Approved For Release 2003109109: CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2
Charles Honorton
2a Psychophysical Interaction
The Problem of
Psychophysical Interaction
The nature of mii@4 and its relationship to the
physical world remains@la fundamental mystery. Does
mind 'emerge' out of or represent some 'inner' di-
mension of physical states? Or is mind an inde-
pendent entity that interacts with but is not re-
ducible to physical states? Is the brain a gener-
ator or a transmitter of mind? If the former,
what is the magical algorithm through which physi-
cal states achieve consciousness? If the latter,
what is the mode of interaction between mind and
brain? Is the traffic one-way or two-way: are
mental states always effects of brain states and
never their causes, or are brain states sometimes.
effects as well as causes of mental states?
The problem of psychophysical interaction, or
the "mind-body problem" as it is sometimes called,
has traditionally been a problem for speculative
philosophy rather than science. Scientific dis-
cussions of this topic have generally reflected one
or two points of view. one is that the problem is
inherently metaphysical, has no empirical conse-
quences, and is therefore outside the domain of
science. The other is that psychophysical inter-
action is a premature scientific problem, one that
can only be solved through future developments in
the neurosciences. The philosopher of science
Karl Popper refers to the latter view as "promis-
sory materialism," and criticizes it on the grounds
that it presupposes the form of the solution, i.e.,
through reduction of mind to currently unidentified
Approved For Release 2003/09109: CIA-RDR%JI6~0079.2RI)BOAQQQ)lLQW,1-9.nd in so doing, makes claims
19
20 CharZes Honorton Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2 PsychophysicaZ interaction
for the neurosciences that cannot be substant-iated
(Popper and Eccles, 1977).
Parapsychology
Among modern neuroscientists, J. C. Eccles
(1953) and Wilder Penfield (1975) are perhaps the
most outspoken critics of "promissory materialism."
Both have advocated dualistic solutions to the
problem of psychophysical interaction. Eccles
(1953) suggests that the brain is a detector rather
than a generator of mind and speculated that 'weak
mind influences' could modify the pattern of dis-
charge of hundreds of thousands of neurons via weak
effects on neural assemblies specialized in mind-
bra-in communication:
"Thus," says Eccles (1953), "the
neurophysiological hypothesis is that the
'will' modifies the spatio-temporal activ-
ity of the neuronal network by exerting...
'fields,of influence' that become affected
through this unique detector function of
the active cerebral cortex.
"It will be objected," he continues,
"that the essence 6f-the hypothesis is
that mind produces changes in the matter-
energy system of the brain and hence must
be itself in that system.... But this
deduction is merely based on the present
hypotheses of physics. Since these pos-
Parapsychology or psi research is the stue
of interactions between living systems and thei
environment (including other living systems) tY
are anomalous with respect to currently-recogni
physical channels of information exchange. ThE
interactions are characterized by the acquisiti
of information from the outside world undercor
tions prohibiting involvement of known physiolc
cal receptors (extrasensory perception or ESP)
by the apparently direct influence of mental pi
cesses on external physical systems (psychokinE
or PK). Such interactions are general
psi phenomena.
Experimental evidence for the occurrence
psi phenomena has accumulated over the past fij
years (Rhine@ie al., 1940) and has increased I
ticularly du ng the past decade (Wolman, 1977,
The experimental and statistical methods used :
this area have survived sustained and penetrat:
critical examination (Honorton, 1975; Mauskopf,
1979; Mauskopf and McVaugh, in preparation) an(
are generally well-regarded by behavioral sciei
methodologists (e.g., Barber, 1977; Rosenthal,
1966). Nevertheless,parapsychological researc!
remains controversial.

tulated 'mind influences1have not b	There are two major reasons for the'@conti@
een
detected by an
existin
h
i
l i	ing controversy. By far the most influential
n-
ca
ys
y
g p	been the consistent failure of psi research to
strument, ey have necessarily been neg-	identify physical correlates of the phenomena,
lected in constructing the hypotheses of
"	indeed, even a plausible physical mechanism fo
physics....
