A Step Toward the Practical Application of Thought Field Energy

114 views
85 views

Published on

Revolution Throughout human history, major technological breakthroughs have enhanced ourcivilization. First we had the Industrial Revolution, followed by the Electronics Revolutionand the Information Revolution. What is next? Our world is on the verge of the Mind-Machine Revolution.Technologies throughout recorded history have progressed from crude stone tools used bysmall groups of people to high-speed microprocessors that drive massive amounts of data tobillions of people throughout the global information-based community. Whether it is a flintknife, a steam locomotive or a telecommunications satellite, every tool or machine inventedshares a commonality in that it extends and amplifies physical human influence.Until recently, human beings have had to use their bodies to control machines. Pressing abutton to activate a sequence of preset functions or moving levers and steering wheels to alterthe functions of devices or their subcomponents are just a few of many examples. These toolsserve as effective, yet limited, extensions of the physical body. Mainstream scientists andresearchers are presently striving to bypass mechanistic interaction. They are attempting todirectly control devices using thought processes. 4, 5, 8 These brain-device interfaces have thusfar fallen into two main categories.The first category consists of direct measurement and computer processing of electricalsignals associated with biological life forms. This methodology encompasses either brain-wave detectors attached to the skull (EEG) or the use of electrodes being connected directly tonerves within the brain. 4, 8The second category is the direct mind influence on matter and energy. Extensive researchhas been done on the mind’s influence on physical behavior. Examples include themanipulation of random event generators (REG) and chemical reactions. 2, 5 REGs have beenused extensively by Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) at PrincetonUniversity with statistical results clearly validating the theory that humans can mentallyinfluence the physical world beyond their biological bodies. 5PEAR’s ground-breaking research sets the stage for the development of non-contact non-local mind-machine interface technologies. In order to develop an effective mind-machineinterface technology that can stand on its own, operate consistently, and improve the humancondition, scientists must look to where mind and matter intersect and access their commondomain.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
114
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A Step Toward the Practical Application of Thought Field Energy

  1. 1. A Step Toward the Practical Application of Thought Field Energy Robert J. Plotke Theodore J. Klouzal INTRODUCTIONRevolutionThroughout human history, major technological breakthroughs have enhanced ourcivilization. First we had the Industrial Revolution, followed by the Electronics Revolutionand the Information Revolution. What is next? Our world is on the verge of the Mind-Machine Revolution.Technologies throughout recorded history have progressed from crude stone tools used bysmall groups of people to high-speed microprocessors that drive massive amounts of data tobillions of people throughout the global information-based community. Whether it is a flintknife, a steam locomotive or a telecommunications satellite, every tool or machine inventedshares a commonality in that it extends and amplifies physical human influence.Until recently, human beings have had to use their bodies to control machines. Pressing abutton to activate a sequence of preset functions or moving levers and steering wheels to alterthe functions of devices or their subcomponents are just a few of many examples. These toolsserve as effective, yet limited, extensions of the physical body. Mainstream scientists andresearchers are presently striving to bypass mechanistic interaction. They are attempting todirectly control devices using thought processes. 4, 5, 8 These brain-device interfaces have thusfar fallen into two main categories.The first category consists of direct measurement and computer processing of electricalsignals associated with biological life forms. This methodology encompasses either brain-wave detectors attached to the skull (EEG) or the use of electrodes being connected directly tonerves within the brain. 4, 8The second category is the direct mind influence on matter and energy. Extensive researchhas been done on the mind’s influence on physical behavior. Examples include themanipulation of random event generators (REG) and chemical reactions. 2, 5 REGs have beenused extensively by Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) at PrincetonUniversity with statistical results clearly validating the theory that humans can mentallyinfluence the physical world beyond their biological bodies. 5PEAR’s ground-breaking research sets the stage for the development of non-contact non-local mind-machine interface technologies. In order to develop an effective mind-machineinterface technology that can stand on its own, operate consistently, and improve the humancondition, scientists must look to where mind and matter intersect and access their commondomain. 1
