Introduction to the PEAR Lab Intention Experiments (1)
The PEAR Lab is famous for using a "Random Event Generator" to study mind-matter phenomena. To understand what a REG is, imagine an electronic coin flipper. Both produce a stream of random binary outcomes. But instead of "heads" and "tails," the REG produces "1s" or "0s." These are the symbols that computers use.
Each "1" or "0" is actually a quantum event happening inside the REG. The laws of physics say that you can't predict these quantum events, so we know the REG generates fundamentally random data. When the REG is left to generate large bodies of data (many, many binary events), we can use statistics to show that there's an essentially equal number of "1s" to "0s," which you would expect.
In the simplest PEAR experiment, a REG would be turned on, and shown to generate this statistically balanced ratio. Then a human volunteer (or "operator") would be asked to try to influence the REG to produce more "1s" than "0s," or vice-versa, just by willing it. This was called "going high" or "going low." The PEAR scientists would then look for significant imbalances in the data. Basically, the PEAR scientists were trying to see the actual power of intent on the physical world.
The PEAR lab repeated the REG experiments thousands of times. In most of them, they tended to find an unexplained imbalance in the random data, correlating to the intent of the operator. Their intention experiments focused on this effect, and they tried to understand it from several points of view.
From a scientific point of view, PEAR studied the effect with math and physics. For example, they used engineering to design and build controlled experiments, and statistics to describe the strength and magnitude of any anomalies. And they used modern physics (like quantum mechanics) to try and model how consciousness might interact with the physical world, based on known laws and frameworks.
From a humanist point of view, PEAR explored the subjective factors of the mind-matter effect. How are emotions involved? Are there gender differences? Does competition or cooperation work best? Does meditation, yoga, or Qi-Gong improve results? These some of the questions the PEAR lab tried to answer.
For the technically minded, here's an example of one PEAR experiment. A single operator was asked to influence 5,000 trials on the REG. A single trial involved generating 1 million samples of 200 bits, at 1,000 bits-per-second (1). Before each trial, the operator indicated his intent to make the REG "go high" or "go low."
The result of the experiment was that the overall ratio of high to low outcomes was essentially balanced, but that each one tended toward the direction of the operator's intent. Statistical tests showed that the likelihood of this happening by chance was p=3 x 10^-7, or less than 1 in 250,000.
Some PEAR experiments had similar results; others had larger, smaller, or statistically insignificant imbalances. The differences in the results really depended on the number of trials generated, how many operators were involved, and their relative performance from experiment to experiment. However, PEAR's cumulative database—the aggregate collection of results from all experiments—show numbers on the order 1 in a trillion of happening by chance (2).
Some of PEAR's most interesting discoveries relate to things people experience in their daily lives. For example, one study asked pairs of people to try to influence the Random Event Generator together. Collectively they generated over 250,000 trials.
In general, pairs of the same sex got results opposite the direction of their intention. But pairs of the opposite sex got significant results conforming to their intention—3.7 times stronger than same sex pairs. Yet of those same sex pairs, meaningfully-bonded couples got results twice as strong as non-bonded couples (3). A later study suggested that same sex pairs could get stronger-than-average results, provided they felt "connected" to one another.
To many, this is evidence of the power of cooperation over of competition. Working together, people that complement each other in some way have a stronger impact on the world, perhaps up to 6 times as strong. They are that much more likely to manifest their intentions.
PEAR designed different intention experiments, to give operators a new experience, and to test out variables that might be involved in the mind-matter effect. For example, REGs were configured to alternate images on a computer screen, and to control the movement of a robot. Operators would get feedback related to performance, as they interacted with the system.
Some didn't use a REG at all. These included a swinging pendulum and a small fountain, which were carefully monitored for anomalies while operators attempted to affect them. The PEAR lab even built a "Random Mechanical Cascade," which slowly dropped 9,000 balls through even-spaced pegs, to create life-size bell curves. Operators would sit on a sofa across from the RMC, intending to shift the bell curve to the left or right.