(My emphasis)	
their occurrence. Psi phenomena appear to be

Eccles' speculation
while in man
wa	tinctly psychological in origin. Whether this
,
ys an
y
advance over earlier dualistic formulations
is	view is correct or merely based upon our curre
,
based primarily upon negative evidence
i
e
our	ignorance, it has been widely accepted by crit
.
.,
,
present inability to identify mind with specific	and researchers alike, and has led a number of

brain processes or structures. In order to bring	scientists to reject psi phenomena on a priori
T

such speculation into the empirical domain
it	grounds (e.g., Hebb, 1951). Although
he appa
,
would be necessary to have positive evidence of the	lack of physical substrates may be philosophic

sort suggested by Eccles in the above quotation	disturbing, this is a dubious basis upon which
,
i.e., physical detection of mind influence under	reject empirical findings. As Popper and Eccl

conditions that preclude physiological reduction-	(1977) point out, the belief that our familiar

ism. Claims of evidence of this sort
and more	tal processes are ultimately reducible to phys
,
importantl
for our
resent
f
h	descriptions is, as yet, unsubstantiated specu
purposes, o
met
ods
y
p	tion, and until such time as "promissory mater
for obtaining such evidence, constitute the sub-
ject matter of
ara
For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792
Orm1m#
sN	
1@s ally vindicated, we should reme
u_
u
uft@-ta
p
p
y
p	t
o
tive possibilities.
W
22 Charles Honorton
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2
The other major reason for continued contro-
versy over the status of psi phenomena is that
findings in this area have been difficult to repli-
cate. Replicability implies
specification of ante-
cedent conditions associated with the occurrence or
detection of a phenomenon. Because
of the anoma-
lous features of psi phenomena, much of the re-
search in this area, has been demonstration-oriented
rather than process-oriented. Demonstration exper-
iments are useful
in increasing confidence in the
reality of a phenomenon through control or elimina-
tion of alternative hypotheses, but they'do not
illuminate the antecedent conditions in which the
phenomenon occurs, and therefore contribute little
toward increasing
its reliability.
Fortunately, this situation has begun to
change, with greater emphasis on process-oriented
studies designed to identify psi-antecedent condi-
tions, and as this has occurred, there has been an
increase in the replicability (and in some cases,
the magnitude) of experimental psi effects. I will
illustrate with two sample areas that have been the
focus of considerable experimental work during the
past decade, and which I believe have both method-
ological and substantive implications for an em-
pirical approach to the problem of psychophysical
interaction.
Psi-conducive States
Like other complex psychological processes,
psi interactions appear to be modulated by individ-
ual differences (Palmer, 1977), emotional and mo-
tivational factors (Williams and Duke, 1979), the
quality of interpersonal interaction between ex-
perimental participants (Honorton, Ramsey and Cab-
ibbo, 1975), and particularly by the internal
state of the subject.
Reports of naturally-occurring, spontaneous
psi experiences are historically and cross-cultur-
ally linked to dreaming, hypnosis, and meditation.
Between 50-65% of the reported spontaneous ESP ex-
periences have been dream-mediated (Green, 1960;
Prasad and Stevenson, 1968; Rhine, 1962; Sannwald,
1959). Mental imagery is the dominant mode of psi
expression: only 15-30% of the spontaneous cases
involve imageless impr ..
%WSU@d @4MM%%]a,200070/09:
Psychophysicat Interaction
Anecdotal accounts of apparent psi phenome
recur frequently in the early literature of hyp
sis and meditation. Psi phenomena were widely
garded as the "higher phenomena of hypnotism" u
til late in the nineteenth century (Dingwall,
1967). Similarly, in traditional meditation te
psi effects or siddhis were claimed to be natur
by-products of a state of abstraction in which
there is a diminution of ego-boundaries and sel
object differentiation (Mishra, 1971).
