Mind matter interaction is very hard to pin down. The biggest reason is that it is an effect that is not mediated, that is carried or conveyed, by forces that are commonly recognized. Electromagnetic shielding seems to have no effect. Nor does distance between experimenters and measurement equipment (MMI generators). Even time – backward or forward – can seemingly be bridged by MMI measurements.
These properties give MMI the appearance of being quantum mechanical in nature, or at least quantum-like. We cannot say MMI is quantum mechanical because current theories of quantum mechanics cannot explain certain experimental results. The most common property displayed by MMI experiments is the seeming entanglement between user intention and the output of a true random number generator. This can be generalized further to include entanglement between MMI generator output and target information in response to a user’s mental intention.
Entanglement in quantum theory is a fundamental link between two (or more) objects, particles or waves so certain of their properties cannot be viewed as separate or independent. The link persists even when the objects, particles or waves are separated by a great distance. A measurement on one member of the entangled pair (or group) instantly reveals information about the other(s). A large number of experiments shows the entangled properties are fundamentally random and unpredictable prior to a measurement. That means when one measurement is made it reveals information that is seemingly “communicated” instantly to its other entangled partner(s). This is considered to be a great mystery and is currently unexplainable.
The problem with quantum entanglement in MMI is, how would such an entanglement be produced? Entanglement is typically produced in quantum experiments by certain interactions where direct contact exists. In MMI, there is usually no contact between the MMI generator, the user and the source of target information. This gives the appearance the user’s mental intention causes the MMI generator output to become entangled with information about the target. Current quantum theory cannot explain how two separated objects can become entangled, nor how mental intention or visualization could affect either of them to become entangled.
To be sure, there are many other ways to analyze what is going on in MMI phenomena, but currently understood theories of physics and quantum mechanics seem to be inadequate to explain it. Eventually MMI will move out of the realm of art into a true science. In the meantime, we can, and should, use the scientific method to develop more responsive MMI generators and practical MMI systems and applications.
The author suggest the possibility that MMI effects (and PSI generally) may be actively obscured by “higher forces” so we humans aren’t allowed to figure it out. That of course is a rather poor excuse for the lack of good science and the presence of extreme bias and negative social beliefs on the subject. Higher forces didn’t keep us from developing other technologies, which could annihilate the entire race.
The real reason for slow development of a science of MMI is basically three-fold: 1) As a collective, we are extremely afraid of ideas that seem to contradict or undermine our preferred beliefs about the universe and “God” specifically, and 2) MMI is a subtle effect with small effect size, which makes it easy to miss or misinterpret, finally, 3) We have no adequate scientific theory to explain “how it works.”
The first reason is nearly untouchable – people tend to resist and even hate things they don’t understand and can’t seem to control. All we can do is keep exposing the culture to small doses of MMI ideas and tech to slowly build up a tolerance without pressing any major bias or fear buttons.
The second and third reasons are linked and are dealt with by designing devices and experiments that are more responsive to MMI influence. The responsiveness and evolution of a better theory have gone on simultaneously, each supporting the other. High-speed MMI generators with bias amplification and the revelation of other relevant statistical patterns in the generator sequences continue to make MMI results easier to see. This also tends to remove the formerly pervasive pattern of inconsistency and contradictory results. My theory of quantifying effect size by the amount of energy it takes to “change” a bit to its intended state suggests ways of making MMI generators even more responsive to mental influence. More responsive generators and testing protocols also allow us to further refine designs for even better MMI systems and applications. Eventually someone will have to break through our collective belief that we understand everything about physics and quantum mechanics and come up with a breakthrough theory, as Einstein did with relatively versus classical mechanics. We need a more comprehensive quantum mechanics that inherently includes mind (after we stop rejecting the possibility that mind actually exists).
" The response to either arousing or disturbing imagery is suggestive of the emotional stakes required for the presence of a psi effect"
I saw something like that in Fatum experiments. When the target was randomly generated on the map, i tried to induce an attractor point with MMI to hit the target. Interesting that the attractor point in some experiments appeared in the exact location of a target 1-2 seconds before the target was generated.
There are very many studies related to precognition, including the use of brainwaves to measure a pre-response or “presponse” in the visual evoked potentials just prior to the subject’s being shown either a neutral or emotionally-disturbing image. That is very similar to the study you referenced. See also for example, Rethinking Extrasensory Perception: Toward a Multiphasic Model of Precognition.
All the MMI testing I did included three modes or timing models: One with a prerecorded target (Reveal), one with a fixed target (Affect) and one with a future-generated target (Predict). In the Predict mode the subject generated a trial intended to produce an output that matched the target generated randomly and completely after the trial was completed. This is as close as possible to testing what may be called precognition in a fairly rigorous and objective measurement.