We Are One.
Reports by unimpeachable sources
Descriptions of evidence people's minds were linked when they could not have communicated through any physical means follow. After you judge the reliability of the speakers, you must evaluate the content of their statements and allow what you learn to alter, if necessary, your view of reality.
A clear example of telepathy
Source: R. C. Hogan, Ph.D.
Dr. Hogan's own experience with linking my mind with someone else's was a surprise to both of the people involved. This is the account of what happened.
I learned in 1998 that I had remote viewing ability. I could focus on something thousands of miles away and get impressions about it, even if it was in a sealed envelope. Examples of remote viewing are presented in the section of this Web site titled, "There is no space."
I was eager to try out my newfound ability, so I had my partner, Donna, go into another room and pick up anything she wished. I would focus on her and when I was ready, I would have her leave the object in the room and come into the room where I was. I would then tell her my impressions about what she had been holding before she said anything about it.
We did the first experiment. She went into another room. I closed my eyes and focused on her. I had the impression in a clear visualization of strips of white and red lace. I asked her to come back into the room and told her what I saw. I was disappointed when she said, "No, I was looking at a book of black-and-white photographs." But the image of white and red strips of lace was so clear, I asked her to go with me back to the room and look around.
We went into the room where she was looking at the picture book and I looked around. In a box was what looked like an album. It had red and white lace in strips around the perimeter. I said, "That's what I saw." "Oh, that," she said. "That's an old picture album. It was on top of the book of black and white photographs I was looking at."
I had seen what she was seeing when she lifted up the picture album.
However, what happened next is what demonstrated to us that our minds were linked, even when in different rooms. I said I wanted to try it again, so we repeated the process. As I sat focusing on her, I had clear images of lakes, trees, streams, and the moon over an expanse of wilderness. I could hear the water in a brook. After a short time, I called to her. "OK, this one is easy." She came into the room. Influenced by her previous choice of a book, I said, "You must have been looking at a book of nature scenes."
"No, she said. That's not it." I was disappointed, but saw the scenes so clearly that I was prepared to go back into the room and look around again. Then she said what startled me. "I was just looking at this old map of the Boundary Waters where I used to canoe. I was thinking about how much I'd like to take you there and show you how beautiful it is—the clear lakes, forests full of wildlife, little streams, and how beautiful the moon is when it is shines on the water."
I wasn't seeing the map she was looking at. I was seeing the nature scenes she was remembering in her mind. I was linked to her mind.
Students spontaneously imagine the same thing without communicating
Source: Raymond Moody, M.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Moody teaches courses in perception and consciousness at the University of Nevada. As part of the courses, he invites students in groups to do "gazing" experiments in which they stare into mirrors with the lights dimmed. After a while, many begin to project into the unclear, darkened mirror images from their subconscious, much as one would do in a Rorschach ink blot test. At times, they are personal memories that have been buried by the conscious. At other times, what they see startles them because they learn or perceive things it would be impossible to experience simply staring into a mirror.
Dr. Moody reports in his book, Reunions: Visionary Encounters with Departed Loved Ones (Ivy Press, 1993), what has happened on more than one occasion that demonstrates that consciousness, people's minds, are One.
In one class seven students described the same vision from different parts of the room. Why seven out of thirty people saw a man in a turban I can't begin to answer. Another time, two students at different tables saw a ballet dancer in their speculum [mirror]. Another time, a man saw the vision of an inflamed tooth. When he told the class what he had seen, the woman next to him gasped and said that she was having an infected tooth pulled in the morning.
In none of these cases was there any prompting or discussion beforehand that would have led to these images.
Psychotherapists experience patients' mental imaging
Source: Allan Botkin, Psy.D.
Dr. Botkin and twenty other psychotherapists have been using a new technique called EMDR to help patients, especially combat veterans, overcome post-traumatic stress syndrome. He discovered that he could help patients become receptive to receiving healing messages from the subconscious in a process he calls IADC (induced after-death communication).
During one of the sessions with a patient, observed by an interning psychotherapist, he was startled to learn that the interning psychotherapist was able to see the same mental images the patient was visualizing while no one in the room was speaking.
Dr. Botkin has termed the phenomenon a "shared IADC." It demonstrates in the carefully controlled atmosphere of a psychotherapist's office that people's consciousnesses are linked. This account comes from the unpublished book, Reconnections: The Induction of After-Death Communications in Clinical Practice (Unpublished manuscript, 2004).
The first time we became aware of this phenomenon, I was inducing an IADC while another psychologist I was training observed. The patient wanted to resolve his grief by having an IADC experience with his deceased uncle. While I induced the IADC with the patient, the psychologist, out of curiosity, closed his eyes and performed the eye movements himself to self-induce an IADC. The psychologist in training then saw a vivid scene of a swampy area, with cattails, a pond, and a willow tree. He felt as though he were lying on the grass with the pond at eye level. The patient had not yet begun speaking, so the psychologist had no knowledge of what the patient was seeing during the IADC.