Controlled laboratory experiments support
claim that dreaming, hypnosis, and meditation a
psi-conducive states. Experiments in whIch sul
jects have been tested for ESP in thel@e states
show stronger and more reliable ESP effects thE
those obtained in studies where subjects perfoi
ESP ta.sks in tli-i@ir ordinary "waking" state. A
cent survey of d1l experiments performed in th@
area through 1976 shows significant overall ES1
effects in 49 of the 87 experiments reported
(Honorton, 1977). This is a 56% success rate,
compared to the chance expectation of 5%. Coni
atory findings have been reported by 17 of the
laboratories contributing to this data base.
During the past decade, a growing researcl
fort has been directed toward identifiqation o@
tecedent conditions of psi-conducive states. I
of this work has been guided by a provis ional i
that considers psi-conducive states to the.int(
nal attention states (IAS), characterized by t],
following conditions shared by classical psi-c,
ducive states: (1) muscular relaxation, (2) r@
duced sensory input/processing, (3) sufficient
cortical arousal to sustain consciousness in t-.
absence of sensory input, (4) increased vividn
of or attention to spontaneous mental processe
and (5) a communication goal or need to commun
cate (Honorton, 1977; 1978a).
According to the IAS model, these conditi
serve to increase the detectability (but not r
essarily the availability) of psi input throug
attentuation of competing proprioceptive and e
teroceptive stimuli that ordinarily mask weake
psi input. In other words, normal perceptual
cesses constitute sources of noise with respec
ClA-RDP96-00792PpKO4ffWPO1Aen sensory input is decreased, t
is increased attention to internal processest
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2
24 Chartes Honorton
especially imagery, which seems to be a primary
mode of encoding psi input. The mediation of weak
inputs through mental processes has been demon-
strated in studies of subliminal perception (Dixon,
1971). Like psi phenomena, subliminal influences
appear to be more readily detected when mediated
through internal attention states, are sometimes
associated with significant avoidance of the tar-'
get, i.e., "perceptual defense," and seem to dis-
play physically anomalous characteristics, e.g.,
subliminal retrieval rate appears to be inversely
related to the physical stimulus energy. .
Several experimental procedures have been de-
veloped to test these conditions. One such pro-
cedure involves a mild form of perceptual isolation
called ganzfeld stimulation to reduce sensory func-
tioning and to increase the subject's attention to
internal imagery and thought processes (Bertini,
Lewis, and Witkin, 1964). Seated comfortably in a
sound-attentuated room, the subject relaxes as his
visual and auditory input is regulated to provide
a constant, unpatterned perceptual field. The sub-
ject is asked to "think out -loud," in order to de-
scribe a randomly selected target picture that is
located in another room. He is instructed not to
dwell upon the target, but rather to allow it to
emerge spontaneously through his ongoing mental
processes.
In 'telepathy' versions of this experiment,
the target picture is viewed by a sender (Honorton
and Harper, 1974). In 'clairvoyance' versions,
the target picture is enclosed in an opaque enve-
lope and its content remains unknown to anyone
until the end of the experiment (Schmitt and Stan-
ford, 1978).
Objective evaluation of correspondences be-
tween target pictures and subject descriptions is
accomplished on a blind basis, following one or
two basic procedures. The most common procedure
has been to test the subject's ability to recog-
nize the actual target picture from among several
alternatives presented to him at the end of the
experiment. Here, e.g., the subject is shown four
different Pictures--the actual target and three
controls--and is asked to rank each picture in or-
der of its similarity tAOF
Since JMvddTVrE"era%0t20M09/09
the target Pictures-are randomly selected
PsychophysicaZ Interaction
(with replacement), the probability that the sub
ject will correctly select the actual target in
any given session is one quarter and the result
a series of sessions is evaluated by a straightf
ward application of the binomial expansion.
