psi as a multilevel process
TRANSCRIPT
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 1/18
LE "PARANORMAL", NOUS N'Y CROYONS PAS. NOUS L'ETUDIONS.
Rechercher
L’instit utUne fondation et sa mission
80 ans d’histoire
Activités de l’IMILaboratoire
Service d ’Ecoute
Psychologique
Bibliothèque
Conférences e t congrès
Group e Etudiants
Amis de l’IMI
Bulletin Métapsychique
Réactions à l’actualité
L’IMI et vo usQuestions fréquentes
Consei ls et sugge st ions
Boutique en ligne
Pour col laborer
Nous contacter
Newsletter
ParapsychologieFondamentaux
Grands axes d e recherche
Perspectives et théories
FAQ parapsycholog ie
i
Parapsychologie Perspectives et théories
PSI AS A MULTILEVEL PROCESS : SEMANTIC FIELDS THEORY
by Christ ine Hardy, Ph.D.
Par Christine Hardy
Neural nets and chaos theory are powerful new frameworks which enable us to truly address complexity and to
model the mind in terms of dynamical processes and evolving systems. Semantic Fields theory views the mind
as a lat tice of semantic constellations or SeCos, generated by the interplay of experience, genetic constraints
and cultural context. SeCos are self-organized dynamical networks that interweave processes ranging from
high-level abstract ones to low-level neuronal ones. It is p roposed t hat, f undamentally, thought is instantiated
by dynamic chain-linkages within the SeCos-networks.
There is considerable experimental and empirical evidence suggesting that psi operates as a multilevel processand that psi information can be channeled into awareness in a variety of ways (such as sensations, feelings,
intuitions, t houghts, interoceptive sensations, etc.) From the perspective of semantic fields t heory, psi events
are a fundamental feature of the underlying connective dynamics across SeCos-networks.
It is po stulated t hat the mind is also the source of a projective process imprinting organization and order upon
the outer world. This dynamic generates a semantic dimension in objects themselves-eco-semantic fields or
eco-fields. As suggested, semantic connective processes are organized not by space-time parameters, but by
semantic parameters (such as semantic proximity), which instantiate nonlocal connections between distant
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 2/18
Enseignements et
références
RessourcesPublications de référence
Articles de réflexion
générale
Débats et controverses
Publications de recherche
Travaux universitaires
- Nous contacter -- Nouveautés -- Plan du site -
- Liens -
Newsletter
(3973 inscrits) :
votre e -mail
Inscription
Désinscr ipt ion
Valider
semantic fields-whether between minds or between minds and the environment. Semantic dynamics are the
ground for both ESP and PK phenomena, whether conscious or nonconscious.
The model hypothesizes that the organizing influence of the mind on surrounding eco-fields will affect the
nature and probability of events connected to the person.
Of all mental events, psi experiences display quite unique properties, that are hardly compatible with the classical theory of
mind, or cognitivism ; in this paper, I would like to present an alternative cognitive theory which may account for psi
phenomena, while also being co herent with the most recent developments in the cognitive sciences.
First, let me explain some theoretical and methodo logical issues regarding the construction of a theory of mind.
Nonlocality and creation of order
One of the major contributions of psi research is that it has added a whole new dimension to the mind-matter problem :
nonlocality.
So far, accumulated experimental da ta do not yield an unequivoca l description as to the nature of psi. However, there seems to
be wide agreement on viewing psi as a mental phenomenon, that is, to view mind as a necessary condition for its occurrence.
What seems to me important is to make a distinction between on the one hand, the necessary conditions for psi to occur and,
on the second hand, contingent conditions or influencing factors. Influencing factors are not absolutely necessary for psi to
occur, but they may have a bearing on actual psi occurrences, e.g., affecting their intensity or the manner in which they
manifest. Necessary co nditions, on the o ther hand, a re parameters that, if absent, preclude the o ccurrence o f psi.
Experiments using various shielding materials (e.g., Vasiliev, 1976 ; Puthoff, Targ & May, 1981) do not lend support to the
hypothesis that electromagnetic (EM) fields are potential carriers of psi information (although they do not conclusively exclude
this possibility). Similarly, several experiments with positive psi results (e.g. from remote viewing to REG studies) show no
systematic declines with increases in distance between subject and target (or target-REG), or even with time displacements in
precognition or retrocognition experiments (Dunne, Jahn & Nelson, 1983 ; Targ & Harary, 1984). All this largely undermines
"transmission" models of psi, i.e., the idea that psi information is based on local, or mechanistic, forms of signal transmission(such as EM fields).
Note that the above do not exclude the possibility that psi manifestations (e.g., in a spontaneous case, or a telepathy
experiment) are influenced by EM fields. Thus, the recent data suggesting a relationship between psi and GMF or LST (e.g.,
Persinger, 1985 ; Spottiswoode & May, 1997), point to physical factors which may affect, say, a receiver’s capacity to pick-up
psi information. On the other hand, such data do not permit any conclusions with respect to necessary conditions, that is, the
nature of psi information per se (i.e., whether or not it is transmitted by, say, extremely low frequency waves).
In sum, we have little direct evidence for psi being based on some physical wave-carrier ; thus, Newtonian space-time
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 3/18
parameters can be seen as influencing factors and contingent conditions. What is indisputable, is that psi phenomena are
related to mental events : they implicate the psyche, or the mind of individuals. Thus, my position is that we may assume mind
as being a necessary condition for psi, and explore the mental facet of psi, while leaving open the possibility that additional
necessary condition(s) will turn up a t some la ter date.
Insofar as psi seems to be non-dependent (in the sense of a necessary condition) on Newtonian time and space parameters,
it displays nonlocality. Moreover, psi being primarily a function of the mind, it follows that any complete theory of mind must
necessarily accomodate nonlocal processes- such as psi.
