| Psi
and Altered States of Consciousness |
|
|
|
 |
Despite these
impressive results, the follow-up to the dream-ESP studies was quite limited. For one
thing, as Yale professor Irvin Child points out, the Maimonides research was
systematically misrepresented in orthodox psychological journals. However, it was also a
costly and difficult approach, demanding sophisticated monitoring equipment and much time
and energy for each trial; the few studies that did follow-up got mixed results,
discouraging other labs to continue. On the other hand, several dream studies which
involved no physiological monitoring (subjects were left to their own devices to recall
their dreams) were quite successful. For example, in a recent experiment at the Univ. of
Edinburgh, Kathy Dalton and two associates found statistically significant results in a
clairvoyance dream experiment: on the basis of their dreams (which they freely recorded at
night in their homes) they were able to identify video clips which the lab computer had
randomly selected and projected overnight, in a locked laboratory room.
In any case, Ullman and Krippner's work was a revolution in parapsychology. It
reintroduced the qualitative, experiential element which the card- guessing approach had
pushed aside, and helped pave the way for studies of ESP in various states of
consciousness - not only dreams, but also deep relaxation, meditation, sensory deprivation
and hypnosis. All in all, these experiments have yielded quite consistent and replicable
results, suggesting that altered states of consciousness have a very positive influence on
psi.
For example, the relevance of hypnosis is highlighted by a meta-analysis by Ephraim
Schechter. He compared psi results from non-hypnotized subjects with those of hypnotized
subjects in over 20 experiments, conducted in 10 different laboratories. In 16 out of the
20 studies, the hypnotized subjects logged much better results than the other subjects (p
= .006), and for seven out of these the difference was statistically significant
(p=.000034). Overall, the hypnotized subjects had positive results in 15 of the studies,
attaining statistical significance in 9 of these, whereas non-hypnotized subjects had
results which did not deviate much from chance expectation
|
|
|