The other method of evaluating target-menta
tion correspondences has been to use a special s
of target pictures characterized by the PRESENCE
ABSENCE of content in each of ten categories
(Honorton, 1975). The content of each target pi
ture is described by a 10-digit binary number.
For example, a picture containing elements of cc
tent in each of the ten categories is 11-1-1Y1,1113
while a blank target, with no content-'@Lt all, iE
0000000000, etc. To ensure statistical indepenc
ence of the categories, this target set containf
one picture reprqsenting each of the 1024 possil
combinations of the ten categories. At the end
the experimental session, the subject codes his
ganzfeld mentation in terms of the PRESENCE/ABS1
of content in each of these same categories. Th
ga-
subject's coded description is then matched a
the target code and since the target elements a-
statistically independent, this constitutes ten
independent binary trials.
with either method, in order to prq.clude s(
sory cues, the experimenter as well as the subil
is blind to the target content until completion
the ranking or coding procedure.
A detailed summary of the psi ganzfeld wor'
through 1977 has been reported elsewhere (Honor
1978a). To date, thirty-two experiments of thi
type have been reported by investigators in thi
teen different laboratories. This data base no
comprises well over 1,000 experimental sessions
contributed by more than 500 subjects. Overall
significant ESP effects have been obtained in e
teen of the thirty-two experiments (56%) and by
eight of the thirteen laboratories (62%). ThiE
a moderate level of replicability by behavioral
science standards.
Statistical summaries do not convey the crL
itative richness of this material. Subject's c
feld descriptions of remote targets frequently
CIA-RDP96-00792,RO 099 92correspondences. The following
_W 4999A
cerpts from our studies at Maimonides medical
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2
26 Chartes Honorton
Psychophysical Interaction
ter illustrate the better quality correspondences
we have observed with this procedure.
Is
XV TO
0-0
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
STORY BOOKLET
3/09/09
Example 1. (Terry and Honorton, 1976).
... now I see circles--an enormous amount of them
Their sizes are not the same-some are really
large, and others are very tiny--no larger than a
penny. They just keep flashing in front of me--
all these different sized circles.... Now I see
colors--a. complete array of colors. Two in par-
ticular--gold and silver seem to stand out more
than all the others ... I sense something important
I can't tell what, but I get a feeling of impor-
tance, respect, value." (Fig. 1)
Example 2. (Terry and Honorton, 1976).
"...an archbishop's hat. Tiny people, far away..
Floating ... a 3-D statue of a girl's face, with
short dark hair.... A blue sky, people with um-
brellas, looks like it could be France.... Red
Riding Hood. A little girl in a bonnet....
Arches. A church.... An aerial view, moving to
the ground fast...." (Fig. 2)
Example 3. (Smith, Tremmel, and Honorton,
1976). "...1 see a man with a halo. Cherubs in
the top left-hand corner. A tapestry hanging frc
a wall.... A Dutch girl, a native of Holland....
" ture.
There are definitely two halves of this pic
I see an Amish girl or a Quaker girl...." I(Fig.
I
Example 4. (Smith, Tremmel, and Honorton,
1976). "...See shoulders and an arm. Scales of
Libra or Justice.... Two little eyes shining.
Two eyes ... a face like a baboon looking at me ve2
close. Monkeys swinging by their tails from the
trees. Spider monkeys..!. Two faces looking at
each other. See my own eyelashes very clearly...
(Fig. 4)
A number of studies highlight various aspec-
of the ganzfeld experience in relation to psi pe
formance. Subjects report a variety of unusual
experiences during ganzfeld stimulation, e.g., a
reduced sense of separation between self and en-
vironment, an awareness of being connected to a
larger whole, and a change in subjective time-
sense. What makes these subjective reports of s
CIA-RDP96-00792RQ0G&&QGtGWU2 that they correlate significant
with objective measures of ESP success. Studies
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2
28 CharZes Honorton
Psychophysicat Interaction
in several different laboratories indicate that EE
success in the ganzfeld is significantly related t
changes in subjective time-sense, body image, and
other subjective factors (Braud, Wood, and Braud,
1975; Stanford and Neylon, 1975; Palmer, Bogart,
and Tart, 1977).