Typically, any discussion of nonlocality immediately focuses on Quantum Mechanics. In the seventies, decades after they had
been brought up as a gedankenexperiment (in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox), nonlocal correlations began to be
demonstrated experimentally. Certain prominent QM theorists also introduced the revolutionary idea that observation and the
act of measurement contribute to what we observe as reality ; they thus tied mental dynamics-consciousness-to quantum
events. On the other hand, following up on his hidden variables interpretation of the EPR paradox, David Bohm (1980)
proposed the existence of an "implicate order", and a deep interconnectedness between mind and matter, that transcends
newtonian space/time. Finally, models of consciousness based on quantum interference or quantum coherence have gained
momentum, bringing properties like superposition and synchronous firing of neurons into mental dynamics (Pribram, 1991 ;
Hameroff & Penrose, 1996).
While it is true that the concept of nonlocality has come to gain acceptance in the context of quantum physics, in my own view,
quantum processes are not the only legitimate means for grounding nonlocality in mental events. There is no fundamentalnecessity to ground a theory of mind in physics, particularly given that physics is currently in a state of flux, with competing
schools of thought, and that it is likely to undergo further developments. While I think the case for quantum events in the brain is
well grounded, and that psi theories based on QM are an important line of research for physicists, I also believe it is sound to
focus on the global architecture and d ynamics of the mind, without committing to a particular view on quantum brain processes.
It is however instructive to understand the way in which physicists utilize concepts and postulates to move beyond what is
empirically evident and ground their exploration of their own domain. In particular, physicists introduce dozens of new
dimensions in their efforts to unify the diverse nuclear forces ; dimensions are becoming more and more akin to descriptive
parameters, rather than referents to objective reality or to a basic substance. In a similar manner, a cognitive theorist may be
allowed to postulate cognitive parameters as useful descriptors of cognitive space. If the parameters turn out to improve
understanding, and to lead to more accurate predictions than the parameters of previous theories, then they may be
considered as useful conceptual advances.
Several theorists have considered psi to be “transpatial and transtemporal,” as Murphy (1949) put it. For example, Price
(1939) stated that his “psychic ether” does not bear any correspondence to the spatio-temporal manifold, and he introduced a
parameter of “proximity” between “image fields” independent of spatial distance. Similarly, Roll (1983) posited “psi contiguity”
between people and the places they have inhabited, which may persist long after their departure. A similar approach has been
proposed by Nelson et al (1996) who underscored the importance of "subjective parameters" (such as "attentional proximity"
and " intensity of subjective investment").
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 4/18
In the Semantic Fields theory (SFT), the introduction of nonphysical parameters reflects the necessity to use descriptors that
specifically address cognitive functioning. Thus I postulate certain parameters which are nonlocal in nature and relevant to
mental organizational levels in particular ; I then explore their explanatory power for addressing a range of mental and psi
phenomena. In other words, I hold that experiments lend support to a view of psi as being non dependent (in the sense of
necessary conditions) on spatiotemporal parameters, and I therefore assume that a theory of psi must embed nonlocal
properties. Once this is accepted, I propose certain postulates which could help account for the specifics of mental and psi
phenomena. What then becomes of prime importance is that the theory be self-consistent, and that the dynamics and
processes derived from the theory show their congruence with cognitive, clinical, and parapsychological data.
The first postulate is that there exist several parameters specific to semantic space. These are descriptors of the dynamics of
the generation of meaning-one of the fundamental process at work in practically all mental acts (from naming and categorizing,
to feeling and thinking). I have for now identified four such parameters, one of which is semantic proximity - a nonlocal
parameter that is orthogonal to spa tial distance in semantic exchanges.
The second postulate is explicitly linked to the issue of mind-matter interaction : I posit mind to be an organizing force that
shapes consensual (observed) reality. This is reminiscent of certain interpretations of the measurement problem in QM, and
analogous to the fundamental premises of parapsychology’s Observational Theories. However, in the present theory, the
injection of order into the environment is based upon network dynamics, and involves the creation of eco-semantic fields -
meaning-clusters that organize personal and social space. By endowing physical reality with a semantic organizational level,
mind-matter interaction is re-cast as the interaction between complex personal semantic fields and environmental semanticfields. Their mutual interactions, it is propose d, a re gove rned by neural nets and chaos theory dynamics.
From cognitivism to connectionism and chaos theory
In the domain of cognitive sciences, two main conceptual frameworks are currently prevalent : the symbolic and the
connectionist paradigms. In the symbolic or cognitivist paradigm, which was dominant in the 70’s and 80’s, the mind is seen as
a symbol-based rule-system : mental processes are equated to rule-driven computations on internal representations, coded in
symbols (Fodor, 1991 ; Newell & Simon, 1976 ; Stillings et al, 1987 ; Pylyshyn, 1981). Regarding cognitive science, Stillings et
al (1987) thus state : “The view of the mind as an information-processing system is what characterizes and unifies the field.” (p.
314) ; and elsewhere : “The realization that an organism or machine can produce meaningful behavior by performing formal
operations on symbolic structures that bear a representational relationship to the world is a key insight of cognitive science.”(p.
4)
The symbolic paradigm is essentially an extension of cartesian rationalism, in that the mind is equated to conscious rational
processes. This fundamental premise, however, is challenged by at least two areas of investigation : the nonconscious and the
nonrational features of mental proce ssing.
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 5/18
Recent research has highlighted the presence of a “cognitive unconscious”, insofar as most cognitive processes such as
forming a sentence imply non-conscious processes working conjointly with conscious ones (Reber, 1993). More importantly,
cognitive scientists increasingly recognize that abstract reasoning is probably not the way our mind operates most of the time
(Minsky, 1985 ; Freeman, 1995 ; Gardner, 1983). Computational rule-bound processing, as expressed in logical or
mathematical reasoning, must be seen as a high-level, emergent process. On the contrary, natural thought processes are
mostly nonlogical or, as Reber (1993) put it, “arational” ; for the most part, they are grounded on associations, as well as
analogica l and metaphorical thinking much more rapid and globa l than linear computations. Penrose (1989) thus propose s
that the mind makes use of non-algorithmic processes, and indeed several non-algorithmic alternatives have been proposed
to model the mind’s processing-quantum processes (quantum potentials, interference patterns, quantum void, quantum
computation), topology and morphogenetic fields.
It seems that the very concept of linear, rule-driven symbol manipulation is simply not powerful enough to deal with the
flexibility and evolving capacities of the mind ; the self-organization and learning that neural networks and dynamical systems
exhibit seem to be a much more powerful explanatory tool.