  2. 2. On the surface, the physical world appears to be stable in that matter and energy interact infairly predictable ways. It may also seem preposterous that a person could override the lawsof physics with thought or emotional intent and control matter at anything more than subtle,and nearly undetectable levels. The interactions of mental intent on the physical world, asdefined by the laws of classical physics, are no longer restrained in the subatomic realmwhere quantum interactions occur arbitrarily and the immutable laws of cause and effect aswe know them no longer hold. 1, 3, 6 The connection between the mind and the physical worldhas strong support in quantum theory. 1, 3, 6 In other words, the quantum world is where mindand matter intersect outside of time and space.Matter at the macro level, as it is commonly understood in our western society, cannot beinfluenced directly by the mind. However, there is strong theoretical support for the mind’sinfluence at the quantum level. At the quantum level, matter can be either a particle or a wave.Kaku (2005) describes how matter is intimately connected to the mind when matter isevaluated as a quantum wave, stating, “The wave function only tells you the probability thatthe electron is located here or there. If the wave function is large at a certain point, it meansthat there is a high likelihood that the electron is located there… This also means that thewave function of a tree can tell you the probability that it is either standing or falling, but itcannot definitively tell you in which state it actually is. But common sense tells us thatobjects are in definite states. When you look at a tree, the tree is definitely in front of you - itis either standing or fallen, but not both. To resolve the discrepancy between waves ofprobability and our commonsense notion of existence, Bohr and Heisenberg assumed thatafter a measurement is made by an outside observer, the wave function magically “collapses,”and the electron falls into a definite state - that is, after looking at the tree, we see that it istruly standing. In other words, the process of observation determines the final state of theelectron.” 6 p 152Capra (1991) clearly explicates the link between observation and quantum behavior, stating,“The human observer constitutes the final link in the chain of observational processes, and theproperties of any atomic object can only be understood in terms of the object’s interactionwith the observer. This means that the classical ideal of an objective description of nature isno longer valid. The Cartesian partition between I and the world, between the observer andthe observed, cannot be made when dealing with atomic matter. In atomic physics, we cannever speak about nature without, at the same time, speaking about ourselves.” Chopra(2003) nicely sums up the relationship between observation and physical effect stating,“Because observation is the key to defining the wave-particle as a single entity, Niels Bohrand other physicists believed that consciousness alone was responsible for the collapse of thewave-particle. It might be said, then, that without consciousness, everything would exist onlyas undefined, potential packets of energy, or pure potential.”The above mentioned authors provide strong support for a quantum theory explanation of thishuman ability. A large body of research has validated the use of consciousness in general andmental intention in particular to influence physical behavior. 1, 3, 5, 6,7 McTaggart (2003)provided insight into Robert G. Jahn’s PEAR experimental validation of mental influenceover matter, stating, “It seemed that we had an ability to extend our own coherence out intoour environment. By a simple act of wishing, we could create order. This represented analmost unimaginable amount of power… Jahn had his evidence that human consciousness hadthe power to order random electronic devices. The question now before him was what elsemight be possible.” 2
  3. 3. Advances in electronics, computers, data acquisition hardware, and sophisticated data analysissoftware, have made possible the development of a mind-machine interface technology(Mind-Machine Interface Processor, hereafter referred to as “MMIP”). This technologydoes not require brain or nerve signal connections or the need to sense bodyphysiology.This research study is predicated on a responder rather than sensor/detector technology.Instead of detecting physiological energy from the brain, nerves or body, the MMIP respondsto mind’s influence in the quantum domain.While the findings of many researchers 2, 5 statistically prove that the mind can affect thephysical world, the differences between the control and mind-influenced trials are too smallfor practical application. Furthermore, the effectiveness of a mind-machine interface systemlies in its ability to gather and process large amounts of mind-influenced data in near-realtime. NULL HYPOTHESISThere will be no statistically-significant difference in the MMIP’s processed outputs of time,average rate-of-change or the fundamental harmonic proportionality between human trialsconducted inside the laboratory with mental intention and outside of the laboratory with nomental intention. METHODOLOGYHardwareThe hardware that responds to quantum thought field energy is the Mind-Machine InterfaceProcessor (MMIP). The MMIP is an electronic device that responds to human mentalintention. The MMIP produces a quantum electrical behavior with which the mind interfaces.Resonance of this quantum behavior is compared by the MMIP’s digital signal processor.The signal is sent to a National Instruments high-speed digital acquisition board with bufferedmemory. Additional hardware includes a standard IBM compatible computer with monitor.SoftwareThe digital acquisition board interfaces with National Instruments LabView software.Data AnalysisLabView software processes the data for visual display and performs mathematicaltransformations to produce values of time, average rate-of-change, and proportionality of thefundamental frequency per data set. A data-set consists of 1200 discrete digital resonancecharacteristic values and the accompanied 1200 discrete timing values. The timing valuerepresents how long a particular resonance characteristic occurred. 3