There is evidence linking the success or fai'
ure of psi ganzfeld experiments to the duration oJ
exposure to ganzfeld stimulation. It is known thz
sensory habituation (de-afferentation) requires al
proximately twenty minutes of exposure to the gan;
feld (Cohen, 1957). Successful psi ganzfeld,,stud-
ies, with overall significant ESP effects,-"fiave
averaged thirty-seven minutes of ganzfe-Id stimula.
tion, compared to an average of twenty-two minute@
for the unsuccessful studies (Honorton, 1976).
This finding has recently been confirmed .(Ashton,
et al., in press).@
This brief summary ha.s just skimmed the sur-
face of one of several productive lines of resear,
with internal states procedures. A more detailed
review of the ganzfeld work, with references to t'
original research reports, is available elsewhere
(Honorton, 1978a). For a review of similar work
the effects of relaxation on psi performance, see
Braud (1978).
Psychokinesis Experiments
with Random Generators
Figure 4.
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
A number of methods have been used over the
years to test the hypothesis that mind can direct
influence external physical systems (Rush, 1977).
Another promising area of psi research, and one
with special implications for the problem of psy-
chophysical interaction, involves PK experiments
with electronic or quantum mechanical random gen-
erators.
These devices use fundamentally random pro-
cesses such as radioactive decay or the noise in
semiconductors to provide an electronic analog o-'
"coin flipping." In a typical device of this so-
electrons emitted by Sr-90 decay trigger a Geige-
counter and the momentary position of a high-spe(
Jinamoounter at the time of the electron regis-
CIA-RDP96-007 R 99 %%Nes whether "heads" or "tails" ar,
generated (Schmidt, 1970a). These devices can r
Figure 3.
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2
30 ChaKes Honorton
domly generate the equivalent of 10, 100, or even
1,000 "coin flips" per second, while at the same
time automatically recording the total number of
events generated and their "heads"/"tails" distri-
bution.
Subjects observe the current physical state of.
the device through a feedback signal that occurs
whenever the device is in, say, the "heads" state,
with no--or different-feedback when it is in the
"tails" state. The feedback display may be a digi-
tal readout, a light or tone, or a computer,-graph-
ics display which changes as a, function of the mo-
mentary physical state of the random generator.
The subject's task is to observe the feedback dis-
play and attempt to mentally "bias" the normally
random output of the device according to preset
experimental instructions. The behavior of the de-
vice under these conditions is compared to its be-
havior in control conditions without subjects pre-
sent or intended influence.
The first experiments of this type were re-
ported by Schmidt (1970b). 'The feedback display
was a circle of nine lamps which lit one at a time
in either the clockwise or counterclockwise direc-
tion, depending on which of the two states was ra7n-
domly generated on a given trial. The fifteen sub-
jects in this experiment completed more than 30,000
individual trials. Extensive control runs were
also taken in the absence of subjects or attempts
to influence the device. While these control runs
conformed closely to the expected chance distribu-
tion, the experimental trials with subjects devi-
ated significantly from the expected chance values.
Since this line of research was inaugurated,
approximately five dozen experiments of this type
have been reported by investigators in eight dif-
ferent laboratories. Approximately 65% of these
studies yield significant departures from chance
Psychophysicat Interaction
task is to increase the frequency of a feedback
signal. He need not know or be concerned with wha
is "inside the box," that is, the internal mecha-
nism of the random generator, in order to influenc
its output. This is suggested by studies in which
key physical parameters of the device have been
systematically varied, e.g, when the feedback dis-
play observed by the subject is, without his knowl
edge, switched between two internally different
random sources with no difference in the subject's
ability to influence the outcome (Schmidt and Pan-
tas, 1972).