The connectionist paradigm (based on neural nets) and chaos theory (complex dynamical systems theory) are powerful new
frameworks which enable us to truly address complexity and to model the mind in terms of dynamical processes, evolving and
interactive. Both networks and dynamical systems exhibit self-organizational properties, i.e., the capacity of a complex system
to reorganize itself internally. The combination of network and chaos theories is therefore a p articularly appealing framework for
explaining the self-organizing and evolving features of the mind. In the connectionist paradigm, which underlies neural netsresearch, the mind is viewed as a network of elements and processes, organizing itself toward an optimal state (vis-à-vis
given inputs and/or objectives), on the basis of weighted connections between the different units or elements (McClelland &
Rumelhart, 1986 ; Bechtel & Abrahamsen, 1990 ; Levine & Leven, 1995). Cognitive processes (including memory, information
processing, perception, etc.) make use of a network of interconnected units in which data are distributed. Cognition is thus
equated to the emergence of glob al properties out of a vast connective network of distributed information.
At a bas ic neuronal level, the brain indeed displays a widely distributed organization as in the synchronous oscillatory firing of
distant neurons (Koch, 1996), or in the distribution over various brain areas of some 20 visual maps (Changeux, 1983). A
major challenge is to understand how such widely distributed information-processing nevertheless gives rise to a unified
percept (the “binding” problem).
All in all, there is considerable evidence for the existence of neural-nets properties in the brain, such as distribution of
processes, feedback, and collective self-organization (Edelman, 1992 ; Freeman, 1995 ; Wilson & McNaughton, 1994 ;
Hameroff, 1994).
Another specific feature of neural nets is their remarkable learning ability, which implies the adaptive organization of the whole
network (activated units and connection weights). In other words, presented with data (the input) and with a target pattern, the
network finds the most efficient internal organization to code for this pattern. Sophisticated networks display a distributed
representation of the target pattern that allows the network to still work efficiently despite partial damage or partial lack of
information. These distributed networks can learn to recognize new patterns without loss of previous learning ; furthermore, they
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 6/18
are able to generalize, that is, to process patterns that are similar but not identical to those already learned. Altogether, this
adaptive learning points to a property of dynamical self-organiza tion within networks (Anderson & Rosenfeld, 1988).
Networks’ learning capacity has prompted diverse evolutions of artificial intelligence (AI) programs, which now display some
network features, such as microtraits coding (subsymbols) and resistance to partial damage. Powerful integrations of symbolic
and connectionist approaches in hybrid AI systems seem to be a very promising direction for research (Anderson, 1983 ;
Bechtel & Abrahamsen, 1990 ). The most striking feature of chaos theory is its ability to account for the interaction of forces a nd
the creation of novel organizational states (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). Many psychological processes are nonlinear and
display instability, thus exhibiting dynamics at the edge of chaos : a minor change of parameters may lead the system to
bifurcate, that is to change its global organization and behavior (Abraham et al, 1990 ; Abraham & Gilgen, 1995). Furthermore,
the mathematical framework of chaos theory allows for modeling the interaction of any type of forces with any other type ; for
example, beliefs may be modeled as interacting with physical and mechanical forces in the production of work accidents
(Guastello, 1995). Thus, a number of psychological and social processes have been modelized using complex dynamical
systems theories - such as Prigogine’s dissipative systems, René Thom’s catastrophe theory, and chaos theory in general.
Chaos theory accounts for a great number of interacting parameters, for a succession of states and their evolving trajectories,
for bifurcations in the system, and for the creation of novel patterns. Furthermore, dynamical models account for the influence of
context upon the construction of cognitive p atterns (or "global orders") which remain context-sensitive (Smith, 1995).
A number of scientists are now presenting cognitive theories based on connectionist and/or dynamical-systems premises,
sometimes integrating a symbol-based rule-system. Varela et al (1991), for example, propose that cognitive acts are not“instructed” as in a programming command, but rather dynamically “constructed” through experience. More specifically,
Maturana and Varela (1980) hold that the mind exhibits “autopoiesis,” that is, the ability to reorganize itself internally and to
maintain its structural identity. In his Global Workspace (GWS) theory, Baars (1988) proposes that numerous brain modules
“understand” everything that happens in the stream of consciousness (the GWS), with each agent’s action being “evoked” by a
specific signal (a symbol appearing in the GWS), rather than the agent being “ordered” to perform an operation. This type of
Production System (first developed by Newell, 1973, as an AI formalism), is data-driven and environment-driven, while being
also distributive and modular properties that are quite astonishing for a symbol- based system.
Adopting a dynamical-systems approach, Combs (1996) views the mind as an ensemble of modules, each one constituting a
set of dynamical processes ; Combs also underscores the organizing properties of consciousness. In his Dual Network
Theory, Goertzel (1994) proposes the superposition of two networks a memory network, having an associative organiza tion,
and a control network, showing a hierarchical structure. Both Combs and Goertzel view the mind as a giant system housing
many modules, which would be dynamically organized as a giant attractor with subsystems. Baars’ and Newell’s “production
systems”, as well as Goertzel’s theory, show a combination of rule-systems and connectionist or dynamical frameworks.
Cognitive architecture and dynamics
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 7/18
In Semantic Fields theory (SFT), the human cognitive system is viewed as a multilevel web of interactions within the whole
mind-body-psyche system. SFT blends a network approach with that of chaos theory to propose both an architecture and
dynamics for the mind (Hardy, 1996, 1998). The architecture is a lattice of cognitive networks which I call semantic
constellations or SeCos-each dedicated to a specific activity, concept or knowledge. SeCos evolve through the interplay of
experiences, environmental and cultural influences, past dynamical organization (endo- context), and genetic constraints.
A basic feature of the Seco is that it is organized as a multilevel dynamical network. Each SeCo-network links together
processes that may range from high-level abstract ones to low-level neuronal ones. For example, in learning an artistic skill, a
cluster of links will progressively be constructed between sensations, muscle control, affects, intentions, states of mind,
concepts, names, categories, and so forth. Thus the SeCo acts as a multilevel web of interacting sub-networks, evolving
through the continual interconnection and mutual adaptation of proce sses (Hardy, 2000).
