edgescience_12

EdgeScienceCurrent Research and Insights

Number 12 October 2012

A publication of the Society for Scientific Exploration

First Person Science

Can a Conscious Mind Change the Brain?

Hair of the Dog and the Rise of Low-Dose Therapies

Interconnectedness: A Time Bomb in Medicine?

CONTENTSTHE OBSERVATORYThe Boggle Factor By William F. Bengston

LETTERS:On Scalar Waves

FeatureS

Interconnectedness: A Time Bomb Ready to Explode in Medicine?

By Larry Dossey

Hair of the Dog And the Rise of Low-Dose TherapiesBy Kenneth Smith

First Person ScienceBy Rafael Locke

REFERENCE POINTCan a Conscious Mind Change the Brain?A Review by Michael Davidson of Barbara Arrowsmith-Young’s The Woman Who Changed Her Brain

BACKSCATTERWhat If?

By Michael Grosso

EdgeScience #12 October 2012

EdgeScience is a quarterly magazine. Print copies are available from edgescience.magcloud.com.For further information, see edgescience.org Email: [email protected]

Why EdgeScience? Because, contrary to public perception, scientific knowledge is still full of unknowns. What remains to be discovered — what we don’t know — very likely dwarfs what we do know. And what we think we know may not be entirely correct or fully understood. Anomalies, which researchers tend to sweep under the rug, should be actively pursued as clues to potential breakthroughs and new directions in science.

PuBliShEr: The Society for Scientific ExplorationEdiTor: Patrick huygheASSociATE EdiTorS: dick Blasband,

P.d. MoncreifconTriBuTorS: William Bengston, Michael davidson,

larry dossey, Michael Grosso, rafael locke, Kenneth Smith

dESiGn: Smythtype design

The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. The primary goal of the Society is to provide a professional forum for presentations, criticism, and debate concerning topics which are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science. A secondary goal is to promote improved understanding of those factors that unnecessarily limit the scope of scientific inquiry, such as sociological constraints, restrictive world views, hidden theoretical assumptions, and the temptation to convert prevailing theory into prevailing dogma. Topics under investigation cover a wide spectrum. At one end are apparent anomalies in well established disciplines. At the other, we find paradoxical phenomena that belong to no established discipline and therefore may offer the greatest potential for scientific advance and the expansion of human knowledge. The SSE was founded in 1982 and has approximately 800 members in 45 countries worldwide. The Society also publishes the peer-reviewed Journal of Scientific Exploration, and holds annual meetings in the u.S. and biennial meetings in Europe. Associate and student memberships are available to the public.To join the Society, or for more information, visit the website at scientificexploration.org.

PrESidEnT: William Bengston, St. Joseph’s collegeVicE-PrESidEnT: robert Jahn, Princeton universitySEcrETAry: Mark urban-lurain, Michigan State

universityTrEASurEr: york dobynsEuroPEAn coordinATor: Erling Strand,

Østfold college, norway

copyright © 2012 Society for Scientific Exploration The authors retain copyright to their work.

3

18

5

cover image: Akindo/iStockphoto

6

10

14

20

EDGESCIENCE #12 • OCTOBER 2012 / 3

❛THE OBSERVATORY❜

day 35: Tumor ulceration.

William F. Bengston

The Boggle FactorA few years back, a friend of mine told me that a prominent

member of the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) had privately expressed exasperation at a presentation I had recently made on my healing research. In that presentation I had summarized some of my multi-decade work on healing cancerous animals using skeptical volunteer healers, and I had thrown in a couple of human case anecdotes to boot. The bot-tom line was he thought my results were simply “too much” for him to handle.

My immediate reaction was one of defensiveness. “Too much?” I thought to myself. I couldn’t understand what could have been too much. After all, I had by then completed a dozen of these cancer-healing experiments in five independent labs, including two medical schools. I had demonstrated a reli-able though anomalous outcome of cancer cures in two animal models that had no spontaneous instances of tumor regres-sion. The animals in my experiments were actually cured for life, for crying out loud! Furthermore, they were immune to repeated re-injections of the cancer! A dozen experiments! In my now hyper-defensive posture, I couldn’t understand what else could be asked of me: how many experiments would be sufficient to make the case for healing? A dozen doesn’t cut it? And if I did one more, would yet another experiment be asked of me before this misguided SSE member would throw in the towel and finally recognize what to me was self evident? Gimme a break.

Once I got the ranting out of my system and became less defensive, it slowly occurred to me that I react in much the same way to many anomalous claims I come across. Some of the presentations at the SSE conferences have left me with that uneasy “too much” feeling. Was that because of the content? The speaker? Or was it because I was not sufficiently familiar with the data and so could not adequately process it? When you hear Henry Bauer methodically and relentlessly present

data that lead to the conclusion that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, how to react? Poppycock, you say? Interesting…next speaker? Or, do you read his many published articles and books to check his conclusions? If he’s right, this is very, very important. But is he correct? I don’t have the ability to spend as much time as he has on the question, so should I believe? Bauer is an extraordinary thinker, a world-class scholar, and he has obviously spent a great deal of effort addressing the ques-tion. If I’m boggled by his presentation, why?

We in the SSE are supposed to be open to the idea that the current scientific canon deserves some serious skepti-cal re-examination. We sometimes complain amongst our-selves that many of the phenomena we are interested in are off limits in many orthodox academic institutions, and that serious scholars in serious places need to re-examine the boundaries they have placed between the orthodox and the unorthodox.

The scientific establish-ment may dismiss the phe-nomena we discuss as out of hand and impossible, pri-marily because it is anoma-lous and therefore by defini-tion outside of the bound-aries of what is presumed to be possible. Anomalous phe-nomena by definition boggle the mind of a believer in the validity of conventional perspectives. But it is also clearly the case that those of us who are interested in scientific anomalies do not automatically accept the reality of all of the anomalous phenomena we are exposed to. Where do we draw the line, and why?

We enter the unorthodox at our own peril.Truth be told, we all have our buttons, which if pushed

put us into a state of being intellectually boggled. Sure, some statistically significant effects of healing with intent on cell cultures is okay, but full cures of cancerous mice by inexperi-enced non-believing volunteer healers? Too much? Sure, you might accept the deviations from expected chance of random number generators by operators in the confined PEAR lab, but Global Consciousness as measured by dozens of these same random number generators scattered around the globe? Too much? You get the idea.

I recently administered a questionnaire to SSE members asking them to rank their acceptance or rejection of ten types of anomalous phenomena. Respondents were asked to self-report on a scale of 1–10 (with 10 being total acceptance) on how confident they were in the reality of each phenomenon, and to report on a similar scale how much knowledge they had

4 / EDGESCIENCE #12 • OCTOBER 2012

of each. They were also asked to assess their reason for each response, whether it might be due to familiarity with pub-lished work, personal experience, or presentation by a credible authority. Finally, they were asked background questions con-cerning professional training, and whether they are involved in conventional or unconventional research.

In rank order of decreasing acceptance, about 450 SSE members had the following average acceptance scores based on a self-report scale of 1–10: General Psi (mean=8:31), Out of Body Experiences (8.03), PEAR lab data (8.01), Human Survival (7.73), Remote Viewing (7.68), Healing (7.48), UFOs (7.13), Global Consciousness (6.87), Cold Fusion (5.83), Astrology (4.88).

Now take any particular anomalous phenomenon from the perspective of an insider. My area of research, healing, was only the sixth most accepted phenomenon. Now granted, the membership leaned towards acceptance with a mean score of 7.48; but sixth? There are numerous long established journals devoted solely to healing research, uncountable studies, entire conferences. Sixth? I’ve given at least 10 presentations at the SSE on my research alone. Sixth?

Any researcher within any area could have the same response, even those whose area is among the highest ranked. The PEAR lab data has a mean score of 8.01, indicating strong acceptance. But why isn’t the score even higher? Where are the 10s? (Is everyone just being appropriately skeptical?) They have 30 years of data, meticulously gathered and analyzed, in hundreds of papers, books, and technical reports. What’s left? Is there anything lacking that if produced would make the holdouts convert to acceptance? What could that possibly be? Would a 31st year of experimental data make any difference?

I found moderate to strong correlates between knowledge of a particular area and its acceptance. Interestingly, the self-report acceptance scores were slightly but significantly higher than the knowledge scores. Perhaps this hints at some “leap of faith” in willingness to be open to anomalies.

It is certainly the case that “leaps of faith” are required in all areas, whether traditional or non-traditional. Consider the conventional case of man-made global warming. It is cur-rently politically and scientifically correct to accept (believe?)

in the reality of human-induced global warming. But how many of us are really familiar with the data? How many of us are even capable of sufficiently understanding the data in order to make an informed decision? I’ve talked to applied physicists who scratch their heads and tell me that the question is too complex to unravel at this point. What about the rest of us who aren’t physicists, who aren’t intimately familiar with the complex mathematical models being used, but are “sure” that global warming is a foregone conclusion? What is the source of our confidence? And if someone were to make the case that global warming is simply part of the natural cycle, would this in turn boggle us?