Several experiments in our laboratory,,bbar on
the apparent goal-directedness of PK fzor6 a differ
ent direction. We have used a random generator
that automatically alternates the definition of th
target between "heads"Ptails" one microsecond
prior to each triaf-(May, 1976). This alternating
target bit was originally incorporated as an addi-
tional precaution, to dOLncel out any systematic
side bias in the output* of the device and it has
served this function quite well: in seven millior
control trials, the overall deviation was within
0.03 standard deviations of the expected chance
value. In several experiments (Honorton and May,
1976; Honorton and Winnett, 1977; Winnett and
Honorton, 1977) subjects attempted to mentally in-
fluence the directional output of the device so aE
to produce above chance deviations on some tuns
("high-aim") and below chance deviations on otherE
("low-aim"). Significant directional effects werc
obtained in each of these experiments. The fact
that the target was defined one microsecond in
advance of each trial would appear to preclude anj
reductionistic interpretation of these effects,
since this operation is approximately three orderE
of magnitude faster than human nervous system func
tioning, which operates on the order of millisec-
onds.
under experimental conditions (i.e., with subjects c Several recent studies have shown a signifi-
present attempting to influence the device). None ant relationship between random generator PK ef-
of these studies show similarly significant results fects and specific imagery strategies employed by
in control conditions without intended influence subjects (Morris, Nanko, and Phillips, 1979). Sul
(Honorton, 1978b; Stanford, 1977). jects exerted significant influence on the output
of the random generator when they employed a goa.l@
These effects, like those studied in bYi'A,-I- directed strategy in which they focused on the de-
back, appear to be goal-dAW@g@.q Foffhgel U9/09: CIA-RDP96-00792ROO04000*0001-2
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2
32 CharZes Honorton
Psychophysical Reality Testing
The problem of psychophysical interaction has
remained in philosophical limbo only because it has
been empirically inaccessible. In this paper I
have reviewed two areas of psi research that may
contribute to the development of an empirical ap-
proach to this fundamental problem. I believe that
the methods and findings of psi research provide
science with a unique opportunity to bring this
problem into the empirical domain.
The internal states work suggest Is thaIt when
the normally restrictive filtering functions of
the nervous system are bypassed or reduced, as in
dreaming, ganzfeld stimulation, etc., sensorially-
remote information may be acquired in an objective-
ly verifiable manner. ESP falsifies the Aristote-
lian dictum that all valid knowledge is mediated
through the senses.
The empirical viability of dualistic theories
of mind/brain interaction, such as that of Eccles,
is contingent upon evidence that mental processes
are causes as well as-effects of physical process-
es. Experimental evidence for PK is now suffi-
ciently extensive to require at least tentative
consideration of the hypothesis that goal-directed
mental activity can produce small but measurable
changes in the normal operation of external physi-
cal devices. While "promissory materialism" could
be extended to cover the anomalies studied in psi
research, it should be noted that psi phenomend
and, indeed consciousness itself, are only anoma-
lous within a framework that assumes all of reali-
ty must be reduced to physical principles. The
lack of such reducibility is not only consistent
with dualistic formulations, it is required by
them.
Clearly, any conclusions at this stage would
be premature. For myself, I make no stronger claim
for parapsychological research than this: for the
first time in the history of science, we have be-
gun to forge an empirical approach to one of the
most profound and ancient of mysteries, the nature
of mind and its relationship to the physical world.
We have no answers, but we have begun to develop
methods that enable us A&ftRAeCPP6PR4kf&W2G63A&*:
of questions.
Psychophysicat Interaction
'R,-ferences
1. Ashton, H. T., Dear, P. R., Harley, T. A., a,
Sargent, C. L. Journal of the Society for Psychi-
ca.1 Research, in press.