PEAR had some intriguing findings. One was that while feedback may improve scores, it is idiosyncratic to individual operators. In other words, when it comes to affecting the world, everyone has a unique approach, and personal signature (4, 5). Another was that environment seems to matter more than feedback (6). An environment that a person finds conducive affecting physical reality will help them perform. This suggests that people are most effective when in a certain state of mind.
There also seemed to be gender differences. Female operators on average seem to get slightly larger effect sizes, while men remain more consistent then women in their ability to get significant effects in the direction of intention (7). PEAR's Brenda Dunne speculates that this might be related to a fundamental complementarity between the sexes.
Another very interesting finding is that operators apparently influenced the non-REG systems as well (8, 9). If people can affect devices such as the RMC, perhaps they are affecting other macroscopic objects or processes in their daily life. So our minds may be affecting all of reality, beyond just the world of tiny particles.
Sometimes people with special skills were operators. These had training or talent in Qi-gong, yoga, meditation, or the martial arts. Regardless of what they practiced, they were allowed to perform under the same conditions as everyone else. Some chose to meditate while trying to influence the REG; others practiced their movements or routine, intending for it to affect the outcome.
In one study, three practitioners of the Japanese healing technique called "Johrei" were invited to be operators (10). When the healers used their method on the REG, two of them achieved effects that were much larger than what typical operators achieve. When the healers stopped their Johrei techniques, all results went back to chance. This suggests that healing techniques might be effective in ways our medical framework has missed, but that is detectable with the REG.
Regardless of method, operators did best when they felt a kind of bond between themselves and the REG. In other words, our minds have a stronger impact on the world when we feel emotionally connected to it. This discovery led PEAR to speculate that the feeling of "resonance" between people and things may in fact be a physical resonance of some kind, and that this resonance causes physical changes. This may even relate to the feeling we sometimes have, of being connected to someone else in a distant time or place.
PEAR conducted some exotic versions of their basic intention experiment. Many of these investigated how time and space might be factors in the mind-matter effect. When operators in distant cities or countries were asked to attempt to influence a REG running at the Princeton lab, their results were basically comparable to an operator sitting in front of the machine (11).
Some experiments involved time delays. In these, the REG would be allowed to generate data at a certain time, with no one trying to affect it. In forward time delays, an operator would have been asked to influence this body of data before it was generated—sometimes days or weeks before. In reverse time delays, an operator would be asked to influence the body of data sometime after it was generated. Then, the data would be examined for unexplained anomalies. Once again, PEAR found results were basically comparable to an operator working in the present (12).
To some unknown extent, our minds seem able to traverse distances and times, and interact with physical systems. This idea of reverse time delay is now known as "retrocausation" or retro-causality, and has become a hot topic in advanced physics. Other research has revealed a similar phenomena, where the future somehow affects the present or the past, and the AAAS recently held a conference on retro-causality at the University of San Diego (13).
PEAR's intention experiments point out something that our scientific frameworks may have missed: the role of consciousness in shaping the physical world. The implication is that our minds are intertwined with reality in ways don't yet understand, but in very deep and meaningful ways nonetheless.
(1) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/finalcap.pdf
(2) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/2006-JSE-EVIDENCE.PDF
(3) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Co-Op.pdf
(4) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/2000%20(JSE)%20-%20ArtREG.pdf
(5) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/2007-JSE-Robot.pdf
(6) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/2007%20(JSE)%20-%20Yantra.pdf
(7) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/dunne12_1.pdf
(8) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/2RMCi0892-3310-002-02-0155.pdf
(9) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/8Pen%20i0892-3310-008-04-0471.pdf
(10) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Johrei.pdf
(11) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/6REM%20i0892-3310-006-04-0311.pdf
(12) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/6REM%20i0892-3310-006-04-0311.pdf
(13) http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060622-9999-lz1c22cause.html
Back to Research Archive