In the first installment of this series, we looked at how REG devices (or Random Event Generators) were used in mind-over-matter experiments. Today we’ll look at the difference in early studies and recent studies that show the difference between focused attention and focused intent.
The experiments at the PEAR lab began in 1979, but physicist and parapsychologist Helmut Schmidt had been using REG devices in consciousness studies since the 1960s. For the most part, all of these studies involved a strictly controlled environment where a person focused their intent on causing the REG device to deviate significantly from random. Many variations on this theme were run including having the person be miles away or focusing their intent long after the REG data had been run and sealed. Regardless of distance or time, the results were still the same. The “intender” had the same effect on the REG as if they had been sitting in the room with it while it was running.
The natural evolution of such studies became what is now the Global Consciousness Project (GCP), which monitors field REG devices all over the world. The data they have archived for the past decade clearly shows a significant shift from random in the REG devices just before a major event happens somewhere in the world.
There are important differences between the PEAR and GCP studies. In the PEAR experiments, the person attempting to affect the device used focused intention. There was a specific goal, or target, that they were trying to achieve. With the GCP study, there is no specific goal and the recorded events are in reaction to an event.
In other words, the PEAR study measured focused intent. The GCP measures focused attention. The PEAR study measured an individual’s intent. The GCP measures global consciousness.
The difference in these studies brings to bear an entirely new aspect to future experiments and helps scientists develop trials that distinguish what type of data they are gathering. This is especially important in studies on energetic healing.
In the next installment, we’ll look at healing studies and why the PEAR and GCP models are inadequate models to show the whole picture of what is transpiring.
The Sage Age – Blending Science with Intuitive Wisdom, was featured in Publishers Weekly shortly after its debut. Visit SageAge.net for more information and to read articles on many of the topics covered in the book.