Highly recommended, I hope everyone obtains this and
benefits as much as I did from it.

The PEAR Proposition
Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical
Phenomena
www.stripmindmedia.net
www.princeton.edu/~pear
A review by Mike Wilson

What is more delightful than learning about the
mysteries of the universe while doing research? Why,
watching it on TV or computer, of course!

The PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research)
Lab has released a 2 DVD/1 CD set that compiles and
summarizes their 25 year run. May I be blunt here? It
expertly demonstrates the progress that has been made.
The DVDs illustrate over 8 hours of information which
includes a tour of the facility, and how the PEAR Lab
began.

The PEAR Lab began when a student wanted to study the
whether a person could affect a machine. As an
undergraduate, she needed a faculty member to
supervise her project. Professors turned her down
claiming that she study more traditional subjects,
made excuses that they had no background with it, etc.


Finally turning to Dr. Bob Jahn, the current director
of the PEAR Lab, she asked him to supervise her
project. Dr. Jahn also had no experience in area, as
his was rocket and propulsion science. But he issued
a challenge to her: demonstrate that there is evidence
that a human can affect a machine.

Two months later she not only demonstrated that there
was enough mind/machine influence, but Dr. Jahn’s
interest was peaked and the PEAR Lab came into
existence.
Drs. Brenda Dunne, Roger Nelson, and York Dobyns are
some of the names you may recognize who are also
associated with the lab.

The Pear Lab has been gathering large databases of
materials and publishing the results for 25 years.
The DVDs detail of the three major areas of study:

• mind/machine interactions
• remote perception
• theory

Now, when I wrote those three things, unless you’ve
been following the PEAR Lab you probably don’t have
any kind of specific idea about what it is they’re
doing. The mind/ machine interactions sounds like
someone is affecting a contraption that is making the
metal wheels in a cog squeak/stop squeaking.

But it’s not like that. One of machine interaction
operates as a mechanical random cascade that rains
thousands of balls over pegs into bins that count the
balls. This is the machine portion of the experiment.
When left uninfluenced, almost always results in
chance outcomes. But when a direction is given for
the human mind to influence the balls, intent enters
the picture and ends up influencing the balls to fall
a little more to the left or the right, depending on
which direction is chosen before the balls are
released.

While there is not a huge amount of change, there is a
change, a tiny, but not insignificant one. Over time
and with many trials and operators, this appreciates
to astronomical odds that the change is occurring by
chance.

This is but one of the mind/matter interactions that
the PEAR Lab investigated. Other methods of
mind/matter interactions include a mechanical
pendulum, a fountain which has a stream that spouts
into the air and a random event generator. I could go
on for pages about the mind/matter interactions, but
you’ll have to get the DVDs to view more on that
topic.

Another key element that the PEAR Lab has focused on
is remote perception. You may be familiar with the
term of remote viewing, but the PEAR Lab gives it a
more accurate methodology, remote perception – because
it is not just viewing the target, it involves
describing a target using all five senses and more.
Remote perception methodology at the PEAR Lab have
been constantly adjusted to make sure that the
operators were getting the most that was available out
of the abundance of noise that had to be filtered out.


I have a great deal of respect for their integrity and
intellectual honesty in this matter to try and make
the theory fit the data rather than question the data
when their theory isn’t what is expected. It is clear
that from all the data that what works best between
human operators and machines, and remote perception is
intentions and resonance, which is explained in full.

On the second DVD we are privileged to be in a virtual
classroom with Dr. Bob Jahn. He explains in detail
what works best in mind/machine interactions, remote
perception, and
theory.

Throughout the class, he explains what works best, and
details with charts and illustrations how we know what
we know. For example, would two people working
together do better than one? Yes. What works better
than that? Bonded, or emotionally connected, couples
perform higher statistically. What about if they
were competitive with each other? What kind of effect
would opposite sex partners produce? You’ll have to
buy the DVD to find out.

There are many, many other items in the 520 minute
PEAR Proposition that deserve attention in a review.
This review highlights but a few. The portable field
REGs and how they measure resonance that people can
carry around with them is worthy of itself for a page
long discussion.

But let me sum it up this way: if you have any
professional, semi-professional, avocational, or
serious amateur interest, then this is a must have for
your library. Assuming that it is important for you
as a professional to keep up to date on your knowledge
base of materials you will want to have access to
up-to-date information. Even if these areas are not
your primary focus, you should still have this DVD for
knowledge about how the mind interacts with
experiments.

Mike Wilson
SSE, Associate
A2psientist@...



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com