The SeCos’ networks are created and constantly modified by an underlying, low-level, connective dynamic : a spontaneous
linkage process ; essentially, clusters of semantic elements are spontaneously attracted to, and link themselves to, other
clusters that are semantically related. Implemented both within and across SeCos, the connective dynamic is typically triggered
by similarities across clusters. However, given the complexity of these clusters, differences are bound to be present too, thus
permitting discrimination, differentiations, and the creation of new paths within the SeCo.
I propose that this highly generative dynamic, ba sed on network-connections (rather than algorithmic operations), is the g round
of thought. In other words, rational thinking is a high-level process, while thought at a low level is instantiated by dynamicchain-linkages and the interweaving of multilevel processes.
The linkage process triggered spontaneously in the SeCos-networks (through connective dynamics) explains certain unique
features of the thought process-how, for example, it may evolve independently of awareness. Whether triggered by an
intention or a percept, chain-linkages occur at the underlying, connective, level ; so they may keep creating links or follow
weighted paths in the SeCo while attention has drifted unto another task. This explains how a solution to a problem may pop up
to the flow of consciousness at a later, unexpec ted time.
Thus, SeCos are self-organized dynamical networks that interweave sensations, feelings, and concepts through connective
dynamics, and that change and evolve as a function of their own dynamical organization and novel chain-linkages. In some
cases, the model predicts that SeCos may become fixated, as in purely repetitive tasks, strongly conditioned behaviors, or
neurotic behavioral patterns. In this sense, the model is consistent with psychoanalysts’ understanding of psychological
complexes as rigid clusters of feelings, behaviors, concepts and physiological processes.
The SeCo concept is also in agreement with Charles Tart’s (1975) description of states of consciousness as idiosyncratic
patterns of sensory and mental processes, behaviors, mind-sets, knowledge-sets, and memories. A given state of
consciousness may be seen as a web of connections between specific SeCos.
The model is also consistent with the growing recognition of nonrational and nonconscious processes in cognition (Reber,
1993). Francisco Varela, for example, holds that cognition develops out of-and remains tied to-a strong coupling of sensory
and motor exploratory behaviors (Varela et al, 1991). In general, Semantic Fields theory, and the network architecture it posits,
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 8/18
is consistent with clinical and phenomenological evidence pointing to the interlacing of processes from various levels (mental,
psychological, somatic). Classical rule-systems, by contrast, can hardly address this complex interlacing of different levels ;
the clustering of processes from various levels could not exist if the mind’s organization was based solely on rule-bound
processing.
In positing a transversal, network-type integration, ranging from lower neuronal processes up to abstract, rational ones,
Semantic Fields theory casts the mind-body problem in a different light : human knowledge and ideas are never purely mental,
abstract, or rational ; rather, they are deeply tied to sensory, motor, affective, and physiological p rocesses .
Psi and multilevel mental processes
Considerable experimental and anecdotal evidence suggests that psi operates at various organizational levels, ranging from
highly abstract to emotional/affective to neurophysiolog ical.
1. Psi test performance decreases with repetition of tasks, as shown by the decline effect (e.g., McConnell, 1982). The
experimental findings suggest that psychological variables such as interest, enthousiasm, playfulness, novelty and surprise
(both in subjects and in experimenters) enhance psi scoring. Psi may thus be more compatible with spontaneous connective
processes and multilevel dynamics, than the abstract or rule-bound mental processing which are often taken as the uniquefunctioning of the mind.
2. Data from spontaneous cases and informal investigations suggest that psi information is sometimes "felt" by the receiver as
a somatic or "tele-empathic" sensation matching the sender’s experience. For example, in group telepathy training sessions,
psychoanalyst Si Ahmed (1990) observed that subjects, while unable to verbally name the target, were often able to mimic it
through gestures and postures.
This concept of "body-psi" has been formally explored in DMILS experiments (such as Remote Staring), that demonstrate that
the autonomic system reacts to unconscious psi information and may show stronger results and/or reliability than verbal and
conscious tasks (Braud & Schlitz, 1991 ; Schlitz & LaBerge, 1994 ; Wiseman & Schlitz, 1996).
3. In a number of psi experiments, nonconscious tasks (e.g., involving silent REGs), or tasks involving some form of
dissociation from conscious, goal-oriented, processing, tend to yield higher results than tasks depending on strictly conscious-
purposive activities (Berger, 1988 ; Varvoglis & Amorim, 1991)
Similarly certain psychics and researchers involved in the SRI Remote Viewing experiments have emphasized the importance
of drawing, rather than verbally describing the target (Hansen, Schlitz, & Tart, 1984). 4. A variety of data point to the role of
affect, rather than purely mental content. Spontaneous psi experiences are often triggered by emotionally charged events ; this
could, of course, be due to a form of selective reporting, but at least some investigations of target emotionality and psi in
telepathy tests suggest otherwise : in ganzfeld experiments, emotionally and/or sensorially rich targets seem to be more
conducive to psi than highly abstract or neutral ones ( Bierman, 1995).
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 9/18
Similarly, affective relationships between sender and receiver seem to enhance success in telepathy tasks (Broughton &
Alexander, 1996). This finding is consistent with what has been generally observed in spontaneous cases of psi (Schouten,
1982).
5. In ganzfeld experiments involving artists, it has been shown that individuals with high creativity scores show enhanced psi
abilities (Schlitz & Honorton, 1990 ; Dalton, 1997). This is consistent with the above emphasis on the spontaneity of connective
dynamics, while also underscoring the possible role of multilevel processes in psi : artists and creative people typically draw
not only on ideas , but also on feelings, intuitions, sensory inputs, an aesthetic sense, etc.
6. Finally, in certain government-funded remote viewing experiments (the Scanate project), gifted psi subjects have been able
to describe distant sites just on the basis of coordinates (McRae, 1984). This points to the fact that psi can also make use of
purely abstract data.