  4. 4. Statistical AnalysisTransformed data-set values of time, average rate-of-change and proportionality of thefundamental frequency for all subjects were statistically analyzed using SPSS statisticalsoftware including ANOVA and mean calculations.Testing ProceduresThe computer monitor displays a horizontal bar within the front panel of the LabView VirtualInstrument (VI). Within the horizontal bar is a smaller bar that slides back and forth. Thesmaller sliding bar’s position within the larger horizontal bar is determined by numericalvalues derived from the VI’s mathematical transformations of time, average rate-of-change,and proportionality of the fundamental frequency of MMIP data output. Directly above theaforementioned horizontal bar set is an identical horizontal bar set. The position of thesmaller sliding bar within this larger horizontal bar is determined by numerical valuesproduced by a random number software sub-program within the VI.Test subjects are instructed before each “inside” trial to direct their mental intention toposition and maintain the bottom sliding bar directly under the top sliding bar as it randomlymoves back and forth. Each trial is 180 seconds in duration. There is a 3 second time delaybetween the moment each test subject left-mouse-clicks on the VI start button and the time the180 second test begins. The beginning and end of the 180 seconds test is signaled by anaudible “beep” from the VI host computer. At the 180 seconds point in the test, the VIautomatically stops data acquisition, stops data processing, and saves the data on thecomputer’s hard drive as a text file.An instructional trial is performed before any data is saved. The instructional trial is done forpractice and demonstration purposes only. All questions about the purpose of the activity andwhat the participant needs to accomplish are answered at this time. The maximum durationof a “dry-run” test is 180 seconds and is terminated manually by the test operator before 180seconds have passed if the test subject responds quickly and effectively to the instructions.After the test subject has been instructed, the test operator resets the VI to save the file withthe individual test subject’s identifying file name. The test operator then informs the testsubject that the actual test, with data being saved, is about to begin without the test operatorpresent in the laboratory. The test subject is instructed to wait 30 seconds after the testoperator vacates the laboratory before clicking on the virtual “start” button. After the 180seconds trial, the test subject leaves the laboratory to meet the test operator at a specificlocation for follow-up instructions and answers to any questions about the trial.Prior to each “inside” test, an “outside” control test is conducted with the file nameidentifying the test subject. The “inside” test is conducted immediately after the “outside testis done. Each “outside” test is also 180 seconds in duration but with a start-up delay, afterclicking the virtual “start” button, of 120 seconds. During the test, no one is inside thelaboratory so a lab timer is set for 5 minutes (300 seconds) to alert the test operator when thetest has concluded.To minimize the possibility of residual “thought field energy” 2 compromising the integrity ofacquired data, when conducting an “outside” control test after an “inside” test with a previoustest subject has been conducted, the laboratory is vacated and the MMIP is deactivated for aminimum of 30 minutes before the next “outside” test begins. 4
  5. 5. RESULTSAn ANOVA was performed using the SPSS statistical software on a 6 hour non-mind-influenced “outside the laboratory” test of 32 trials. Each trial ran for 3 minutes within every10 minute period and consisted of N=306 measures of time, average rate-of-change, andproportional amplitude of the fundamental frequency transformed from 1200 sample data sets.Data sampling was at 62.5 kilohertz. There was a statistically-significant difference in thetime and average rate-of-change measures at p=0.000 but there was no statistically-significantdifference in the proportional amplitude of the fundamental frequency measure at p=0.074.An ANOVA was performed using LabView’s ANOVA statistical sub-VI. on 38 test subjectscomparing mind-influenced “inside the laboratory” and non-mind-influenced “outside thelaboratory” trials. Each trial ran for 3 minutes, one inside and one outside, consisting of an Nsamples=548 to N samples=650. N differences are due to variability in the time required toacquire a discrete data value. Each sample measure consisted of the number of discrete rate-of-change values from -12 through 0 to +12 in a 1200 sample data set at a sample rate of 62.5kilohertz. There was a statistically-significant difference between rate-of-change value 3 withparticipants inside the lab and no one in the lab at a p=1.4x10-4, N from 266 to 318 for each ofthe 38 subjects. There was also a statistically-significant difference between rate-of-changevalue 6 with participants inside the lab and no one in the lab at a p=2.0x10-5, N from 77 to 136for each of the 38 test subjects. None of the other rate-of-change values ranging from –12 to+12 where statistically-significantly different.There were individual participants who’s ANOVA calculations were statistically-significantlydifferent ranging from p=0.002 to 0.041 N=82 to 231 for values 6 (4 out of 38 participants)and 7 (7 out of 38 participants). Various participants had statistically-significantly differentANOVA results ranging from 1 to 4 participants p<=0.05 for values –3, -1 to 9. DISCUSSIONMind intention has been shown to influence both electrical and chemical behaviors. PEAR’sresearch, using a patented random event generator, statistically showed that subjects couldalter the amount of times a random right and left light would turn on beyond the normal 50:50chance. Experiments conducted at Yunnan University provided statistically-significantdifferences between no influence and with the influence of Chinese Qigong practitioners inaltering the iodine ion density in the Belousov-Zhabotinski reaction. 