As scientific knowledge progresses, we all know more and more about less and less. Tomorrow you may personally know more things, but you will know a smaller percentage of that which is known, and so on. Individually, of necessity we are increasingly ignorant of the collective knowledge that is poten-tially available to us. And so it is likely that simply in order to function, over time we must of necessity increase our leaps of faith.

But based on what? Where shall we place our faith? Should we believe what Al Gore has to say, but not Henry Bauer? Should we believe the evidence published in Nature, but not the Journal of Scientific Exploration? Just where are the boundaries whose trespass will cause us to boggle?

In my questionnaire I asked respondents whether they thought the reason for each response was based on pub-lished work, personal experience, or presentation by a credible authority. By far the most credit was given to published mate-rial (and so the importance of publications like the Journal of Scientific Exploration). Personal experience in turn gener-

ally lagged behind presentation by a credible authority (and so the importance of such gather-ings as the annual SSE confer-ence). Neither the respondent’s area of academic training nor highest degree had any relation-ship with acceptance of anomalies. Those who were actively involved in anomalies research knew more about and were more accepting of the various other anomalies.

It would be interesting to have comparative data from scientists who are strictly involved in conventional research areas, but as far as I am aware, those data do not yet exist. My experience is that there are many sci-entists who have an abiding interest in various anomalies, but have exercised their academic discretion so that their public research remains safely within established paradigms.

I vividly remember sitting in an SSE conference about to hear a talk about crop circles. I wasn’t particularly looking for-ward to it. After all, weren’t crop circles basically a group of guys with planks and a few too many beers pulling a prank on the gullible? What’s the point of sitting through this? But what I heard made my jaw drop. Here were carefully gathered data on what turned out to be a richly complex phenomenon that blew away my preconceived notions.

“Murphy,” the random Mechanical cascade Machine, operating in PEAr reception Area


❛LETTERS❜ Scalar Waves

I am writing as a member to express my concern about the tone of “What Do You Mean, Scalar Wave?” by Andrew May, EdgeScience 11.

The tells of a pseudoskeptic begin with the assumption that the subject “...violate the laws of physics and therefore cannot exist.” (Item #1 under So where does that leave us?), expressed in demeaning name calling (“Scientists ... have coined the term ‘woo woo’ ” under New Age Woo Woo) which is supported by broad and often irrelevant generalizations such as the reference to what Jean Dixon said (also under New Age Woo Woo). (In fact, I suspect “woo woo” was invented by the pseudoskeptical editors of Wikipedia.)

Since it was in a SSE publication, I read the article expect-ing to learn a little about how the concept of “scalar” is prop-erly applied to signal propagation in the supposed nonphysical space. Instead, I only found sarcasm toward mostly earnest investigators and righteous pronouncements about the nature of “proper” science.

It is well-established that there is some form of subtle energy field which supports psi functioning, responds to inten-tionality, and which behaves as if it is independent of time and space. As an electronics engineer attempting to communicate abstract concepts to my readers, I characterize this field in terms of being “non-scalar” (more correctly, non-scalar-like) because it exhibits none of the usual characteristics of electro-magnetic (EM) energy propagation. In this perspective, “sca-lar” in the context of “scalar product” is a useful descriptor for the vector-like propagation of EM which exhibits direction, amplitude, and time dependencies. Conversely, “non-scalar” is a useful descriptor for the ubiquity of whatever the subtle energy field may be.

It is fine to say that, as used by people like Jean Dixon who routinely encounter this subtle energy field, “scalar” is not a proper application of scientific terminology. However, it is incumbent on the author to then offer an alternative. From what I know of Jean Dixon’s work, she likely searched for terms that characterized what she observed. She did not claim to be an engineer or scientist but did speak correctly in what was then commonly accepted terms of her craft.

From the perspective of the philosophy stated in SSE lit-erature, “Anomalies, which researchers tend to sweep under the rug, should be actively pursued as clues to potential break-throughs and new directions in science,” mainstream scien-tists have pretty much abdicated their responsibility to pro-vide guidance concerning what is being observed—impossible or not. I expect the SSE to bring information to the mem-bers that helps to fill the gap. If it is our imagination, then the author should explain why and how that “why” explains objective characteristics of observed phenomena? If it is objec-tive but mundane, then the author should explain how that is so. Saying it “... violate the laws of physics and therefore cannot exist” and that our feeble attempts to fill the gap left by “proper” scientists is “woo woo,” only serves to deepen the chasm.

—Tom Butler, atransc.org, Reno, NV

But in the case of crop circles, I didn’t have any serious beliefs to defend. I really had never thought about them, and so the introduction of data essentially fell on new intellec-tual soil. What if I had really thought about them and had the belief that they were not real? In that case I would have more likely had need to defend a position. Would conversion be more difficult?

Think about it. What would get you to change your mind about something you have some intellectual investment in? If you are an accepter of the validity of Out of Body Experience, what would get you to reject? If you are a rejecter, to accept? The same question applies to many areas of conventional research. The quantitative data that I gathered on acceptance of anomalous phenomena provided precious few clues as to the reason for our opinions. Perhaps more insight can be gained through some unconventional applications of conventional theories of radical religious conversion. Those theories suggest necessary pre-dispositional factors which the individual must possess before encountering the radical belief, such as coming to a turning point in life, being open to new ideas, and the like. Upon encountering the radical belief, the person must situationally become close to one or more persons who hold the new belief, so that conversion involves acceptance of the position of a trusted friend.

Maybe in the case of traditional scientific inquiry most of us simply have faith that someone has gathered the neces-sary data, and they have sufficiently thought things through to sufficient comprehension. In the case of scientific anomalies, there is already an inherent boggle by virtue of having the sta-tus of being an anomaly, and so the leap of faith necessary for acceptance is at least an order of magnitude greater. In both conventional and unconventional areas of research, the study of both boundaries of belief and conversion merit greater attention. We need to know more about the boggle factor.

WilliAm F. BEngSTon is a professor of sociology at St. Josephs college in new york, and the president of the Society for Scientific Exploration. he has written a memoir with Sylvia Fraser about his heal-ing experiences and research entitled The Energy Cure: Unraveling the Mystery of Hands-On Healing. his work was featured in “Breakthrough clues to healing with intention,” which was published in Edge-Science 2, January–March 2010.

cred

it: J

abbe

rock

y


of such cases have been reported over the years, but have been largely ignored. This discussion had prompted the nurse to reveal her extraordinary experience to several hundred of her colleagues in the audience. “Now I have a term for what hap-pened between my brother and me,” she said. “Now I can talk about it.” Her story mesmerized the audience. When she fin-ished, she was not the only individual in the room who was in tears.

Though ignored by the mainstream of science and medi-cine, the nurse’s story may not be all that surprising to some people. After all, it was her brother who was involved. If some-thing like this were to happen, you might reason, it would make sense that it would happen between such emotionally bonded people. But this story only begins to unveil a much deeper connection between all of us.

I suddenly developed a severe headache in the back of my head,” the nurse said tearfully. “It was so painful I could

not function and had to leave work. This was strange, because I never have headaches. When I reached home and was lying in bed, the phone rang. A relative told me that my beloved brother had been killed from a gunshot wound to the back of his head, the same place my terrible headache was located. I discovered that my headache began at the same time the

shooting occurred.”The woman was a prominent nurse

leader at a major hospital in northern California. The occasion was a Q & A session following an address I had given to senior staff and directors of the hospital consortium to which her hospital belonged. My topic

was the importance of empa-thy, compassion, and caring in healing and healthcare. I had

reviewed empirical evidence sug-gesting that empathy and compas-

sion are more than vaporous emo-tions that float in our bodies some-

where above our clavicles. They are part of our biological makeup, I suggested.

Empathy and compassion function when we are in the presence of

another person, I said, as when a nurse or physician is at the bed-side of a patient. But evidence also suggests they also oper-ate between individuals at a

distance, beyond the reach of the senses. Distant individuals often share feelings, sensations, and thoughts, particularly if they are emotionally close. These experiences, I said, are called “telesomatic events.” Hundreds

Interconnectednesslarry Dossey

A Time Bomb Ready to Explode in medicine?