The above data show that psi information can be channeled into awareness in a variety of ways, such as sensations, feelings,
intuitions, thoughts, interoceptive sensations, kinesthetic impressions, etc. ; the whole mind-body-psyche seems to act as a
receptive system. It seems highly unlikely, then, that psi is an autonomous process in the percipient’s mind, i.e., a mechanical
force, or a specific information channel, or the activation of a rule. To the contrary, the data strongly suggest that psi functioning
is distributed between conscious and nonconscious processes, and that it can implicate practically all organizational levels of
the mind-body : sensations, motor acts, the autonomic system, emotions, feelings, and intellect. The kind of multifaceted
phenomena we observe in research and spontaneous cases are just the kind we would expect if psi information were indeed
received through a multilevel p sychophysical network exhibiting connective dynamics.
Several psi theorists have underscored the role of associations in psi events reminiscent of the connective dynamics I present.
In his Association Theory, Carington (1945) viewed the “field of consciousness” as consisting of “associative groupings of
psychons,” that is, sensa and images (p. 101). Drawing on the idea of a “common subconscious”, he proposed that the shared
idea of an experiment, or the use of a “k-object” associated to the target in the experimenter’s mind, would create
associations that may become active in the minds of subjects. Carington suggested that reinforcing the association by
repetition would strengthen psi results ; this was supported b y a retrospective analysis of an ea rlier telepa thy experiment.
Murphy (1949) believed that psi was fundamentally “transpersonal”, being grounded in the relationships between the psychical
structures of individuals. He proposed that psi would be greatly enhanced in an experiment if participants were to strengthen
their “interpersonal field” by becoming less ego-centered and more attuned to each other. In stating that all participants in an
experiment influence results, by virtue of their interpersonal interactions, Murphy (1945) anticipated a central tenet of General
Systems Theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968) which was later to be expanded within chaos theory namely the existence of
complex simultaneous interactions between components of a system. For example, in von Lucadou’s (1983, 1987) Model of
Pragmatic Information (MPI), the system formed by a group of people and their environment (e.g. experimenters-subjects-
device) produces “pragmatic information” that will be decisive on events (e.g. the results). Nonlocal correlations will then briefly
link individuals’ mental state with the external system and p roduce temporary psi e ffects.
In general, then, the connective dynamics of SFT bear similarities with the above cited associative processes ; furthermore,
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 10/18
insofar as the theory embeds a systemic framework - the SeCos being systems of interacting elements (Hardy, 1999) - SFT
also has areas of overlap with von Lucadou’s theory.
From the perspective of Semantic Fields theory, the underlying connective dynamics across SeCos-networks are fundamental
features of psi experiences. Through nonlocal semantic connections, psi information activates the SeCos whose elements best
match the target system, and the information becomes d istributed in the SeCos’ multilevel network.
What induces the psi information to emerge into consciousness (as an ESP-type phenomenon or an intuition), rather than
remaining nonconscious ? I propose this depends on a number of factors, such as the intensity and volume of chain-linkages,
or the strength of the affect attached to the event.
Assuming that psi information does become conscious, the selection of the channel through which it emerges into awareness
may be based on different dynamics. One possibility is that psi information is relayed through the person’s preferred cognitive
mode, e.g. imagistic, verbal, kinesthetic, etc. A second possibility is that the intensity and salience of specific elements in the
target system will trigger chain-linkages with similar elements in the receiver’s mind ; for example, the sender’s fear will tend to
evoke fear in the receiver, or an intense scene may evoke quite similar imagery. These two possible dynamics do not exclude
one another and may work conjointly in the psyche.
Mind-to-Mind : Interface-SeCos
The above address the question as to what happens to psi information once it is within the person’s lattice, i.e., how it is
"processed", once received. To understand how information about distant events may get into a person’s lattice in the first
place, we need to consider broader dynamics.
To begin with, I postulate that semantic connective processes are organized not by space-time parameters, but by semantic
parameters - such as semantic proximity, recurrence, intensity, and linkage-types. These semantic parameters instantiate
nonlocal connections between distant semantic fields and create a complex web of mutual influences.
I propose that nonlocal communication between individuals (e.g., telepathy) is grounded in dynamical interactions that are
based on such semantic parameters. Two individuals’ “normal” communication creates a nonlocal common semantic
constellation (or interface-SeCo) that organizes and binds the semantic clusters activated in their respective lattices. In other
words, while interacting regularly with people, we develop nonlocal connections with them that, given sufficient recurrence and
intensity, may become quasi-permanent "semantic bridges". If reinforced and developed through repeated exchanges, the
interface-SeCo will act as a nonlocal link between the two persons. Thus, if one person has a strong experience that has some
similarities with semantic clusters in the interface-SeCo, then a sp ontaneous semantic linkage will be triggered, activating these
clusters ; the activation may then spread through chain-linkages and reach into the other person’s lattice via the interface- SeCo.
The emergent meaning may be related to the activated clusters in a straightforward manner ; or, it may lead to derivative psi
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 11/18
information concerning the other person’s experience, by way of a back-propagation of chain-linkages. The activation of
clusters in the "receiver" may then remain unconscious or provoke emergences of meaning in the flow of consciousness or in
dreams. Thus, semantic dynamics allow for various ESP phenomena via spontaneous linkages between spatially distant-but
semantically proximate- semantic fields, with or without the person’s immediate awareness.
Mind-in-the-world : Eco-fie lds
Contrary to symbolic (cognitivist) theories, recent theories of the mind put much more emphasis on the environment, and the
importance of an organism’s constant interaction with its surroundings. Gibson’s (1979) ecological theory views the organism
as reacting to "affordances" in the environment (although he swings too far in this direction, depriving the mind of internally
constructed processes, such as declarative knowledge). In Francisco Varela’s model, the cognitive subject and the world
mutually define each other through tightly coupled interactions. According to his concept of enaction, cognition involves both a
knowing and an acting. Enaction is thus "embodied cognition" (Varela et al, 1991). Another interesting approach here is Pierre
Lévy’s (1990) cognitive ecology, which develops the concept of a "thinking human/objects collectivity" : subjects and objects
are both seen as agents in a social-cognitive network, whose "transpersonal" modes of thinking are shaped not only by
language, but also by technologies (e.g., computers).The model presented here posits a dynamic interaction between consciousness and the world, based on connective
processe s ; it takes into account environmental a nd cultural influences, and underscores subjects’ creative input in interpreting
and shaping reality. In this framework, perception is not solely an interpretational process, but also a projective process : it
generates a semantic organizational level in objects and the environment - what I term eco-semantic fields , or eco-fields.