2 This past research hasbeen confirmed by the present study. Using a quantum event responder, MMIP test subjectsstatistically altered the processed rate-of change values between outside and inside trials. Thesubjects’ intention promoted the alignment of the randomly moving bar and the “mind-influenced” bar on the computer display screen.The successes of these research studies provide a strong foundation in establishing a practical,non-contact mind-machine interface technology. This is a radical departure from the nowmainstream research into the direct mental control of machines. 4, 8 CyberkineticsNeurotechnology Systems, Inc. is an example of this mainstream research. They aredeveloping and applying the BrainGate Neural Interface System that, while it is an invasivebrain-connected system, demonstrates that humans can learn how to alter their neurologicalresponses to influence an external device. 4 5
  6. 6. The underlying sociological impact of the BrainGate Neural Interface System may prove to bequite profound in that it influences our society to accept that direct mental control of machinesis possible. However, what is possible may not be practical. An alternative to the invasiveBrainGate Neural Interface System is a non-invasive system that detects electrophysiologicalsignals from the brain through the use of a skull cap fitted with electronic sensors. At theLaboratory of Nervous System Disorders, Wadsworth Center at New York State Departmentof Health and State University of New York, Albany, NY, scalp-recordedelectroencephalographic activity is analyzed with an adaptive algorithm. Accuracy of controlis comparable to that achieved through invasive brain-computer interface technology.The invasive BrainGate Neural Interface System and the non-invasive system developed bythe Laboratory of Nervous System Disorders both use electronic technology to detect neuralactivity. The next step in mind-machine technology may well be a non-contact technology.The Mind-Machine Interface Processor (MMIP) does not detect, process or analyze electricalsignals associated with brain physiology or neurological activity. Rather, the non-contactMMIP responds to mind’s influence in the quantum domain. The MMIP technology has, asits theoretical and experimental foundation, research evidence provided by Robert Jahn ofPrinceton University’s PEAR group, that humans can bring order to random electronicactivity. From a theoretical perspective, the MMIP technology is consistent with Bohr’s andHeisenberg’s concept that the process of observation determines the final state of matter. CONCLUSIONAs a result of testing with the MMIP and statistically analyzing the trial data output, it is clearthat human test subjects can mentally influence the MMIP to a statistically-significantdifference when comparing “inside” trials to “outside” trials. The present study providesevidence that not all participants can influence the MMIP to a significant difference p<0.05 ascompared to outside trials. More investigation is needed to determine what MMIPcharacteristics reflect the greatest amount of mind-intention influence. Further analysis of“outside-only” trials (6 hours of 3 minutes in every ten minute trial) showed no statisticallysignificant difference in any of the 32 trials. It is clear from the analysis that when humanbeings are not interacting mentally with the MMIP, its output is stable and consistent.Because the quantum level influence is theoretically non-local, tests with humans influencingthe MMIP at a distance should be explored. As an added measure, the human test subjectsand the MMIP can be shielded in separate Faraday cages at a distance to eliminate anyelectromagnetic influence on the MMIP. Research cited in this study alludes to a residualinfluence of a lingering thought field. This residual influence should be investigated furtherto determine the half-life time of this residual affect.If mind creates order from chaos by imprinting patterns of consciousness on the quantumrealm, these event patterns may propagate into structural forms. Further testing is indicated toseek out patterns of mind-machine data-processed output. By doing so, a useful technologywill very likely emerge. Potential uses include operating prosthetics, by-passing control ofparalyzed muscles by using mind control of external movement through computer-interactivecommunication devices, robotics, hands-free cockpit controls, unmanned aerial vehiclecontrols, encryption, biometric identification, and high-speed telecommunicationsunencumbered by time and space. 6
  7. 7. Bibliography1. Capra, F. (1991) The Tao of Physics, pp 68, 692. Chang, Y. (2004) Experimental Tests of the Thought Field, The Extensive Quantum Theory and Quantum Teleportation, The Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, 27, 4, pp 190-1993. Chopra, D. (2003) The Spontaneous Fulfillment of Desire, p 514. Editorial Comment (2006) Is this the Bionic Man? Nature, 442, 7099, p 1095. Jahn, R. & Dunne, B. (1986) On the Quantum Mechanics of Consciousness, with Application to Anomalous Phenomena. Foundation of Physics, 16, 8, pp 721-7726. Kaku, M. (2005) Parallel Worlds, pp 165, 171, 349-517. McTaggart, L. (2002) The Field, The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe, p 1228. Wolpaw, J. & McFarland, D. (2004), Control of a Two-Dimensional Movement Signal by a Noninvasive Brain-Computer Interface in Humans. PNAS, 101, 51, pp 17849- 17854 7

×