2. Barber, T. X. Pitfalls in Human Research. Ne,
York: Pergamon Press, 1976.
3. Bertini, M., Lewis, H., and Witkin, H. Arch
di Psicologia Neurologia e Psychiatria, 1964(6),
493-534.
4. Braud, W. G. In B. Shapin and L. Col _y- -(Eds.
Psi and States of Awareness. New Yoi@S,.,`, Paxapsy
chology Foundation, Inc., 1978, 1-41.
5. Braud, W. G.--, Wood, R., and Braud, L. W. JC
na.1 of the American Society for Psychical Reseai
1975(69), 105-113.
6. Cohen, W. American Journal of PsycholoqV,
1957(70), 403-410; see also: T. C. Cadwallandei
American Psychologist, 1958(13), 410.
7. Dingwall, E. J. (Ed.) Abnormal Hypno ic Phe!
ena. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1967. (4 vols
8. Dixon, N. Subliminal Perception. New York
McGraw Hill, 1971.
9. Eccles, J. C. The Neuroph siological Basis
Mind. Oxford University Press, 1953.
10. Green, C. Proceedings of the Society_for P
chical Research, 1960(53), 97-161.
11. Hebb, D. 0.
39-55.
Journal of Personality, 1951(2
12. Honorton, C.
(25), 103-116.
Journal of Communication, 197
13. Honorton, C. Journal of the American SOCiE
for Psychical Research, 1975(b) (69), 353-359.
14. Honotton, C. Research in ParapsVchology 1
Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow Press, 184-186.
CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2
Approved For Release 2003109109: CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2
34 Chartes Honorton
Psychophysical interaction
15. Honorton, C. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.) Handbook
of Parapsychology. New York: Van Nostrand Rein- 28. Palmer, J., Bogart, D., Jones, S., and Tart,
hold, 1977, 435-472. C. Journal of the American Society for.PsychicaL
Research, 1977(71), 121-145.
16. Honorton, C. In B. Shapin and L. Coly (Eds.)
Psi and States of Awareness. New York: Parapsy-
chology Foundation, Inc., 1978(a), 79-'100.
17. Honorton, C. Paper presented at AAAS Annual
Meeting, Washington, D. C., 17 February, 1978(b).
18. Honorton, C. and Harper, S. Journal of the
American Society for Psychical Research, 1974(68),
156-168.
19. Honorton, C. and May, E. C. Research in Para-
psychology 1975. Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow
Press, 1976, 90-91.
20. Honorton, C., Ramsey, M., and Cabibbo, C.
Journal of the American SocietV for Psychical Re-
search, 1975(69), 135-149.
21. Honorton, C. and Winnett, R. Research in
Parapsychology 1976. Metuchen, N. J.: The Scare-
crow Press, 1977, 95-97.
22. Mauskopf, S. H. (Ed.) The Reception of Uncon-
ventional Science. Boulder, Colo.: Westview
Press/American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1979. (AAAS Selected Symposium No. 25).
23. Mauskopf, S. H. and McVaugh, M. Unnatural
Science. In preparation.
24. May, E. C. Research in Parapsychology 1975.
Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1976, 20-22.
25. Mishra, R. S. Textbook of Yoga Psychology.
New York: Julian Press, 1971.
26. Morris, R. L., Nanko, M., and Phillips, D.
Research in Parapsychology 1978. Metuchen, N. J.:
The Scarecrow Press, 1979 (in press).
27. Palmer, J. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.) Handbook of
ParapsVchology. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,
1977, 175-201.
29. Penfield, W. The Mystery of the Mind.
Princeton University Press, 1975.
30. Popper, K. and Eccles, J. C. The Self and
Its Brain. New York: Springer International,
1977.
31. Prasad, J. and Stevenson, I. International
Journal of Parapsychology, 1968(10), 241-2,61.
32. Rhine, L. E. Journal of Parapsy6@oloqy, 196
(26), 88-111.