When the patient opened his eyes after the IADC, he said he saw a swamp scene. The psychologist in training stopped him and asked, "Did you see cattails?" The patient said, "Yes," not expecting that to be an unusual statement since he said he had said it was a swamp. The psychologist then said, "Did you see a pond and a willow tree?" The patient now was clearly surprised. "Yes," he said. "How did you know that?" The psychologist explained what he had done and the two continued to compare notes with great accuracy between what the two of them had experienced.
In this case, the psychologist in training and patient had shared the same IADC, or more accurately, had experienced the same IADC at the same time. I asked the patient, "Why did you see a swamp?" and the patient answered, "The swamp was in the back yard of my uncle's farm. I used to play there and would lie in the grass by the pond."
The psychologist then asked, "Did you see the ducks fly overhead?" The patient said, "No, that's the one thing you've described that I didn't see." It appeared that the psychologist was not simply seeing what the patient saw; he somehow had accessed the same source of the phenomenon the patient was accessing and was having his own, unique experience.
It was clear that the IADC phenomenon was not the result of an individual's perception because the event was shared. The patient was eager to learn more about this occurrence and agreed to do it again, so I induced the IADC with the patient while the psychologist self-induced an IADC. The two sat quietly for a while. Finally, they opened their eyes and began to compare notes. The patient had a conversation with his uncle this time, and the psychologist observed it, reporting specific details about the conversation that the patient corroborated.
We were very intrigued by this development and experimented with eight other patients who agreed to participate. This time, the psychologist wrote down everything he experienced before the patients reported what happened during their IADC's. In every instance, the psychologist's accounts were very accurate about what had happened during the patients' IADC's. They had shared the IADC events.
I explained this finding to another psychologist who worked with me. She reported the next day that, with the patient's permission, she had self-induced an IADC while her patient experienced an IADC and the result was that she shared the IADC with her patient; they both experienced the same things.
I caution that we would not condone participating in such an experience without the patient's permission and foreknowledge about what was occurring. I personally have not engaged in sharing an IADC with a patient because of my concerns about confidentiality.
Research studies showing that minds are One
Abstracts of research studies showing that people's minds are One follow. After you judge the reliability of the data, you must evaluate the findings and allow what you learn to alter, if necessary, your view of reality.
Study of the sense of being stared at
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING
Professor Jessica Utts, Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis.
In fall 1995, Professor Ray Hyman (University of Oregon) and Dr. Utts prepared a report assessing the statistical evidence for psychic functioning in U.S. government sponsored research as part of a review done by the American Institutes of Research (AIR) at the request of Congress and the CIA. The study that follows is taken from that report.
Results of studies in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), the United States and Scotland demonstrated that people do have a sense of being stared at. In other words, without contact with the other person, someone is aware when that person's consciousness is trained on them. To replicate the results, SAIC performed two studies of its own. The result was that they found that people displayed the same subconscious reaction of knowing when they are being stared at. Dr. Utts reviewed the two studies to determine whether they were valid studies.
Purpose: It is often reported anecdotally that people know when they are being watched. Two experiments were conducted at SAIC to determine whether or not these anecdotes could be supported by a change in physiology when someone is being observed from a distance. The experimental design was essentially the same for the two experiments. This work was a conceptual replication of results reported by researchers in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), the United States and Scotland. The experiments in the FSU were interpreted to mean that the physiology of the recipient was being manipulated by the sender, an effect that if real could have frightening consequences.
Method: The "observee" was seated in a room with a video camera focused on him or her, and with galvanic skin response measurements being recorded. In a distant room the "observer" attempted to influence the physiology of the observee at randomly spaced time intervals. During those time intervals, an image of the observee appeared on a computer monitor watched by the observer. During "control" periods, the video camera remained focused on the observee but the computer monitor did not display his or her image to the observer. There were 16 "influence" periods randomly interspersed with 16 "control" periods, each of 30 seconds, with blank periods of 0 to 5 seconds inserted to rule out patterns in physiology.
Results: To determine whether or not the galvanic skin response of the observees was activated while they were being watched, the response during the control periods was compared with the response during the "influence" periods for each subject. The results were then averaged across subjects. In both experiments, there was greater activity during the periods of being watched than there was during the control periods. The results were statistically significant in each case (p = .036 and .014) and the effect sizes were similar, at 0.39 and 0.49. As preplanned, the results were combined, yielding an effect size of .39 (p = .005). As an interesting post hoc observation, it was noted that the effect was substantially stronger when the observer and observee were of opposite sexes than when they were of the same sex.