The notion of a separate organism is clearly an abstraction, as is also its boundary. Underlying all this is unbroken wholeness even though our civilization has developed in such a way as to strongly emphasize the separation into parts.1

— David Bohm and Basil J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe

“

credit: Medlat/W

ikipedia

Eraxion / iStockphoto


levels of Connectedness

neuron to neuronIn 2009, a team of Italian researchers led by neuroscien-

tist Rita Pizzi demonstrated that when one batch of human neurons was stimulated by a laser beam, a distant batch of neu-rons registered similar changes, although the two were com-pletely shielded from each other.2

Brain to brainIn the 1960s, pioneer psychologist Charles Tart at the

University of California-Davis and researchers Duane and Berendt demonstrated correlated patterns in the EEGs of dis-tant individuals. The latter research involved identical twins. In order to test anecdotal reports that twins share feelings and physical sensations at a distance, even when far apart, they altered the EEG pattern of one twin and observed the effect on the other. In two of fifteen pairs of twins tested, eye closure in one twin produced not only an immediate alpha rhythm in his own brain, but also in the brain of the other twin, even though he kept his eyes open and sat in a lighted room.3,4

The Duane and Behrendt twin study was published in the prestigious journal Science, and prompted enormous inter-est. Ten attempted replications followed, by eight different research groups around the world. Of the ten studies, eight reported positive findings, reported in mainstream journals such as Nature and Behavioral Neuroscience.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14

In the late 1980s and 1990s, a team headed by psycho-physiologist Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum at the University of Mexico published experiments that, like most of the previ-ous studies, claimed to demonstrate correlations in the EEGs of separated pairs of individuals who had no sensory contact with each other. 15, 16, 17 Two of the studies were published in the top journals Physics Essays and the International Journal of Neuroscience, and stimulated further attention to this unconventional field.18, 19, 20

The studies became increasingly sophisticated. In one, Jiri Wackerman, an EEG expert from Germany’s University of Freiberg, attempted to eliminate all possible weak-nesses in earlier studies and apply a refined method of anal-ysis, concluding, “We are facing a phenomenon which is neither easy to dismiss as a methodologi-cal failure or a technical artifact nor understood as to its nature. No biophysical mechanism is presently known that could be responsible for the

observed correlations between EEGs of two separated subjects.”21

As fMRI brain-scanning tech-niques matured, these began to be used, with intriguing results. Psychologist Leanna Standish at Seattle’s Bastyr University found that when they stimulated one indi-vidual in one room using a flickering light, there was a significant increase in brain activity in a person in a distant room.22

In 2004, three new independent replications were reported, all suc-cessful— one from Standish’s group at Bastyr University,23 one from the University of Edinburgh,24 and from researcher Dean Radin and his colleagues at the Institute of Noetic Sciences.25

Person to personStrong evidence that our thoughts, emotions, and behav-

iors may influence someone remotely may have surfaced in recent analyses of social networks. James H. Fowler, a politi-cal scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and Nicholas A. Christakis, a physician and social scientist at Harvard Medical School, published a provocative article in 2008 in the British Medical Journal, titled “Dynamic Spread of Happiness in a Large Social Network.”26 Christakis says, “[H]appiness is more contagious than previously thought.” He explains, “Your happiness depends not just on your choices and actions, but also on the choices and actions of people you don’t even know who are one, two and three degrees removed from you.... Emotions have a collective existence—they are not just an individual phenomenon.”27

From 1983 to 2003, Fowler and Christakis collected information from 4,739 people enrolled in the landmark Framingham Heart Study and from several thousand other

individuals with whom they were connected—spouses, rela-tives, close friends, neighbors and co-workers. They found, says Fowler, that, “[I]f your friend’s friend’s friend becomes happy, that has a bigger impact on you being happy than putting an extra $5,000 in your pocket.” The idea that

the emotional state of your friend’s friend’s friend could profoundly affect your psyche naturally created a sen-sation in the popular media. As a Washington Post journalist put it, “[E]motion can ripple through clus-

ters of people who may not even know each other.”28 It’s not just happiness that gets around. The team

also found that depression, sadness, obesity, drinking and smoking habits, ill-health, the inclination to turn out and

vote in elections, a taste for certain music or food, a preference for online privacy, and the tendency to think about suicide are also contagious.29, 30 What is going on?

Christakis and Fowler published their findings about the spread of obesity in large social networks in the New


England Journal of Medicine, widely considered the most influential medical journal in the world. They showed that obesity in people you don’t know and have never heard of can ricochet through you. They attributed the con-tagiousness of obesity to a “social network phenomenon” without proposing any spe-cific physiological or psycho-logical mechanism.31 To label something, however, is not to explain it, and to merely call this sort of contagiousness a “ social network phenomenon” has all the explanatory value of saying “what happens hap-pens.” In the commentary that accompanied their NEJM arti-cle, the experts who weighed in took the same tack. They discussed the genetic factors that influence obesity and the connections within and between cells that may con-tribute to overweight, but they too were mute about how distant humans might influ-ence each other when they are beyond sensory contact.

Some suggest that the rip-ples work through the action of mirror neurons, which are brain cells believed to fire both when we perform an action and when we watch some-one else doing it. But when people are remote from each

other, there is no one to watch, and therefore no stimulus for the mirror neurons to fire. Others suggest that the spread is through mimicry, as when people unconsciously copy the facial expressions, body language, posture, and speech of those around them. But again, the involved individuals are often out of sight of one another; who is there to mimic? When all is said and done, Fowler and Christakis say they don’t really know the mechanism by which happiness spreads.32

There is a hint of desperation in the attempts to find some sneaky, person-to-person factor that mediates changes between distant individuals through some physical mecha-nism. The attempt may succeed, but so far it’s batting zero.

The fact that your friend’s friend’s friend, someone you’ve neither seen nor heard of, is affecting your health has begun to rattle many of the gatekeepers in medicine. This field may be a bomb with a delayed fuse that is getting ready to explode in the very heart of materialistic medicine. A few medical insid-ers are already raising the possibility that something radically

different than usual may be going on, something possibly related to a collective consciousness linking distant individu-als. Among those suggesting a role for consciousness in social network phenomena is Dr. Robert S. Bobrow, clinical associ-ate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at New York’s Stony Brook University. In discussing the spread of obe-sity in his 2011 article in Explore, “Evidence for a Communal Consciousness,” he says, “Frankly, obesity that develops from social connection, without face-to-face interaction, suggests emotional telepathy.”33

If these experiments don’t take your breath away, they should. They suggest that the notion of human isolation is a myth. Human consciousness can manifest in the world beyond the brain. We are linked, united, entangled. For better or for worse. Until death do us part. And perhaps even then…

lARRY DoSSEY, mD, is the executive editor of Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing. he is the author of numer-ous books, including the new york Times bestseller Healing Words and most re-cently The Science of Premonitions. he lives in Santa Fe, new Mexico.

EnDnoTES1 Bohm D., Hiley B.J. The Undivided Universe. Reprint edition.

London, UK: Routledge; 1995: 389.2 Pizzi R., Fantasia A., Gelain F., Rossetti D., Vescovi A. “Non-

local correlation between separated human neural networks,” in: Donkor E., Pirick A.R., Brandt HE (eds.) Quantum Information and Computation II. Proceedings of SPIE5436. 2004:107-117. Abstract available at: The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004SPIE.5436..107P. Accessed January 17, 2011.

3 Duane T.D., Behrendt T. “Extrasensory electroencephalo-graphic induction between identical twins,” Science. 1965; 150(3694): 367.

4 Bischof M. Integrative Biophysics: Biophotonics. Fritz-Albert Popp and Lev Beloussov (eds.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003: 72.

5 Hearne K. “Visually evoked responses and ESP,” Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. 1977; 49, 648–657.

6 Hearne K. “Visually evoked responses and ESP: Failure to rep-licate previous findings.” Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. 1981; 51: 145–147.

7 Kelly E.F., Lenz J. “EEG changes correlated with a remote stroboscopic stimulus: A preliminary study,” in: J. Morris, W. Roll, R. Morris (eds.). Research in Parapsychology 1975. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press; 1975: 58–63 (abstracted in: Journal of Parapsychology. 1975; 39: 25.

8 Lloyd D.H. “Objective events in the brain correlating with psy-chic phenomena,” New Horizons. 1973; 1: 69–75.

The fact that your friend’s friend’s friend, someone you’ve neither seen nor heard of, is affecting your health has begun to rattle many of the gatekeepers in medicine. This field may be a bomb with a delayed fuse that is getting ready to explode in the very heart of materialistic medicine.


9 May E.C., Targ R., Puthoff H.E. “EEG correlates to remote light flashes under conditions of sensory shielding,” in: Charles Tart, Hal E. Puthoff, Russell Targ (eds.). Mind at large: IEEE symposia on the nature of extrasensory perception. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing Company: 1979 and 2002.

10 Millar B. “An attempted validation of the ‘Lloyd effect.’” In: J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, R. L. Morris (eds.). Research in Parapsychology 1975. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press; 1975: 25–27.

