Michael Cremo - Human Devolution - A Vedic Alternative To Darwin's Theory

In 1972, Mitchell left nASA and completely dedicated himself to the study of consciousness, which he believed bridged the gap between science and religion. “Mystical traditions assume, implicitly or explicitly, that consciousness is fundamental. Scientific tradition (epiphenomenalism) explicitly assumes it is secondary. It seemed to me that the study of consciousness provided the only unified approach to the questions of who we humans really are, how we got here, where we are going, and why” (Mitchell 1996, p. 72). To further his own studies and those of others, he organized the Institute for noetic Sciences.

Edgar Mitchell participated in some spoon-bending experiments with psychic Uri Geller at the Stanford Research Institute. The normal procedure was for Geller to grasp the spoon in his hand, and lightly stroke the shaft of the spoon, at its narrowest point, with one finger. The shaft would then twist or bend. Skeptics claimed he could do the bending because he had unusually strong fingers. Others suggested he applied a solvent that caused the metal to soften. But Mitchell stated (1996, p. 86), “no one was aware of any such solvent that could be used in this way; the physicists in the group couldn’t explain how he could be capable of twisting the metal so adroitly into such a neat little coil by merely touching it with a single finger.” The experimenters found that he could not bend a spoon simply by mental effort. This was tested by placing a spoon under a glass cover.

When it became known that Mitchell was investigating Geller and his spoon bending, he received phone calls from parents of children who, after seeing Geller on television shows, were also bending spoons. Mitchell began investigating these children and, like Taylor in England, found them even more convincing than Geller. Mitchell (1996, p. 87) said: “I went to a number of homes around the country, sometimes with my own spoons in my pocket, or I would select one at random from the family kitchen. Typically it was a boy under ten years of age who would lightly stroke the metal object at the narrow point of the handle while I held it between thumb and forefinger at the end of the handle. The spoon would soon slowly bend, creating two 360-degree twists in the handle, perfectly emulating what Geller demonstrated on television. no tricks, no magic potions, just innocent children (with normal children’s fingers) who had not yet learned that it could not be done.”

Mitchell noted that during the six weeks of investigations of Geller at SRI, a number of unusual things occurred: “video equipment that he had no access to would suddenly lose a pulley, which would later be found in an adjoining room. Jewelry would suddenly be missing, only to be found locked in a safe with a combination Uri could not have known” (Mitchell 1996, p. 87). In one psychokinetic experiment, Mitchell and the SRI researchers put a big ball bearing under a glass jar on a table. In Geller’s presence, Mitchell says the ball bearing “began to jiggle, then roll this way and that” (Mitchell 1996, p. 88). The movement was recorded on videotape. But when the film was shown to SRI researchers outside the group that was investigating Geller, the reaction was hostile. Mitchell stated, “They became red in the face, and some left, refusing ever to return to the lab. They accused Uri of being a fraud and the rest of us of being chumps in an elaborate charade. But their accusations flew in the face of the solid scientific work that had been done, and I believe they knew it” (Mitchell 1996, p. 88).

Modern Research into Paranormal Phenomena

In addition to isolated studies with single subjects like Geller, there is a great deal of experimental evidence for paranormal effects associated with mental intention. The experiments mostly involve micro-psychokinetic effects and remote viewing. This type of research became prominent in the middle part of the twentieth century, and has continued up to the present day. A good review can be found in the Conscious universe: the Scientific truth of Psychic Phenomena (1997), by dean Radin of the consciousness Research Laboratory at the University of nevada, Las vegas. Let us first look at the remote viewing experiments.

Remote viewing

The simplest kind of remote viewing experiment involves card guessing. The nobel-prize-winning scientist charles Richet carried out some card guessing experiments, and published a report in 1889. He hypnotized his subjects and asked them to guess what cards were sealed in opaque envelopes (Radin 1997, p. 93). Later, in the mid-twentieth century, more systematic work was carried out by dr. J. B. Rhine at duke University and dr. S. G. Soal in England. These researchers conducted careful remote viewing experiments in which “receiver” subjects were able to correctly name images of cards viewed by isolated “transmitter” subjects. The number of correct identifications exceeded what could be expected by chance. Results like this from Rhine and others prompted Professor H. J. Eysenck, chairman of the Psychology department, University of London, to say: “Unless there is a gigantic conspiracy involving some thirty University departments all over the world, and several hundred highly respected scientists in various fields, many of these originally hostile to the claims of the psychical researchers, the only conclusion the unbiased observer can come to must be that there does exist a small number of people who obtain knowledge existing either in other people’s minds, or in the outer world, by means as yet unknown to science” (Radin 1997, pp. 96–97).

But not everyone was convinced. In 1955, dr. George Price of the department of Medicine at the University of Minnesota published in Science an article highly critical of the card guessing experiments. Price relied on david Hume’s famous statement that it was more reasonable to believe that witnesses of miracles were deceived or lying than to accept violations of the well established laws of physics. On this basis, Price (1955) argued that Rhine and Soal’s results, because they violated the laws of physics, must be the result of undetected fraudulent behavior. But some years later Price (1972) wrote a letter to Science about his 1955 article, saying, “during the past year I have had some correspondence with J. B. Rhine which has convinced me that I was highly unfair to him in what I said.” He regretted his accusations of fraud. It is possible, of course, that cheating or inadvertent cueing of the subjects may have been involved. But Rhine and Soal had gone to great lengths to prevent such things.

Typical card tests made use of a deck of 25 cards. The cards were each marked with one of five symbols (star, wavy line, square, circle, or cross) so that each symbol was represented by five cards. In the earliest tests, experimenters gave a subject a shuffled deck of cards and asked the subject to guess the top card. After guessing, the subject turned over the top card, checking to see if the identification was correct, and then guessed the next card. critics suggested that printing presses may have left impressions on the backs of the cards. The subjects could have detected these impressions by touch, and used this information to correctly guess the cards. To rule out this possibility, the cards were put into opaque envelopes. critics suggested that the subjects could mark the cards with their fingernails, and feel the marks through the envelopes. Experimenters arranged things so that the subject no longer handled the envelopes. critics suggested the experimenters might be giving subtle cues to the subjects. To prevent this, the subjects were separated from the experimenters and cards by opaque screens. Experimenters were later placed in remote rooms or buildings. critics suggested that in recording the experimental results the experimenters often made errors, errors in favor of paranormal explanations. To solve this problem, experimental designs incorporated duplicate recording of results and doubleblind checking. Monitors were employed to insure that experimenters followed procedures and did not engage in fraud. critics suggested that experimenters sometimes stopped recording data when the results looked good. To solve this problem, experiments were run with a fixed number of trials (Radin 1997, pp. 94–95).