Measuring Focused Intent – Part 2

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.

2 Comments

  1. Do you have a source for the data? How was it known that any deviation was caused by 9/11 incident and not some other cause? What medium does the consciousness use – electro-magentic radiation, gravity waves, what? A sequence of random coin tosses could result in long strings of consecutive heads or tails – that doesn’t make it non-random – so in what sense did the GCP results differ from expected? etc. etc.

  2. Ron, you have some very good questions there, many of which keep researchers up at night because they can’t definitively answer them either.

    You can find the source data for all the GCP experiments on their site at http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
    Actually, a long stream of consecutive heads or tails in these experiments does make the result non-random because random would result in a 50/50 split. Consider that the REG devices they are using are spitting out thousands of 1s and 0s a second. So, it doesn’t take long to get a respectable sample size. Considering that these things are all over the globe and continuously running, it’s quite easy for them to get averages over long periods. And, they show the graphs for random vs. recorded data. So, it’s pretty easy to see when there’s a spike that significantly deviates. Remember that the guys who originally set up these formulas worked for Princeton Engineering. But, if you want to check their math, it’s on the site too, in detail.

    As for what they term a “global event” that they are correlating these spikes to, that’s more of a gray area. On the site, they do have listed their criteria, but no one can absolutely prove that the spikes are directly related to those events. So, there is some fuzzy area here, and it’s a matter of interpretation, as are all such studies of this nature.

    Ever since Faraday physically demonstrated the concept of electromagnetic radiation, and especially since radio waves were proven real, folks have been trying to link some sort of light wave to the transmission of thought and/or proof of the existence of consciousness. There have been countless experiments, both by the PEAR researchers and many, many others to find brain activity that directly correlates to changes in the REG devices. To date, they’ve developed a lot of very accurate brain-mapping technologies, but no one has ever been able to directly correlate a neuron firing in the brain with a specific change in a REG device.

    Technology has progressed to the point that we can now measure very subtle energies, and to do so, the equipment and the subject of interest must be placed in specially shielded rooms. Actually, those shielded rooms have been around for a while in this type of experiment. To date, person-to-machine and person-to-person experiments have all given the same results whether or not the sender/receiver of the experiment was in a shielded room. In other words, the shield didn’t stop a person from having an effect on the other machine/person. So, the most researchers can say at this time is they know that thought/consciousness is not any energy that the room shields, which includes EM radiation. At this point researchers are still checking things off the list of possibilities, but can only say what it’s not, and cannot say what it is. In fact, the proof of consciousness energy, as well as its definition, has become the new holy grail of science.

Comments are closed.