11 Millay J. Multidimensional Mind: Remote Viewing in Hyperspace. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books; 2000.

12 Orme-Johnso, Dillbeck M.C., Wallace K., Landrith G.S. “Intersubject EEG coherence: Is consciousness a field?” International Journal of Neuroscience. 1982; (16): 203–209.

13 Rebert C.S., Turner A. “EEG spectrum analysis techniques applied to the problem of psi phenomena,” Behavioral Neuropsychiatry. 1974; (6): 18–24.

14 Targ R., Puthoff H. “Information transmission under condi-tions of sensory shielding,” Nature. 1974; (252): 602–607.

15 Grinberg-Zylberbaum J, Ramos J. “Patterns of interhemispher-ic correlation during human communication,” International Journal of Neuroscience, 1987: (36): 41–53.

16 Grinberg-Zylberbaum J., Delaflor M., Attie L. “The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in the brain: The transferred poten-tial,” Physics Essays. 1994: (7):422–428.

17 Grinberg-Zylberbaum J., Delaflor M., Sanchez M.E., Guevara M.A. “Human communication and the electrophysiological activity of the brain,” Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine. 1993; 3: 25–43.

18 Sabell A., Clarke C., Fenwick P. “Inter-Subject EEG correla-tions at a distance—the transferred potential,” Proceedings of the 44th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association. New York, NY: Parapsychological Association; 2001: 419–422.

19 Standish L., Kozak L., Johnson L.C., Richards T. “Elec tro-encephalographic evidence of correlated event-related sig-nals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects,” Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2004: 10(2), 307–314.

20 Standish L., Johnson, L.C., Richards T., Kozak L. “Evidence of correlated functional MRI signals between distant human brains,” Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 2003: (9): 122–128.

21 Wackerman J., Seiter C., Keibel H., Walach H. “Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects,” Neuroscience Letters. 2003; (336): 60-64.

22 Standish L., Johnson L.C., Richards T., Kozak L. “Evidence of correlated functional MRI signals between distant human brains,” Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 2003: (9): 122-128.

23 Standish L., Kozak L., Johnson L.C., Richards T. “Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-relat-ed signals between the brains of spatially and sensory iso-lated human subjects,” J. Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2004: 10(2), 307–314.

24 Kittenis M., Caryl P., Stevens P. “Distant psychophysiologi-cal interaction effects between related and unrelated par-ticipants,” Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association Convention 2004: 67–76. Meeting held in Vienna, Austria, August 5-8, 2004.

25 Radin D. “Event-related electroencephalographic correlations between isolated human subjects,” Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2004; (10): 315–323.

26 Fowler J.H., Christakis N.A. “Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study,” British Medical Journal. 2008; 337: a2338.

27 Belluck P. “Strangers may cheer you up, study shows,” New York Times online. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/health/05happy-web.html. December 4, 2008. Accessed January 18, 2009.

28 Stein R. “Happiness can spread among people like a contagion, study indicates,” Washington Post online. http://www.wash-ingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/12/04/ST2008120403608.html. December 5, 2009. Accessed January 18, 2009.

29 Bond M. “Three degrees of contagion,” New Scientist. 2009; 201 (2689): 24–27.

30 Christakis N.A., Fowler J.H. Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 2009.

31 Christakis N.A., Fowler J.H. “The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years,” New England Journal of Medicine. 2007; 357: 370–379.

32 Kaplan K. “Happiness is contagious, research finds,” Los Angeles Times online. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/05/science/sci-happy5. December 5, 2008. Accessed January 19, 2009.

33 Bobrow R.S. “Evidence for a communal consciousness,” Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing. 2011; 7(4): 246–248.

UFos and government: A Historical inquiryby Michael Swords, robert Powell, et al

“The most important book on the origins of our current policy on The Great Taboo …”

— Billy Cox, Herald Tribune

AVAilABlE FroM AnoMAliSTBooKS.coM


Radiation HormesisOne of the more studied examples of hormetic responses involves radiation. Ionizing radiation is a natural part of our environment and may be found within the earth and in the cosmos. Ionizing radiation may also be human-made, an effect of nuclear weapons testing, nuclear reactor waste, and medical technology.

Ionizing radiation has sufficient energy that during inter-action with an atom it can remove electrons from the atom’s orbit, causing the atom to become charged or ionized. Ions are electrically imbalanced and so create free radicals that are bio-logically active. Radiation hormesis holds that exposure com-parable to natural levels, or slightly higher than natural levels, produces a positive effect, even though higher levels can be deleterious.

There are three competing models describing the effects of radiation. The standard view is the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis (LNTH), which states that all levels of radiation are harmful, with the higher doses being the most deleterious. The second model is a threshold model, which holds that low doses are harmless and high doses damaging. The third model is hormesis.

Investigators have found that the effects of agents described as hormesis do not necessarily conform to linear no-threshold paradigms. In the 1950s, T.D. Luckey, a professor emeritus at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine, found that low doses of dietary antibiotics caused livestock to grow faster, a highly unanticipated effect that led to industry-wide changes in livestock feed. He then pioneered the study of radiation hormesis when he showed that biologi-cal functions were stimulated by low-dose radiation.1, 2

Luckey stated that the hormesis curve for ionizing radia-tion is comparable to those of vitamin A and selenium: excess is harmful, but small amounts are needed for essential physio-logical functions. In part, he based his considerations on stud-ies demonstrating that nuclear power plant workers exposed to radiation have less cancer mortality than the workers in the same plants who were not exposed. Specifically with leukemia, a condition that may be brought about by exposure to radia-tion, the mortality rates among nuclear workers is less than that of the general public.2 Other studies have demonstrated that low-dose radiation decreased four-year metastatic cancer rates by as much as 30 percent.3

Radiation hormesis is a hot topic in the field of toxicology, with vigorous debate and data both supporting and denounc-ing positive effects of low levels of radiation. Yet various inter-national and private organizations, as well as federal and

It is common these days to see or read an advertisement for drugs where most of the ad warns of potential, significant

harmful effects—perhaps even more serious than the condi-tions they treat. Could that be an indication that the prevail-ing drug development pathway is reaching the limits of its suc-cess? During clinical trials, Big Pharma researchers attempt to establish the optimum tolerated dose in which concentrations of the active agent are high enough to be effective, but at the same time low enough to minimize toxicity. (Greater toxicity in a drug that treats a fatal illness is regarded as more accept-able than one addressing a disease that carries less risk.) But what Big Pharma considers a low dose is still high relative to the variety of low dose therapies that has been the subject of increased research attention in the past decade. None, how-ever, is perhaps more controversial and potentially promising as the low-dose therapies that focus on hormesis.

Derived from the Greek “hormo” meaning “excite,” hor-mesis involves gaining a beneficial effect from low-dose expo-sure to toxins. The term was coined in the 1940s to describe stimulation induced by low doses of agents that are themselves toxic at higher levels. It is considered a subset of hormology, or the general study of biological excitation. As one researcher put it, “…hormesis is any stimulatory or beneficial effect induced by low doses of an agent that cannot be predicted by the extrapolation of detrimental or lethal effects induced by high doses of the same agent.”1 Therefore, high and low doses of the same agent produce opposite effects.

Hair of the Dog and the Rise of Low-Dose Therapies

Kenneth Smith

low-dose stimulation followed by higher-dose inhibition is a defining characteristic of hormesis.


think hormesis may therefore be an integral part of homeody-namics, a process whereby the body seeks to return to equilib-rium—and in these terms hormesis, when harnessed, can be related to natural therapy.