Summaries of the studies of linking minds through telepathy using the ganzfeld technique
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING
Professor Jessica Utts, Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis.
The ganzfeld technique is used to measure whether a receiver can know what a sender in a separate room is viewing. The technique uses sensory deprivation to test for telepathy. Ping-pong balls are put over the receiver's eyes and headphones over the ears. White noise is played through the headset and a bright red light in the room creates a featureless wall before the receivers eyes when seen through the ping pong balls. The receiver's eyes lose focus and have a cloudy view after a while. At the same time, the sender in another room is shown a visual stimulus such as a short video clip. The sender tries to transmit telepathically what he or she is seeing to the subject in the ganzfeld room.
The video clips or other visual stimuli are selected randomly from a large set of items. While the sender concentrates on the target, the receiver provides a continuous verbal report of what he or she seems to see in the cloudy, unfocused wall created by the halved ping-pong balls. Images the viewers describe are compared with the images seen by the subjects. Finally, at the completion of the ganzfeld period, the receiver is presented with several video clips, pictures, or objects, one of which was what the sender was actually seeing, and, without knowing which was the target, is asked to rate the degree to which each matches the image experienced during the ganzfeld period. If the receiver assigns the highest rating to the target stimulus, it is scored as a "hit." Thus, if the experiment uses judging sets containing four stimuli (the target and three decoys or control stimuli), the hit rate expected by chance is .25.
Typically, the ganzfeld experiments show a hit rate of around .35, indicating that the sender and receiver's minds were linked even when separated in different rooms.
Dr. Utts reviewed the studies using the ganzfeld technique at the request of the U.S. government to determine whether they were valid. This is the result of her research.
5.1. Conceptual Similarity: Ganzfeld Experiments
While remote viewing has been the primary activity at SRI and SAIC, other researchers have used a similar technique to test for anomalous cognition, called the ganzfeld. As noted in the SAIC Final Report of 29 Sept. 1994, the ganzfeld experiments differ from remote viewing in three fundamental ways. First, a "mild altered state is used," second, senders are [usually] used, so that telepathy is the primary mode, and third, the receivers (viewers) do their own judging just after the session, rather than having an independent judge.
The ganzfeld experiments conducted at Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL) were already mentioned in Section 3.4. Since the time those results were reported, other laboratories have also been conducting ganzfeld experiments. At the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Parapsychological Association, three replications were reported, all published in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the conference.
The ganzfeld experiments differ in the preferred method of analysis as well. Rather than using the sum of the ranks across sessions, a simple count is made of how many first places matches resulted from a series. Four rather than five choices are given, so by chance there should be about 25% of the sessions resulting in first place matches.
5.2 Ganzfeld Results from Four Laboratories
In publishing the ganzfeld results from PRL, Bem and Honorton (1994) excluded one of the studies from the general analysis for methodological reasons, and found that the remaining studies showed 106 hits out of 329 sessions, for a hit rate of 32.2 percent when 25 percent was expected by chance. The corresponding p-value was .002. As mentioned earlier, the hallmark of science is replication. This result has now been replicated by three additional laboratories.
Bierman (1995) reported four series of experiments conducted at the University of Amsterdam. Overall, there were 124 sessions and 46 hits, for a hit rate of 37 percent. The hit rates for the four individual experiments were 34.3 percent, 37.5 percent, 40 percent and 36.1 percent, so the results are consistent across his four experiments.
Morris, Dalton, Delanoy and Watt (1995) reported results of 97 sessions conducted at the University of Edinburgh in which there were 32 successes, for a hit rate of 33 percent. They conducted approximately equal numbers of sessions under each of three conditions. In one condition there was a known sender, and in the other two conditions it was randomly determined at the last minute (and unknown to the receiver) that there would either be a sender or not. Hit rates were 34 percent when there was a known sender and when there was no sender, and 28 percent when there was a sender but the receiver did not know whether or not there would be. They did discover post hoc that one experimenter was more successful than the other two at achieving successful sessions, but the result was not beyond what would be expected by chance as a post hoc observation.
Broughton and Alexander (1995) reported results from 100 sessions at the Institute for Parapsychology in North Carolina. They too found a similar hit rate, with 33 hits out of 100 sessions, or 33 percent hits.
Results from the original ganzfeld work and these three replications are summarized in Table 3, along with the SRI and SAIC remote viewing results. The effect sizes for the ganzfeld replications are based on Cohen's h, which is similar in type to the effect size used for the remote viewing data. Both effect sizes measure the number of standard deviations the results fall above chance, using the standard deviation for a single session.
Copyright © 2006 greaterreality.com