Perception induces a circular dynamic between the subject and the object of attention, activating and reorganizing internal
SeCos, while also injecting emergent meaning-clusters into the object’s eco-field. The modified eco-field is then retrojected
into the person’s lattice, starting a new loop, until no further meaning is generated.
Thus consciousness imprints organization and order on the physical world by influencing and modifying the eco-fields of
objects and of the environment. Rather than being a closed system, its operations being purely internal (as assumed in the
symbolic framework), the mind is here viewed as a complex network system that, via semantic parameters, interacts
dynamically with other complex systems whether other individuals’ lattice, or environment’s eco- fields (Hardy, 1997).
It is worth noting that this semantic dynamic, independent of spatial distance, is not bound to the act of perceiving (as would be
postulated by Observational Theories) ; rather, it is triggered at the onset of the low-level connective process. Each time we
think about a place or an object, or remember it, we create a semantic network-connection with it that will not only modify our
own mental processes but may also carry subtle two-way organizing influences.
The organizing force of the mind on eco-fields will affect primarily objects, events, or places with which we are in constant and
meaningful interaction ; in other words, the semantic influence will be stronger when there is strong semantic proximity,
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 12/18
recurrence or intensity. This organiz ing influence on surrounding e co- fields will affect the nature and probab ility o f events, to the
extent to which these events are meaningful and/o r connected to the person. This points to a constant, if subtle, PK influence o f
consciousness upon the environment, in the sense that meaning generation organizes physical reality in a way that reflects the
set of values and worldview of the imprinting individual. More generally, insofar as we are social beings, it is often a group - as
a system of intertwined semantic influences that will affect ambient eco- fields and connected events (for example, in a shared
work-place).
Thus, the connective dynamic, which is the driving force in the creation, self-organization and evolution of SeCos, is also
responsible for the interaction of mind with its physica l environment. The se mantic dynamic is the g round for both receptive and
projective psi, whether conscious or nonconscious. Out of the web of constant nonlocal exchanges, specific meanings may
emerge in the flow of consciousness, yielding information about distant persons or objects, or past or future events. Similarly,
out of the constant and subtle influences upon environmental eco-fields, some instances of strong or explicit influence will be
recognized and labeled as PK.
Psi abilities, revealing unique properties of mental functioning, may turn out to be crucial not only for the exploration of mind-
matter interaction but also for cognitive modeling ; indeed, I believe that any theory of mind that seeks to be complete must
address psi phenomena.
The concept of eco-fields bears some resemblance to models of psi that imply fields connected to objects or locations, such
as Roll’s (1965) “psi fields”. Roll grounds the creation of these fields on isomorphism, stating that a psi field produces an
“isomorphic representation” of itself in either another psi field, or a physical field. One of his “canalisation hypotheses” is that
the isomorphism between two psi fields can only g row the more they interact. By contrast, the present theory permits a range of
complex mutual influences between personal semantic fields and eco-fields, including antagonistic ones, while also allowing
for partial reorganiz ation of these fields (Hardy, 1998) .
Sheldrake’s (1981) morphogenetic fields and Wasserman’s (1956) M-fields also share some similarities with eco-fields, insofar
as they retain a “memory of the past”. Sheldrake invokes “morphic resonance” as the principle of interaction between species’
morphogenetic fields and biological processes or behaviors. Thus the morphogenetic field acts as a blueprint of biological or
psychological forms.
It is clear that the SFT does not tackle the morphogenesis problem ; it focuses on network-type influences between physical,
physiological and semantic organizational levels. While personal semantic fields do interact with collective SeCos, the latter are just one set of influences among many competing others. Indeed, in the present theory, the complexity of personal
cognitive networks allows for the existence of choice and crea tivity, desp ite the weight of collec tive patterns.
In conclusion, the above authors posit the possibility of matter being imprinted by mental-type fields or mental events, thus
retaining the memory of these events. However, once created, these fields seem to be structurally rigid, their sole interaction
with other fields involving reso nance or further replication. SFT, on the contrary, p roposes networks- type fields that evo lve a nd
specifies the d ynamics of their creation and transformation. Explicit psi events, in this context, are a natural consequence of the
connectivity between these fields.
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 13/18
Experimental designs and tests
In the Semantic Fields theory, the mind is viewed as a force creating order and organization both within its own semantic
network and within the environment. It is a negentropic force that, while not the inverse of entropy, counteracts entropy by
generating new states of order and higher complexity in the universe. SFT hypothesizes that an individual semantic field’s
general influence on reality - and particularly upon surrounding eco-fields - will encourage events consistent with the person’s
conceptual grid, worldview, be liefs, affects, values, e tc. ; conversely, it will tend to reduce the p robability of events antithetical to
these cognitive/affective traits. This prediction is coherent with the sheep-goat effect, in which subjects tend to score
significantly better (as a group) when they believe psi to be real and psi testing to be relevant.
The organizing influence of the mind o n the environment acts in two distinct ways : the first one, is reminiscent of a generalized
field, while the se cond, to the co ntrary, is focused.
1. Generalized semantic influence : the semantic field affects surrounding eco-fields as a direct consequence of the creation of
meaning and self-organization within the person’s lattice. In this respect, it does not depend upon the person’s focused
attention on the objects affected.
This leads to the hypothesis that the instant of intense meaning generation (including creative thinking and emotions) should
prove to produce the strongest negentropic effects. Thus, if a REG is operating in the vicinity, it is predicted that subjects
engaging in intense meaning generation should induce shifts in the system toward more organized states-i.e. causing
significant departures from theoretical distributions ; by contrast, subjects engaging in mechanical or meaningless mental
activity will produce no such shifts.
