.
When self-professed so-called rational, logically-minded “skeptics” hum and haw about the amazing findings in psi-science, I like to visually show them the odds against chance of various controlled and peer-reviewed studies. Dean Radin and Diane Ferrari’s meta-analysis of psychokinetic dice experiments yielded a ratio of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 odds against chance. On what grounds can such “rational skeptics” claim these odds to be mere coincidence?
“If all this is true, then why aren’t the casinos going out of business? And why don’t prayers work more reliably? The truth is that no one knows – yet. These experiments suggest that mind and matter are indeed related to a small degree that is statistically repeatable under controlled conditions. But we’ve barely scratched the surface of a phenomenon that’s still profoundly mysterious.So offering answers to all the ‘but why’ questions evoked by these data, given our present state of knowledge, is terribly premature. I think a more reasonable question to ask at this point is: If the results of the dice experiments suggest a genuine mind-matter interaction, then there ought to be corroborating evidence from similar experiments using other types of physical targets. And there is.” -Dean Radin, “Entangled Minds” (153)
Another popular type of PK experiment involves using Random Number Generators (RNGs) which are simple machines that electronically generate up to thousands of random 0’s or 1’s (heads or tails) every second moving an indicator light either one step clockwise or one step counterclockwise. A volunteer then attempts to mentally influence the RNG outputs by willing more clockwise results (like “heads” known as the “high aim condition”) or more counterclockwise results (like “tails” called the “low aim condition”).In 1997, after 12 years of RNG experiments at their Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (PEAR Lab), lead engineer Robert Jahn and his team formally published their findings.It seems when volunteers mentally intended for high aim conditions, the RNG outputs invariably drifted more clockwise above chance expectation. When volunteers intended for low aim conditions, the outputs drifted more counterclockwise above chance expectation. And when withdrawing all mental influence, the RNGs maintained an average baseline/control condition well within chance expectation. They found that couples working in tandem affected the output more substantially than individuals, and intimate couples affected the output six-fold. In their final meta-analysis the PEAR team’s RNG experiments yielded 35,000,000,000,000 to 1 odds against chance that their volunteers can and did indeed intentionally influence the machines.
“For nearly 30 years at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory, engineer Robert Jahn, his colleague Brenda Dunne, and their team have investigated whether volunteers could affect the random sequences of 0s and 1s produced by electronic RNGs … The results showed conclusively that such influence is real. What’s important to note is that they demonstrated that couples working together are able to affect the RNG outcomes substantially more than either can do as individuals. And for a couple who are emotionally bonded, the effects are six times those measured for each of them. In summarizing their vast archive of experimental results demonstrating nonlocal human awareness, Jahn has said, ‘If people do not believe us after all the results we have produced, then they never will.’” -Ervin Laszlo and Jude Currivan, “Cosmos” (89)
As of 2008 the Global Consciousness Project had over 65 active RNGs all over the world covering 6 continents and collected data from 185 events of global interest. These events tested and verified by independent analysts included natural disasters, celebrity deaths, mass meditations, outbreaks of war/peace, new year celebrations, sporting events and many other occurrences with global influence. The world-wide level of coalescent RNG output during these 185 events showed a clear deviation from control/baseline outputs with odds against chance of 36,400 to 1.
After 9/11 the Global Consciousness Project published an article in the Foundation of Physics Letters Journal focusing on the anomalous data gathered on that fateful day. They proved with odds against chance of 1,000,000 to 1 that an “autocorrelation,” such as mass change in attention or emotion, caused the normally random output to behave in a dramatically non-random way.