RV describes Saddam’s capture before it occurs
Publication History: VENTURE INWARD March/April 2004
RV describes Saddam’s capture before it occurs
Publication History: VENTURE INWARD March/April 2004
In this edited excerpt from his book, renowned researcher and author Stephan Schwartz discusses the subtle and transformative impacts of “remote viewing” and accessing nonlocal mind.
Three of the most mysterious things a person can experience are spiritual ecstasy, the ah–ha! moment of creative genius, and a verifiable “nonlocal awareness” event—what is often called a psychic event. Let me propose what I think a growing body of interdisciplinary research and a millennia of ethnohistory both suggest: These three enigmatic occurrences are, in fact, different manifestations of the same process, sometimes seen as spiritual, sometimes as brilliance, and sometimes as merely strange. Each is
modulated by the intent of the practitioner and the context in which the experience is placed.
A transcendentalist, for example, seeks spiritual experience and has one appropriate to their personal
psychology. A scientist seeks, and sometimes discovers, a fundamental insight into how the world works. A person practicing a psychic discipline such as remote viewing seeks to describe a person, place, or event from which they are separated by reason of time or space. They get sense impressions and have a sense of knowingness just as if they were physically present. Sometimes these experiences come unbidden—and you yourself have probably had one at some point in your life.
Publication: MARCH–MAY 2006 • # 10 • SHIFT: AT THE FRONTIERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Available in paperback and eBook
This paper describes the development of the blind protocol, and its place in this history of consciousness research. It was first devised by Croesus, King of the Lydians (BCE 560–547) and reported by Herodotus (~ BCE 484 – ~ 424), and was created to protect against fraud in assessing an Anomalous Perception (AP) event; a Remote Viewing (RV) experiment little different from those conducted today. Its next use in the 17th century was to study a peasant farmer, Jacques Aymar, who solved crimes with Anomalous Perception, using dowsing. Not only was a blind protocol employed, but the rudiments of controls were introduced to assess Aymar. The next documented use of a blind protocol in consciousness research occurred in 1784, when it was explicitly employed in the interest of science, and its history as a research technique can be said to have formally begun. King Louis the XVIth created a commission to evaluate Franz Anton Mesmer’s claims concerning healing through “animal magnetism,” administered while people were in a trance, and asked Benjamin Franklin to be the commission’s head. The paper proposes that Franklin be considered the first parapsychologist. He created the blind protocol to answer the king’s question as to whether “animal magnetism” was real, and he not only introduced demographic variables and controls, but literally blindfolded people, which is why today we call it the blind protocol. Franklin’s observations also present the first recorded Western description of psychosomatic illness. An unintended consequence of Franklin’s Mesmer study was the loss of the idea of psychophysical self-regulation (PPSR) as a research vector, although the English surgeon John Eliotson (1791–1868) apparently saw through the failure of Mesmer’s explanatory model to the deeper insight in the form of hypnosis that was Mesmer’s real discovery. He seems to have avoided all attempts at explaining how it worked but conducted a considerable number of surgeries using hypnosis as the anesthetic, anticipating its usage in this capacity a century later. So great was the disapproval of Mesmer, however, that no one seems to have gotten Eliotson’s point. Franklin’s protocol, though, rapidly became the gold standard of science. Rupert Sheldrake, however, carried out a survey of the leading scientific journals and discovered that the main use of the blind protocol is not in medicine per se, but parapsychology and consciousness research, in which it is used for the same purposes it was originally conceived: to winnow out fraud in anomalous consciousness events and to avoid introducing experimenter effects. Ultimately, though, the protocol may be based on a false assumption, because increasingly research in areas such as therapeutic intent/healing and remote viewing suggest that all consciousness from single-celled organisms to human beings may be interlinked through a nonlocal aspect of awareness they all share.
Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
July 2005 (Vol. 1, Issue 4, Pages 284-289)
The Mobius Psi-Q Test: Report on a Mass Precogition Experiment with Correlates (PDF)
by Stephan A. Schwartz & Randall J. De Mattei
ABSTRACT
A mass self-reporting experiment involving 15,470 men and women, published in a national circulation American popular science magazine. The experiment consisted of a six section instrument: 1) A precognition task in which participants were asked to predict an outcome couched in the form of a science fantasy story; 2) A psychological evaluation of brain hemisphere dominance measured by the well-established Torrance Style of Learning and Thinking instrument (SOLAT); 3) Job categorization as measured by the Holland Job Scale; 4) a physiological self-reporting Handedness and Writing Posture study; 5) A time perception profile defined by the Time Metaphor Test of Knapp and Garbor; 6) Gender and Age. Each participant received a custom printed four page feedback document providing their unique results. There were three hypotheses: 1) That there would be a significant number of significantly scoring precognitive individuals; 2) That there would be significant sub-populations and that those individuals defined as Dynamic, in accordance with the Time Metaphor Test would score significantly higher than individuals defined as Non-dynamics; and, 3) That the group of individuals identified as Extreme Right, in terms of the SOLAT, would contain a significantly higher number of significantly scoring individuals on the precognitive part of the test than the Extreme Left group. The results showed: Overall non-significance at the p ? .05 level, but a trend towards significance with odds of 16 to 1, z = 1.54; the dynamics did not attain higher scores than the Non-dynamics and, Neutrals scored higher than Dynamics; and, that Extreme Rights did not score significantly higher than Extreme Lefts, although they did score higher.
PUBLICATION & PRESENTATION HISTORY:
This paper was presented to a joint meeting of The Parapsychology Association (USA), and the Society for Psychical Research (UK), Trinity College, Cambridge University on 20 August 1982.