Intense meaning generation refers to novel thought processes-like considering new ideas with enthousiasm, or having a aha !
experience ; it also refers to thought processes invested with strong feelings, emotions, and significance. The experiment
would test the effects of the intensity of meaning generation on a “hidd en”- REG (or field- REG), i.e., on a REG of which the
subject is unaware. The general idea is to monitor experimental situations (or tasks) able to trigger shifts in the creation of
meaning, in a way similar to field-REGs and group consciousness experiments (Nelson et al, 1996 ; Radin et al, 1996). One
interesting possibility would be to have subjects speak of strong personal psi experiences, as this task would blend
meaningfulness, strong mental interest and d eep emotions.
2. Focalized semantic influence : as the mind’s self-organization, in this theory, is linked to the creation of meaning, it will affect
semantically linked target systems ; it will affect things and events that are meaningful to the person or that can shift the mental
state of the person-triggering emotions, ideas and novel experiences.
This leads to the hypothesis that objects, events, or living systems that are important or meaningfully related to the subject,
may be affected by that person’s thoughts, feelings, and intentions, independently of the distance. This leads to several
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 14/18
possible tests :
In an experimental design in which items of affective import (names, objects) are mixed with neutral ones, it is predicted that
a random selection will favor the meaningful items (especially when coupled with feedback to the subject). This prediction
follows from the idea that a p erson’s semantic field a ffects the probability of meaningful events related to that person.
Given the electronic analogue of a divination-system (i.e., a pool of phrases describing different dynamics, situations or
events, and an REG-based selection of one phrase), it is predicted that the selected responses will tend to reflect the state of
the subjects’ semantic field. In other words, out of a large pool of semantically distinct phrases, subjects’ questions will tend to
bring out phrases coherent with the state of their own semantic field, or with the state of the semantic field of the person or
object considered by the question. This prediction follows from the idea that spontaneous chain-linkages are generated
between semantically related elements, within and across semantic fields.
REFERENCES
Abraham, F., Abraham, R., & Shaw, C. (1990). A visual introduction to dynamical systems theory for psychology . Santa Cruz,
CA : Aerial Press. Abraham, F. & G ilgen, A. (Eds.) (1995). Chaos theory in psychology . Westport, CT : Praeger.
Anderson, J.R. (1983). The architecture of cognition . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press /Bradford Books .
Anderson, J.A., & Rosenfeld, E. (Eds.) (1988). Neurocomputing : Foundations of research. Cambridge , MA : The MIT Press.
Baars, B.J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness . Cambridge, MA : Cambridge University Press.
Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (1990). Connectionism and the mind : An introduction to parallel processing in networks . New
York : Blackwell.
Berge r, R. (1988) Psi effects without real- time feedback. Journal of Parapsychology , 52, 1-28.
Bierman, D. (1995). The Amsterdam ganzfeld series III & IV : Target clip emotionality, effect sizes and openness. In N.
Zingrone (Ed.), Proceedings of the PA 38th Annual Convention. North Carolina.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order . London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Braud, W. & Schlitz, M. (1991). Consciousness interactions with remote biological systems : Anomalous intentionality effects.
Subtle Energies, 2 (1), 1-46.
Broughton,R. & Alexander, C. (1996). Autoganzfeld II : An attempted replication of the PRL ganzfeld research. In E.May (Ed.),
Proceedings of the PA 39th Annual Convention, San Diego, CA, 45-56.
Carington, W. (1945). Telepathy . London : Methuen.
Changeux, J.P. (1997). Neuronal Man : The Biology of Mind . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press. (First printing : 1983).
Combs, A. (1996). The Radiance of Being. Complexity, Chaos and the Evolution of Consciousness . St Paul, MN : Paragon
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 15/18
House.
Dalton, K. (1997). Exploring the links : creativity and psi in the ganzfeld. In R. Wiseman (Ed.), Proceedings of the PA 40th Annual
Convention, Brighton,UK, 119- 134.
Dunne, B.J., Jahn, R.D. & Nelson, R.D. (1983). Precognitive remote perception. Technical Note PEAR 83003. Princeton Univ.,
NJ.
Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire : On the matter of mind . New York : Basic Boo ks.
Fodor, J.A. (1991). Methodological solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology. In Rosenthal,
D.M. (Ed.), The nature of mind . NY : Oxfrod University Press.
Freeman, W. J. (1995). Societies of brains : A study in the neurosciences of love and hate . Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences . New York : Harper Collins/Basic Books.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). An ecological approach to visual perception . Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goertzel, B. (1994). Chaotic logic. Language, Thought and Reality from the Perspective of Complex Systems Science . New York :
Plenum Press.
Guastello, S. (1995). Chaos, catastrophe, and human affairs . Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hameroff, S.R. (1994). Quantum coherence in microtubules : A neural basis for emergent consciousness ? Journal of
Consciousness Studies, 1(1). Thorverton, UK.
Hameroff, S. & Penrose, R. (1996). Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence. In S. Hameroff, A. Kaszniak, & A. Scott
(Eds.), Toward a science of consciousness . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.Hansen, G., Schlitz, M. & Tart, C. (1984). Remote viewing research 1973 -1982. In R. Targ and K. Harary, The Mind Race :
Understanding and Using Psychic Abilities. New York : Ballantine.
Hardy, C. (1996). Théorie des champs sémantiques : Dynamiques de l’interprétation et de la création de sens. Biomath, 34
(135). Paris.
Hardy, C. (1997). Semantic fields and meaning . World Futures, 48, 161-70 . Newark : Gordon & Brea ch.
Hardy, C. (1998). Networks of meaning : A bridge between mind and matter . Westport, CT : Praeger.v Hardy, C. (1999). Complex
semantic systems : Understanding mind-in-the-world. Proceedings of the 43d annual meeting, Intern. Soc. for the Systems
Sciences (ISSS), Asilomar, CA.
Hardy, C. (2000). Self-organization, autopoiesis, and the breakdown of causality in complex cognitive systems. Proceedings of
the 44th annual meeting, Intern. Soc. for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), Toronto, Canada. (In print)
Koch, C. (1996). Toward the neuronal substrate of visual consciousness. In S.R. Hameroff, A.W. Kaszniak, & A.C. Scott (Eds.),
Toward a science of consciousness . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press /Bradford Books .
Levine, D. & Leven, S. (1995). Of mice and networks : Connectionist dynamics of intention versus action. In F. Abraham & A.