HomeopathyCalabrese and colleagues suggest that certain types of homeo-pathic remedies—perhaps the quintessential low dose therapy in which less is truly considered more— may be a form of hor-mesis. Without making claims as to the efficacy of homeopa-thy, they state that it may work in a hormetic fashion where a low dose response is “greater than the original background state or control group value.” Homeopathy and hormesis are even more closely related in that in some instances homeopa-thy may employ low-dose toxins in order to produce a “com-pensatory response to damage.”8

Yet like hormesis, homeopathy is often eschewed as not being scientific. But the development of homoeopathy by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann in the 1800s relied on observation, testing, validation, and formulation of principles—the essence of the scientific method. Studying Hahnemann’s method, Domenico Mastrangelo, a researcher at the University of Siena, considers him to be one the most scientific thinkers of his day, and states that there is no reason to reject homeopathy as being unscientific.8

The evidence for homeopathy’s efficacy is building as indi-cated by the successes of several formal clinical trials, includ-ing those for various allergies, ADHD, fibromyalgia, and off-setting the adverse effects of radiation and chemotherapy.9 Callabrese and collaborators maintain that studying homeopa-thy and low-level toxins of all kinds is a step forward to under-standing hormesis.10

Yet homeopathy and hormesis do differ. A principal varia-tion is that homeopathy is specifically geared to the individual: two people, for instance, may receive different remedies for the same indication. Hormesis, on the other hand, involves a univer-sal response. Another difference is that sometimes homeopathic agents can be measured and other times they can’t as their con-centrations are so low, whereas in hormesis the agent is always measurable. In general, homeopathic remedies are thought to become more potent the more the solution undergoes succus-sion, or rigorous shaking, and the more they are diluted—not so with hormesis. Yet another difference is that while homeopa-thy is a platform for healing, hormesis is generally viewed as a condition of nature and not as a therapeutic approach.10

Resonant molecular SignalingBoth an example of low-concentration formulations and an exception to hormetic agents not being used therapeutically is the Resonant Molecular Signaling (RMS) platform of the biopharmaceutical company Beech Tree Labs, Inc., located in Providence, Rhode Island. RMS formulations typically consist of low concentration of naturally-occurring molecules such as proteins and DNA. In a few instances, RMS agents are toxins such as mercury-based thimerosal.11

state governments, are moving forward with research on all aspects of exposure to low level radiation. From this on-going research, some investigators have suggested that radiation may not only benefit health, but that it may be an essential trace energy needed to sustain life in the same manner that essential trace minerals are required.4

A Short HistoryThe roots of hormesis go back at least to the 16th century when Paracelsus, a German-Swiss physician and alchemist credited with pioneering the use of minerals and chemicals in medicine, noted that small quantities of toxic substances could be beneficial.4 Also known as the father of toxicology, Paracelsus proclaimed, “All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose makes a thing be poison,” with the popular distillation of this quote being “The dose makes the poison.”5

During the 1880s, the concept of hormesis was formally ushered in by the research of German psychiatrist Rudolf Arndt and German pharmacologist Hugo Schulz, who artic-ulated findings that some chemicals stimulated the growth of yeast at low levels but inhibited growth at higher levels.4

Over time, similar observations led the way to what became known as the Arndt-Schulz Law, which states that weak stim-uli increase physiologic activity, moderate stimuli inhibit activ-ity, and very strong stimuli abolish activity.6

At the turn of the 20th century there were a few papers on radiation hormesis documenting that low levels of radia-tion served to promote growth in algae and trees. After World War II, papers on radiation hormesis were published but these were obscured due to fears associated with atomic fallout. This overreaction set the stage for government standards that were based on the LNTH model, which has been in effect since the late 1950s.

A leading researcher in the field of hormesis is Edward Calabrese, a professor of toxicology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He notes that hormetic responses are found throughout nature; they are universal to plants and animals and cover a broad range of chemicals. While he points out that the linear dose-response curve is the central pillar of toxicology, he began arguing— after documenting hormetic responses—that the most fundamental aspect of toxicology is wrong.7 Calabrese now directs a committee charged with understanding the biological effects of low level exposures of all types.

Calabrese maintains that hormesis is a general biological phenomenon involving survival, longevity, reproduction, res-piration, and a number of other physiological activities across “… a broad range of taxonomic groups including microbes, plants, and animals.”2 Hormetic effects are expressed in many ways. For instance, Japanese research suggests that radiation hormesis induces a particular protein involved in DNA repair. Another study found that low levels of radiation temporarily inhibit DNA synthesis to allow sufficient time for irradiated cells to recover. Yet other studies indicate that low doses of ionizing radiation stimulate the immune system.1 Researchers


A variety of RMS agents have been the foci of clinical tri-als, including formulations for the treatment of urinary incon-tinence, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), respiratory dis-orders, and cancer. The RMS platform is based on cellular signaling that induces the body to resume normal function-ing. This approach is in marked contrast to the pharmaceutical paradigm where a drug is often meant to attack and destroy disease, frequently resulting in untoward effects. And in con-trast to the pharmaceutical paradigm, numerous clinical trials have shown that any adverse effects from RMS formulations are consistently at a placebo level.

RMS is not homeopathy, as the presence of physical mol-ecules can be measured. There are instances, though, where “like treats like” is evident. The agent employed to address cancer and cancer-associated pain, for example, is hCG, the same protein that surrounds many tumors and thus prevents the immune system from recognizing the tumor as a foreign substance and permitting uncontrolled growth. Low concen-trations of hCG have been shown to be effective when admin-istered by injection or sublingually, apparently returning the transformed (cancer) cell to normal functioning so that it dies a natural death, a process known as apoptosis.

In a few instances, the RMS low dose approach relates to hormesis, one of which is the use of thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines and eyewash. In recent years, there’s been a clamor over the possibility that thimerosal may be responsible for the rise in autism. Epidemiological investigations have thus far proven this not to be the case. In one instance, a study indicated that limited exposure to thimerosal actually reduced the incidence of delayed speech and other neurological disor-ders.3 (A growing focus of researchers, such as those at The

MIND Institute in California, is on the combination of multi-valent vaccines, environmental toxins, and genetics as causes of autism.12)

The RMS application uses 200 times less thimerosal than the FDA has approved for vaccine preservatives, and is a clas-sic example of a hormesis-exhibiting molecule. Anecdotal and lab animal model research has shown this use of thimerosal to be effective with all herpesvirus-induced diseases, including malignant catarrhal fever in cows, herpes in horses, keratitis in cats, rabbit pox, and a range of human disorders including herpes simplex 1 and 2, infectious mononucleosis, shingles, and Bell’s palsy.

How does it work? This RMS agent is known to up-regulate genes associated with preventing inflammation and down-regulating genes that pertain to increased inflamma-tion. This use of thimerosal has also been shown to inhibit a virus’s ability to assemble new virus particles in infected cells, thus halting progression of disease. It is currently in an FDA-authorized trial for recurrent oral herpes, and the FDA has approved an Investigative New Drug Application for its evalu-ation in treating influenza.

For all RMS formulations, the classic hormetic U-shaped curve is evident and efficacy relates to a precise low-dose con-centration of the active agent. But even when a toxin such as thimerosal is used, toxicity has not posed a problem because of its low concentration. Whereas the active agent of an allo-pathic drug is readily apparent in blood samples, the RMS agent cannot be seen above what may be normally present in the blood. The amount of the agent is that much lower than the norm. RMS’s cellular signaling model stands in marked contrast with the classical pharmaceutical approach where a medicine is intended to change physiology as if by force.

RMS often parallels hormesis in that a formulation addresses natural conditions and may therefore have

universal application. For example, the same dose demonstrates efficacy no matter the species or mass

of the patient. A human, elephant, and small dog would all respond to the same dose. Thus far,

15 successful FDA-authorized, two USDA-approved trials, four IRB-approved

trials, and substantial anecdotal evi-dence have validated this approach.

Hidden from ViewIf the low level use of toxins

and other substances produces such great effects, why don’t we know more

about this approach? Even though hormetic effects have been known for decades in the herbi-

cide industry, for example, why are they infrequently observed elsewhere? And why is the Arndt-Schulz Law not widely recognized?

The answer is at once simple and complex. As hor-mesis runs contrary to accepted knowledge, it doesn’t

exist—or rather, it isn’t allowed to exist—in accepted prac-tice. And even when noted, experimenters and regulators may rMS is a cellular-signaling therapeutic platform.


4 Calabrese, Edward J. and Baldwin, Linda A. “Hormesis as a Biological Hypothesis,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 106, Supplement 1, February 1998, 357–362.

5 Boyce, Neil. “Is there a tonic in the toxin?” US News & World Report, October 18, 2004, 74–75.

6 Oschman, James L. “The Biological Basis of Low Level Laser Light Therapy,” Erchonia Medical, 2006.

7 Cook, Gareth, “A Scientist Finds Benefit in Small Doses of Toxins,” The Boston Globe, December 12, 2003; personal conversation with Edward Callabrese, September 2006.

8 Mastrangelo, Domenico. “Hormesis, epitaxy, the structure of liquid water, and the science of homeopathy,” Medical Science Monitor, 13(1): 2007, SR1-8.

9 Frei, Heiner, et al. “Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, dou-ble blind, placebo controlled crossover trial,” European Journal of Pediatrics, 164, 2005, 758–767; Cummings, Kassab S, et al. “Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments (Review),” The Cochrane Library, Issue 11, 2010; Taylor, Morag A, et al. “Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series,” BMJ, Vol. 321, August 2000, 471–476; Ullman, Dana, et al. “A Review of Homeopathic Research in the Treatment of Respiratory Allergies,” Alternative Medicine Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, 48–58.

10 Calabrese, Edward, ed. “Hormesis and Homeopathy,” University of Massachusetts BELLE Newsletter, Vol. 16, No. 1, April 2010.

11 Beech Tree Labs, Inc. website, www.beechtreelabs.com, accessed August 8, 2012; “Beech Tree Labs’ Platform: Resonant Molecular Signaling,” Beech Tree Labs, Inc., July 2010.