33. Rhine, J. B.,@,Pratt, J. G., Smith, B. M.,
St!uart, C. E., and'Greenwood, J. Extrasensory Pe
c@ption After Sixty Years. New York: Holt, 194C
34. Rosenthal, R. Experimenter Effects in Beha%
ioral Research. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, 1966, p. 379.
35. Rosenthal, R. PsVchological Bulletin, 1978
(85), 185-193.
36. Rush, J. In S. Krippner (Ed.) Advan ,ces in
Parapsychological Research: PsVchokinesis., New
York: Plenum, 1977, 15-78.
oq__
37. Sannwald, G. Zeitschrift fur Parapsychol
und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie, 1959(3), 59-71,
38. Schmidt, H. Journal of Applied Physics,
1970(a), (41), 462.
39. 'Schmidt, H. Journal of ParapsycholoqV,
1970(b), (34), 175.
40. Schmidt, H. and Panta.s, L. Journal of Para-
Ps chology, 1972(36), 222.
41. Schmitt, M. and Stanford, R. G. Journal of
the American Society for Psychical Research, 197,'
(72), 177-182.
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2
36 CharZes Honorton
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400010001-2
42. Smith, M., Tremmel, L., and Honorton, C. Re-
search in Parapsychology 1975. Metuchen, N. J.:
The Scarecrow Press, 1976, 191-194.
43. Stanford, R. G. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.) Hand-
book of Parapsychology, New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1977, 324-381.
44. Stanford, R. G. and Neylon, A. Research in
Parapsychology 1974. Metuchen, N. J.: The Scare-
crow Press, 1975, 89-93.
45. Stevenson, I. Telepathic Impressions..' Char-
lottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1970.
46. Terry, J. C. and Honorton, C. 'Journal of the
American Society for Psychical Research, 1976(70),
207-217.
47. Williams, L. and Duke, M. Research in Para
P-sycholoqV 1979. Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow
Press, in press.
48. Winnett, R. and Honorton, C. Research in
ParapsVchology 1976. Metuchen, N. 'J.: The Scare-
crow Press, 1977, 97-98.
49. Wolman, B. B. (Ed.) Handbook of Parapsvchol-
oqv. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1977.
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
Harold E. Puthoff, Russell Targ
Edwin C. Mai
3. Expe umental P i Research:
S,
f
Implicatio for Ph sics
Experiment 1 r tory work continues to
a
e existence of so-called
provide evidence f@:r
psi processes, a clas of interactions between
consciousness and th ysical world as yet unex-
plained. These incl de (1),the acquisition of in-
formation not prese ed any obvious sense, and
(2) the production f phy ical effects not medi-
ated by any obviou mechan sm. At SRI we have con-
centrated primari on the ormer, investigating a
phenomenon we cal "remote *ewing," the ability
of certain indiv" uals to ac ss and describe, by
means of mental rocesses, in ormation blocked
from ordinary p rception by di tance,or shield-
ing.1-6 Our d a base consist of more than 100
experiments in the remote viewi g of targets rang-
ing from obje s in nearby light tight cannisters
to g o, ra;bhlec
r;m ' sites at transcont ental distances,
view:dgfargmlc cations which incl e shielded Fara-
u
day cages.ant a submerged submarin . Data from
these obs r -tions indicate that m els put for-
ward to exi@aoin Psi Processes must ccount for bit
rates on t, rder of 0.1 bits/s, re olution of
approxima ly 1 mm, apparent ineffec 'veness of
ordinary ectrical shielding, and re ative insen-
sitivity ko distance up to at least 10 000 km.
Alt*ough such phenomena might appear to be in
conflict1with the laws of physics, we anticipate
that with further work much of the data will be
accounted for either within the framework of
physics as presently understood, or on the basis
of extrapolations that have been proposed to ac-
CIA-RDP96-OQ:-&2ftOQQOQQIQWlf4lon-psi) data, and that, converse
37