Gilgen (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology . Westport, CT : Praeger.
Lévy, P. (1990). Les technologies de l’intelligence. Paris : La découverte.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition . Boston : D.Reidel.
McClelland, J. & Rumelhart, D. (1986). Explorations in the microstructure of cognition : Vol. 2. Psychological and biological
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 16/18
models. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press/Bradford.
McConnell, R. (1982). Wishing with dice revisited. In R. McConnell (Ed.) Parapsychology and self-deception in science . Univ. of
Pittsburgh, PA : McConnell.
McRae, R. (1984). Mind Wars : The true story of government research into the military potential of psychic weapons . New York :
St. Martin’s.
Minsky, M. (1985). The society of mind . New York : Simon & Schuster.
Murphy, G. (1945). Field theory and survival. JASPR , 67, 117-29.
Murphy, M. (1949). Psychical research and personality. Proceedings of the SPR , 49, 1-15.
Nelson, R. D., Bradish, G. J., Dobyns, Y. H., Dunne, B. J., & Jahn, R. G. (1996). FieldREG anomalies in group situations. Journal
of Scientific Exploration, 10 (1), 111-41.
Newell, A. (1973). Productions systems. Models of control structures. In Chase, W. (Ed.), Visual information processing . New
York : Acade mic Press.
Newell, A, & Simon, H.A. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry . In Haugeland, J. (Ed.), Mind design. Cambridge, MA :
MIT Press.
Penrose, R. (1989) . The Emperor’s New Mind . Oxford, England : Oxford University Press.
Persinger, M. A. (1985). Geophysical variables and behavior : XXX. Intense paranormal experiences occur during days of
quiet global geomagnetic activity. Perceptual and Motor skills , 61, 320-322.
Pribram, K. H. (1991). Brain and perception : Holonomy and structure in figural processing . Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.Price, H. (1939). Hauntings and the “psychic e ther” hypo thesis. Proceedings of the SPR , 45, 307-43.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984) . Order out of chaos . New York : Bantam Books.
Puthoff, H., Targ, R. and May, E. (1981). Experimental psi research : Implications for physics. In R.G.Jahn (Ed.) The Role of
Consciousness in the Physical World . Boulder, CO : Westview.
Pylyshyn, Z. (1981). Complexity and the study of artificial and human intelligence. In J. Haugeland (Ed.), Mind design.
Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .
Radin, D., Rebman, J., & Cross, M. (1996). Anomalous organization of random events by group consciousness. Two
exploratory experiments. Journal of Scientific Exploration , 10, 143-68.
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge . New York : Oxford University Press.
Roll, W. (1965). The psi field. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association, 1, 32-65.
Roll, W. (1983). The psi structure theory of survival. Research In Parapsychology 1982 . Metuchen, NJ : Scarecrow Press.
Schlitz, M. & Honorton, C. (1990). ESP and creativity in an exceptional population. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the
PA 1990 .
Schlitz, M. & LaBerge, S. (1994). Autonomic detection of remote observation : two conceptual replications. Proceedings of the
37th Annual Convention of the PA, Amsterdam, 352-360.
Schouten, S. (1982). Analysing spontaneous cases : a replication based on the Rhine collection. European Journal of
Parapsychology , 4, 113-158.
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 17/18
Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind . Cambridge, MA : Bradford/MIT Press.
Sheldrake, R. (1981). A New Science of Life : The Hypothesis of Causative Formation . London : Blond and Briggs.
Si Ahmed, D . (1990). Parapsychologie et psychanalyse. Paris : Dunod.
Smith, L. (1995). Stability and variability : The geometry of children’s novel-word interpretations. In F.D. Abraham & A.R. Gilgen
(Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology . Westport, CT : Praeger Publishers.
Spottiswoode, J. & May, E. (1997). Anomalous cognition effect size : Dependence on sideral time and solar wind parameters.
Proceedings of the 40th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, 399-409.
Stillings, N.A., Feinstein, M.H., Garfield, J.L., Rissland, E.L., Rosenbaum, D.A., Weisler, S.E., & Baker-Ward, L. (1987). Cognitive
Science : An introduction. Cambridge, MA : Bradford Boo ks, MIT Press.
Targ, R. & Harary, K. (1984). The Mind Race : Understanding and Using Psychic Abilities . New York : Ballantine.
Tart, C. (1975). States of consciousness . New York : Dutton.
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind . Cambridge , MA : The MIT Press.
Varvoglis, M. & Amorim, M. (1991). Visages : A computer-based test of face-precognition. Research In Parapsychology 1990 .
Metuchen, NJ : Sca recrow Press.
Vasiliev, L.L. (1976). Experiments in distant influence. New York : Dutton.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory . New York : George Braziller.
von Lucadou, W. (1983). On the limitations of psi : a system-theoretic approach. Research In Parapsychology 1982.v von
Lucadou, W. (1987). T he model o f pragmatic information (MPI). Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the PA 1987 .Wasserman, G. D. (1956). An outline of a field theory of organismic form and behavior. In Wolstenholme & Millar (Eds),
Symposium de la fondation Ciba sur l’ ESP. Boston : Little & Brown.
Wilson, M. A., & McNaughton, B. L. (1994). Reactivation of hippocampal ensemble memory during sleep. Science, 265, 676-
79, July 29, 1994. 21.
Wiseman, R. & Schlitz, M. (1996). Experimenter effects and remote detection of staring. In E.C.May (Ed.), Proceedings of the PA
39th Annual Convention, San Diego, CA, 149-157.
Published in : Journal of Parapsychology . Vol. 64, March 20 00 (pp. 73-9 4)
Web copy au thoriza tion : courtesy of John Palmer, editor, for the Journal of Parapsychology (to CH).
Link to the journal
Mots clés associés à cet article :
PDFmyURL.com
8/3/2019 Psi as a Multilevel Process
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psi-as-a-multilevel-process 18/18
© 2003-2007 Institut Métapsychique International
51 rue de l'Aqueduc - 75010 Paris - Tél/Fax : 01 46 07 23 85
Nous contacter - Accueil - Aider l'IMI
Site construit grâce au sys tème SPIP.
PDFmyURL.com