12 Personal conversation with MIND Institute Director of Research, David Amaral, PhD, October 28, 2001.

13 Margot Bellingham, Margot. “Not in My Water Supply,” Time, October 24, 2005, 62–63.

KEnnETH SmiTH serves as the com-munications director of Beech Tree labs, inc. (www.beechtreelabs.com), a discovery and early-stage development biopharmaceutical company, and as the executive director of Beech Tree’s sister company, The institute for Therapeutic discovery (www.tiftd.org), a non-profit organization focused on bridging bio-chemistry and biophysics.

dismiss reports since hormesis is not plausible, because models, and therefore perceptions, typically focus on high-dose modal-ities. Most toxicology studies, for example, examine high levels of exposure. Attendant to this dynamic are the implicit val-ues and emotions that help form models, and thus there is a perception of risk to step beyond the prevailing mindset even when one is stepping into fact-based reasoning.3, 10

Furthermore, what is considered “low level” varies among studies and therapies. For instance, the low levels of thimero-sal in RMS use are considerably lower than the low concentra-tions of thimerosal in readily available eyewash. It’s unques-tionably “low level” relative to the higher concentrations com-monly found in modern prescription drugs. And it’s worth noting again that the common denominator of therapies that fall within the lower level of the concentration spectrum is the increase in safety.

Also problematic in terms of recognition is that horme-sis has no clear mechanism. Information is sparse due to lack of research. More is known about the increased risk of bone cancer in young males due to low concentrations of fluoride in toothpaste and drinking water, and all that much is not yet known.13 Due to lack of awareness, study designs don’t include hormesis, and since few are on the watch for it, it is not observed.

However, with a growing emphasis on understanding complex processes such as exploring the nature of homeody-namics, this may change in the coming years. Hormesis may, in time, turn out to fit neatly with complex processes models.

Low dose, and hormetic, effects may prove to be just what’s needed to produce a cascade of events that nudges a body back into equilibrium. In fact, the common thread of the approaches mentioned here is that they rely on innate biologi-cal processes to restore or augment homeodynamics. Current pharmaceuticals act to eliminate the symptoms of disease but at the peril of interfering with normal processes. This strong-arm approach often throws the body out of balance, thereby producing adverse side effects. Low-dose approaches, on the other hand, seek to enhance normal physiological regulation, allowing the body to better perform its intended functions. The rise of these therapies is demonstrating the potential of building future medicine where safety and efficacy are the order of the day.

REFEREnCES

1 Mortazavi, Javad. “An Introduction to Radiation Hormesis,” Biology Division, Kyoto University of Education, Kyoto, Japan, www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html, accessed August 7, 2012.

2 Luckey, TD. ‘Radiation Hormesis: Biopositive Effect of Radia-tions,” Plenary lecture, 7th GIRI Meeting, Montpellier, France, November 1993, http://www.giriweb.com/down-load/book/luckey.htm, accessed August 7, 2012.

3 Hively, Will. “Is Radiation Good for You?” Discover, December 2002, 74–80.


be explained offers an extraordinary challenge to the develop-ment of a first-person science of consciousness.

Here is the problem elaborated. On the one hand, we have the wealth of studies within neuroscience and cogni-tive science, which are experimentally based and which have sophisticated methods of measurement and analysis that allow theory and models to be developed. These are described as third-person science, which reflect the way in which scientific investigation proceeds by and large. The kinds of measure-ments undertaken include functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), elec-troencephalography (EEG), and magnetoencephalography (MEG), all of which help draw a picture of the ways in which the brain works in relation to cognition, emotion, and per-ception. Some theorists of consciousness maintain the view that brain equals consciousness, while others, especially those who have studied paranormal phenomena and near-death experiences, for example, suggest that consciousness is not totally dependent upon the brain, nor upon material factors in general.

The scientific investigation of the nature of human con-sciousness has expanded enormously in the last three

decades, to the extent that it has moved from the periphery of mainstream disciplines to a more central position. The range and depth of findings from neuroscience, psychology, anthro-pology, and comparative religion, for example, are impressive. Yet, there are some core concerns about just what methods are appropriate to the study of consciousness and, correlatively, what is the fundamental subject matter of such a science.

David Chalmers, an Australian philosopher, argues that addressing the nature of consciousness properly must involve both the easy problem, which has to do with all of the hard science investigations that underpin the neurophysiology of perception, cognitive systems, language, and emotions, and the hard problem, which raises the question of why we have personal, subjective experiences, which some philosophers refer to as qualia and which are distinctively ours. Subjective experience comes as an immediate, complex manifold that places experience in a world in which experience is my experi-ence. Precisely how all of these factors are related and might

First-Person ScienceCan we examine conscious experience using scientifically verifiable methods?

Rafael locke

credit: Antfoto / iStockphoto


First-Person ScienceCan we examine conscious experience using scientifically verifiable methods?

Early AttemptsThe view that experience can be investigated systematically in such a way that it can ultimately be described as a science has a long history in psychology and philosophy. There are two major threads to this history. The first is introspection, which originated in Europe in the nineteenth century and which aimed to describe perceptual experience in a detailed way by having research subjects follow precise procedures for inspec-tion and the reporting of personal experience. Although there was a great deal of conflict over just what comprised satisfac-tory methods for doing introspection, much of the work was very promising.

The second thread derives from European philosophy and especially from the work of Edmund Husserl, the German phi-losopher. Sharing the view with William James that a science of consciousness needed to focus on experience, Husserl wanted to construct a method of investigation of human experience that would suspend implicit assumptions, especially those which were metaphysical, and thereby to allow the “things in themselves” to be described. This method was tied to the notion that science had become too detached from immedi-ate experience and had systematically generated theories that were distant from the everyday way in which we experience the world, ourselves, and others.

Husserl’s approach is called phenomenology, which is the study of the structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. It has found its way into contem-porary consciousness research through the work of Chalmers and others on subjective experience. There is now a consider-able body of work that informs first-person science, but the real challenge has been to translate Husserl’s original methods in ways that will enhance the development of a first-person sci-ence. While the methodologies for measuring brain activity have evolved significantly, the progress with first-person meth-odologies is slower and rather vexed.

Difficulties involvedThere are several problems central to the first-person science agenda:

Language: While we are used to describing our experience in everyday terms, a first-person science will need more precise ways of describing things—everything from our perception of color through to complex emotional states and cognitive pro-cesses. This is similar to the problem confronting psychothera-pists in their attempts to have clients describe their experiences in such a way that there is a profound understanding of the client’s situation, or, as with anthropologists trying to enter into, describe, and understand cultures other than their own.

Intersubjectivity: First-person science is not exclusively about subjective or private experience; rather, it concerns the con-ditions under which experience can be described, shared, and understood. This can best be understood in the follow-ing way: usually, an experimenter and a subject share a lan-guage and common experience, which is not examined. The

experimental requirements are explained to the subject who then performs the experiment and reports on their experi-ence. But in sharing this experimental outcome, what are the unexamined aspects of the exchange? The experimenter might say, for example, “I want you to describe what you see when you hear a beep.” When the beep is heard, the subject reports that she sees a table, implicitly something “every-one knows and can identify.” But the “table” is presented as if one were sitting at one cor-ner, so the visual appearance is actually a “diamond-shaped” figure. All further communi-cation needs to be unpacked to reveal implicit assumptions, which suggest shared experi-ence, but which may not be inter-subjective.

Access: To what extent can we actually access our experience? There is the idea that to inspect or introspect experience is to change it. Do Eastern medi-tative practices afford ways of accessing our experience more completely, with greater fidel-ity? Clearly there are problems with this suggestion also since all systems create in-built dis-tortions both in perception and reporting. A phenomenol-ogy of experience would sub-ject such practices to the same intense analysis.

Pre-reflective organization of experience: While most of us are familiar with the psychoan-alytic notion of the unconscious and its intricately woven pres-ence in our experience and personality, a first-person science seeks to identify the ways in which experience is organized and shaped, made understandable or meaningful. For exam-ple, first-person science must examine the role of the body in the process of perception and description. This means that we perceive and experience from the body to the world around us as a fundamental position with all of its postural, physiologi-cal, psychological, and emotional components.

Constitution: Phenomenology asks the question: How is experience of anything built up? This means not just what is experienced but how. The how is essentially about the mode of experience—perception, fantasy, memory, as well as position with respect to time and space. Therefore, unlike third-person

...a comprehensive science of consciousness is about relating first-person data about subjective experience with third-person data about behavior, brain processes, and environmental factors. Just how that link can be made depends upon first-person inquiry emerging as a genuine science...


science, first-person science does not cancel perspectives but includes them in a total description. For example, in the earlier example of a research subject looking at a table, their response might be: “I see a table,” but it might be a table that reminds them of Grandma’s table, so the complete picture is, with some elicitation, “I see a diamond-shaped surface which reminds me of Grandma’s table,” thus incorporating otherwise unexpressed features of experience that are derived from memory.

Complexity: Philosopher Thomas Nagel’s famously asked: “What is it like to be a bat?” as a way of drawing attention to the complexities of discerning the interior life of any living being, the most complex of which are human beings. In first-person science, the question becomes “What is it like to be a research subject and to experience certain things in an exper-iment?” in order to gain insights into the subject’s interior, rather than, “Check which response is the best description of your experience when you hear the beep.” It is the difference between a psychiatrist treating you as a person, as opposed to treating you as an example of a case or diagnosis.

Translation: Chalmers states that a comprehensive science of consciousness is about relating first-person data about subjec-tive experience with third-person data about behavior, brain processes, and environmental factors. Just how that link can be made depends upon first-person inquiry emerging as a genuine science that will involve a bridging between the two domains through second-person mediation.

Recent DevelopmentsThere have been some fascinating developments in first-person science. In recent years, we have seen the beginnings of neuro-phenomenology, largely inspired by Francisco Varela, a Chilean neuroscientist, which addresses the problems of describing a research subject’s experience and correlating it with measur-able variables in brain function. Essentially, neurophenome-nology aims to construct theories of consciousness based on established relationships between the findings of biology and mind science, especially neuroscience, and human, subjective experience so that it will be possible to describe specific neural contents, or measurable neural and cognitive variables, associ-ated with specific experiences and vice versa. How we might identify specific neural contents remains a hotly debated topic, as does the identification of invariant features or contents of experience.

French researchers Claire Petitmengin and Pierre Vermersch have developed and used a sophisticated interview-ing technique called explicitation, which allows the in-depth unpacking of first-person experience. Explicitation focuses on clarifying the research subject’s experience so that the out-come is a description of what was actually experienced rather than what the subject expected or imagined to be appropriate. It combines a kind of meditative attitude in which the subject opens to their full experience and thereby allows the experi-menter to direct questions that generate a version of the sub-ject’s experience in all sensory-perceptual modalities, as well

as emotional, feeling, time, and space factors. Petitmengin has used this method to develop a very useful model of intu-ition, which intersects with ESP experience and which will allow a more refined approach to studying intuition through the model’s ability to identify areas for possible neuroscience investigation.

In the same way, Petitgemin has worked with mathema-ticians and neurophysiologists on a very important problem: how to help epilepsy sufferers to identify and intervene in their seizures and to reduce both the intensity and frequency of the seizures. Through use of a specially tailored version of explicitation, they were able to help patients generate detailed descriptions in a full range of sensory-perceptual modalities (auditory, visual, olfactory, etc) of symptoms indicating the likelihood of a seizure (aura) and experiences immediately pre-ceding a seizure. It has been possible to correlate these stages of epileptic experience with neurophysiological factors, and that has led to the development of techniques for intervening in the seizure process by patients.

Psychologist Eugene Gendlin has developed a very useful way of investigating intractable problems in psychotherapy by changing the focus of investigation from “thinking through and discussing” problems to paying attention to the body. The technique, appropriately called focusing, allows the client to relax, adopt a meditative state, and pay attention to changes in experience, as very simple questions are asked about the prob-lem that has proved difficult to resolve. The client is assisted to generate a “complete” description of the problem, which then serves as the foundation for further unpacking of what might have given rise to the problem. Focusing has proved to be use-ful in re-framing symptomatology to the extent that it may indicate appropriate medical investigation while, at the same time, casting an interesting light on psychosomatic aspects of illness and disease. Focusing incorporates elements of mind-fulness meditation in such a way that further research will bring together a range of findings on the relationship between meditation and health enhancement with first-person science. Indeed, one of the most important aspects of developing a comprehensive science of consciousness is its capacity to con-tribute new perspectives on health, illness, and disease, and effective treatment interventions.

Oliver Sacks’ fabulous work on neurological disorders, including the celebrated work entitled Awakenings, points to such a development. He brings together the poignant and poetic with disciplined description of patients’ experiences of being trapped in a world frozen in time, while explicating the neurology and general physiology of the disorders. It is extraordinary work.

Dead End or the Way Forward?For some, such as outspoken philosopher Daniel Dennett, these kinds of investigations are irrelevant since he believes that a first-person science is not possible and will remain a fantasy.

For those of us who are not materialists and who hypoth-esize that the nature of consciousness can only be fully


comprehended through both first- and third-person methods, the challenge of developing first-person science to match the sophistication and power of third-person science is exciting and the way to an understanding of consciousness which tran-scends disciplines and cultures.

REFEREnCESHurlburt, Russell. Investigating Pristine Experience. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Petitgemin, Claire (ed). “Ten Years of Viewing from Within,”

Journal of Consciousness Studies, Imprint Academic, 2009.Varela, Francisco and Shear, Jonathon (eds). The View from

Within. Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic, 1999.

RAFAEl loCKE is professor and head of ikon international institute in Australia. his Phd was in anthropology and psy-chology and concerned a phenomeno-logical analysis of spirit mediums’ trance experience. he undertook post-doctoral research on human communication net-works and mental health at harvard and MiT and subsequently taught at a num-ber of American and Australian univer-sities. his research has encompassed work on shamanism in the caribbean, the Americas, Africa, and Aus-tralia. in Australia, locke established ikon institute as well as a national medicine society dedicated to the study and preservation of indigenous ethnomedicine. This has also involved extensive work related to Aborigi-nal health, cultural heritage, and land rights. he has worked with the Experiential learning laboratory at duke university and the division of Perceptual Studies, university of Virginia at charlottesville on studies concerning states of consciousness and psi. locke is also trained in psychoanalytic psychotherapy and holistic medicine.

Don’t miss these articles (and more) in the Fall 2012 issue of the Journal of Scientific Exploration

“ Earthquake Triggering: Verification of Insights Obtained by Intuitive Consensus” by William H. Kautz

“ Audience Size Effects in Field RNG Experiments: The Case of Japanese Professional Baseball Games” by Takeshi Shimizu and Masato Ishikawa

“ Pranic Healing: Documenting Use, Expectations, and Perceived Benefits of a Little-Known Therapy in the United States” by Maritza Jauregui, Tonya L. Schuster, Mary D. Clark, and Joie P. Jones

“ A New Approach to Veridicality in Dream Psi Studies” by Andrew Paquette

REFEREnCES Arrowsmith, B. (2012). http://www.arrowsmithschool.org/

arrowsmithprogram/index.html Huxley, T. H. (1912). Method and Results. Macmillan.

Page 240 available at http://www.archive.org/details/methodresultsess00huxluoft

Lancee, W. J. (2005). Report of an Outcome Evaluation of the Arrowsmith Program for Treating Learning Disabled Students. Available on the Arrowsmith website: http://www.arrowsmithschool.org/arrowsmithprogram/index.html

Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., Stenton, R., Dajani, S., Burns, A. S., Howard, R. J., & Ballard, C. G. (2010). “Putting brain training to the test,” Nature, 465(7299), 775–778. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7299/full/nature09042.html

Pauen, M., Staudacher, A., & Walter, S. (Eds.) (2006). Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(1–2).

Rosenzweig, M. R., Love, W., & Bennett, E. L. (1968). “Effects of a few hours a day of enriched experience on brain chemis-try and brain weights,” Physiology & Behaviour, 3, 819–825.

Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.-J., & Haynes, J.-D. (2008). “Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain,” Nature Neuroscience, 11, 543–545.

Wegner, D., & Wheatley, T. (1999). “Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will,” American Psychologist, 54(7), 480–492. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/Wegner&Wheatley1999.pdf

REFERENCE POINT, continued from page 19


could physically change in response to stimulation. If it was possible for rat brains to change, then maybe it was possible for human brains to change also.

She created flash cards with pictures of clocks and stud-ied every day for up to twelve hours each day, gradually mak-ing the tasks more complex (like adding second hands and day hands) and demanding faster response. She does not say how long she worked at this but it appears to have been several months. Eventually the fog cleared, she not only could tell time but points of logic, grammar, and math now made sense. Now she could suddenly understand, not merely parrot, the TV news programs. Not all her difficulties were resolved by the clock exercises, so she developed new cognitive exercises to address each difficulty in turn based on knowledge of the functional anatomy of the brain. These exercises are now rou-tinely used in the Arrowsmith program.

Since individual parts of the brain are involved in multiple activities, a defect in one part may have multiple consequences. Therefore, the first step is to isolate which part is causing the manifest difficulty through psychological testing. These com-ponent cognitive deficits are described on the Arrowsmith website (Arrowsmith 2012) and in the book. There is suffi-cient detail that it would be possible to isolate which of the 19 brain functions isolated is in deficit for a relative or acquain-tance, though probably not as accurately as with the formal tests.

For example, the facility for “motor symbolic sequenc-ing” is involved in reading, writing, and speaking. People with impairments to this facility often misread texts, their handwriting is poor, and copying text is slow and inaccurate. Spelling of the same word can vary from instance to instance. They often make apparently arithmetical errors but in reality they are making motor errors due to thinking the right answer but writing another. In severe cases they may have difficulty communicating ideas because they ramble and leave out much information, making it difficult for others to follow.

There are some hints also of the kind of exercises that could resolve the various difficulties, but clearly attendance at one of the Arrowsmith schools is advised.

One of the exercises for the above symbolic sequencing deficit is to trace Chinese (or other foreign) characters with the right (dominant) hand while wearing an eye patch over the left eye. The idea is to stimulate the left supplementary motor area

Barbara grew up in Peterborough, Ontario, where for the first 26 years of her life, she “lived in a fog.” She could

make no sense of the relationship between the hour and min-ute hands of a clock, so could not tell the time. She could not add or subtract double-digit numbers; had difficulty read-ing; got the wrong words for common objects; could not tell the difference between the right and left hands; was accident-prone; kept getting lost; and could not tie her shoelaces.

Barbara could however remember (parrot) accurately the 9 o’clock news and was evidently gifted with a remark-able memory and sense of determination. These abilities got her through school and university. The change came in graduate school when she happened across Alexander Luria’s 1972 classic The Man with the Shattered World: The History of a Brain Wound which described the cognitive deficits of a brain-injured soldier from WWII. Barbara identified with the soldier among whose difficulties was the inability to tell time following his brain injury. Around the same time she came across some work by Mark Rosenzweig (Rosenzweig, Love, & Bennett 1968) which demonstrated that the brains of rats

❛REFERENCE POINT❜

Can a Conscious Mind Change the Brain?

Book Review by michael Davidson

The book entitled The Woman Who Changed Her Brain describes the difficulties experienced by Barbara Arrowsmith-young of growing up with severe learning difficulties; the means whereby she found the techniques, not to live with those difficulties, but to actually address and resolve them; and how she has brought those techniques to children and adults through her 35 Arrowsmith Schools now established in various parts of canada and the u.S.


responsible for eye-hand coordi-nation. The several motor sym-bolic sequencing disabilities men-tioned above tend to resolve with-out being directly addressed.

The exercises are arranged in sequence to gradiently address the difficulty. The tasks must be neither too easy nor too hard so that the student has to, and is able to, make a conscious effort to engage with the task. Once the difficulty is resolved, the change is permanent.

The average student is usu-ally enrolled for 3 to 4 years, but progress is maintained through the period so if a student is unable to complete the three-to-four year program, they nevertheless benefit for every year they are in the pro-gram. In one study (Lancee 2005) of 79 students aged between 5 and 19 (average 11) who were assessed on 15 standard educational attain-ment tests for reading, writing, comprehension, and arithmetic, 29 had between 1 and 7 scores below the 25th percentile, the lower end of the normal range. These students were considered to have the least severe learning diffi-culties. The average attainment in this group was at the 15th percen-tile at entry but after one year the average was at the 41st percentile. Even the 10 most severely affected students at intake (all 15 test scores below the 25th percentile) with average attainment at the 5th percentile had average attainment at the 25th percentile after 3 years. Age, gender, and IQ do not evidently affect the rate of progress significantly.

It must be stressed that these cognitive exercises are not the same kind of thing as the computerized “brain-training exercises” that are the current fad and evidently form the basis of a multi-million dollar industry. A six-week study (Owen et al. 2010) of 11,430 participants who “brain-trained” several times each week showed that there was no evidence that the training led to any improvement in untrained tasks or any gen-eral improvement in cognitive functioning. Improvement was observed on the specific tasks trained only. Evidence that some exercises aimed at “surface abilities” over a six-week period are ineffective is not evidence that some exercises aimed at specific “atomic abilities” for several hours per day over several months to several years are not effective.

Cognitive learning difficulties can lead for those affected to social isolation and exploitation, thus compounding their difficulties. Emotional and arousal problems that may arise

through this mechanism are not addressed by the Arrowsmith pro-gram. Of course emotional and arousal problems can occur through psychosocial mechanisms in those not affected by learning difficulties. A wholly different approach to these appears to be needed.

What is interesting about the efficacy of these cognitive exercises is what they say about the philoso-phy of mind. Since they are based on an understanding of the corre-lations between brain anatomy and brain function, they may seem to give physicalists no cause for concern and even vindication of their “mind is brain” stance. But as we are con-stantly reminded, “correlation does not prove causation.” The puzzle in philosophy of mind is how physical processes can give rise to conscious-ness. There have been numerous “solutions” to this puzzle, includ-ing the idea that consciousness has no causative powers and influences the workings of the body (and brain) with the same power as “the steam-whistle which accompanies the work of a locomotive engine…with-out influence upon its machinery” (Huxley 1912). This stance known as “epiphenomenalism” is commonly held in some philosophical (Pauen, Staudacher, & Walter 2006), neuro-

scientific (Soon, Brass, Heinze, & Haynes 2008), and psy-chological (Wegner & Wheatley 1999) circles. It is flatly con-tradicted by the fact that the Arrowsmith exercises are done with conscious effort. It may not be psychokinesis, but the evidence is that the brain is changed by the continued effort of a conscious mind. At least that is the simplest and most direct explanation.

The Arrowsmith program deserves to become known and applied worldwide. I hope the organization Barbara Arrowsmith-Young has put together will be able to cope with the demand and the inevitable criticism and conflict that will follow.

miCHAEl DAViDSon has a BSc in Physics and a Phd in Astronomy. he programmed computers for commercial applications and is now retired. he is the author of an ebook entitled Rethinking the Mind, which criti-cally discusses common “scientific” ideas concerning the mind, such as reductive and non-reductive physicalism, “the mind is a computer,” “the mind is the brain,” etc. his website is rethinkingthemind.com.

The Woman Who Changed Her Brain: And Other Inspiring Stories of Pioneering Brain Transformation by Barbara Arrowsmith-Young, Free Press, 2012

References on page 17


In 1913 the philosopher Henri Bergson suggested a thought-experiment: instead of 400 years of research on the science

of matter, imagine 400 years of research on the science of mind and consciousness; instead of the conquest of matter, imagine profound explorations into the vast heart of darkness that is our interior environment. What then?

What, for instance, would our still young 21st century be like, if by now the world had inherited centuries of an entirely different kind of scientific exploration? What if the domi-nant paradigm today were the result of a different emphasis on studying and experimenting with the interior life of our species?

We might be able to say something like this: If we hadn’t stuck so brilliantly to the path of material science, we would not have invented the atomic bomb and other diabolical weap-ons of mass destruction; or the automobile and the overheat-ing of the planet; or the industrial revolution that created an entirely new species of consumer-animals, increasingly enslaved and degraded by a tiny minority of monstrously rich plutocrats.

But then, had we taken a different path, there would have been consequences that led to different kinds of knowledge, different kinds of values, perhaps different moral habits and dispositions, and ideals more friendly to flourishing life. But,

❛BACKSCATTER❜

What If?michael grosso

one might ask, what could be worth renouncing our arsenals, our automobiles, and our smartphones?

Let us conjecture. Perhaps we would have developed a heightening of esthetic, empathetic, and contemplative sensi-tivities; various skills for plumbing the creative depths; greater insight into the multiplicity of the human personality; mas-tery of extended forms of communication; extended modali-ties of influence; new forms of creative imagination; and after 400 years we would hope, some insight into a broadly work-able ethics of sentient society. In this counter-factual world, we might imagine a civilization where the average person had a more refined sense of justice than (say) highly evolved com-puter skills; it might be a place that encouraged what Keats called “negative capacity,” a kind of natural sympathy for entering into the experience of others instead of (say) gifts needed for success in the financial industries.

The kind of science we pursue and invest ourselves in over the long run will shape the future of all life on earth, so it is worth pondering the kind of foundations we are using to con-struct our present world.

miCHAEl gRoSSo is a philosopher based in charlottesville, Virginia. he is currently writing a book about the levitations of Joseph of cupertino entitled Wings of Ecstasy.

The Society for Scientific Exploration

32nd Annual ConferenceJune 6–8, 2013

TenTaTive TopicsUFOs • Healing • Near Death Experiences, and much more

Details will be posted to the SSE website scientificexploration.org

Dearbon, MI • The Historic Dearborn Inn

U N S E T T L E D S C I E N C E

edgescience_12

Documents

resonant molecular signaling

beech tree labs

visually evoked responses

friends friends friend

age woo woo

large social network

pear lab data

social network phenomenon