Scientific anomalistics sees itself as a content-determined, and delimited area of science which is committed to the application of appropriate scientific methodology, as well as generally accepted, and necessary, scientific control mechanisms. The specification of research subjects is not the result of assignment to groups of phenomena of specific scientific (sub-) disciplines, but of the ascription of an anomalistic character which (at first) makes these phenomena, or experiences, a subject of anomalistic research. Accordingly, anomalistics is not characterized by its own (...) specific methodology but is oriented by the requirements of the respectively concerned discipline(s) (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, science of history, etc.). For a long time, (natural) science approaches have been considered paradigmatic for anomalistic research and for parapsychological research in particular. However, during the last few decades, social-scientific approaches and qualitative research methods have become increasingly important as supplementary and alternative methods. As a result, single case studies and the investigation of ostensible spontaneous psi phenomena have lost their often premature reputation of being unscientific. Qualitative research methodology, which is used predominantly in social and cultural sciences as well as in anthropology, now represents a useful supplement to quantitative approaches. In some cases, and for several research questions, it proves to be ultimately superior, because one can avoid the considerable reduction of complexity which is obligatory for quantitative methods. Therefore, the research, as well as the researchers, can come much closer to living-world manifestations of anomalistic phenomena and experiences than is the case with the relatively artificial situation in laboratory experiments. As we are trying to demonstrate in our paper, anomalistic research should be conducted in a reflective manner under the described paradigm of reflexive anomalistics. The term signifies a social scientific informed approach to anomalistic phenomena which is aware of (a) the epistemic particularities of the phenomena under research, (b) the precarious cultural (media, science policy) framework conditions of this research, and (c) the areas of tension between subjective evidence, scientific proof and social discourse. These factors have to be systematically taken into consideration when developing scientific research questions as well as methodological approaches. (shrink)

Generalized Quantum Theory seeks to explain and predict quantum-like phenomena in areas usually outside the scope of quantum physics, such as biology and psychology. It draws on fundamental theories and uses the algebraic formalism of quantum theory that is used in the study of observable physical matter such as photons, electrons, etc. In contrast to quantum theory proper, GQT is a very generalized form that does not allow for the full application of formalism. For instance neither a commutator, such as (...) Planck’s constant, nor any additive operations are defined, which precludes the usage of a full Hilbert-space formalism. But it is a formalized phenomenological theory that is applicable whenever the core element of a quantum theory needs to be captured, namely in the presence of incompatible or non-commuting operations. As a consequence, it also predicts nonlocal, generalized entanglement correlations in systems other than proper quantum systems. In this paper we summarize the specific scientific evidence relating to the quantum-like mental, behavioral and physiological nonlocal correlations. Such non-local, generalized entanglement correlations are expected, both in space and time, between subsystems of a larger system, whenever observables pertaining to the global system are incompatible or complementary to observables pertaining to subsystems, as predicted by GQT. The result is a coherent explanation of a significant amount of controversial and seemingly weird occurrences that cannot be explained by classical physical laws. This review also offers a new perspective of the human mind’s potential. (shrink)

Mind-matter interaction experiments have been progressing from targeting simple bias of random number generators to correlation studies between psychological and physical variables, carried out over multiple combinations of these. This paper reports on a new correlation study between human intention and the output of a binary random number generator. The study comprises a total of 720000 bits from 20 equal sessions each on a different human participant. Each participant spent 1 hour of time attempting to ’influence’ the outcome of the (...) random number generator according to a pre-selected intention. During this time the participant was provided feedback on his/her performance by an analog mechanical display, with the needle of a galvanometric instrument moving to the left or right hand side of its current position, according to the instantaneous output of the random number generator. Psychological variables were obtained from the participants by a hardware dial ahead of each individual run and by a questionnaire before the participants first experimental session. Three types of data analysis were defined and tested before looking at the data, resembling a blind analysis technique. The first analysis looks at the distribution of hit rates from the 20 participants. A former study of this kind had found a significant result for this type of analysis. The second analysis tests for correlations between psychological variables obtained before each run and the hit rate of the corresponding subsequent run. The third analysis is a conceptual replication of von Lucadous correlation matrix method. It consists of multiple correlation tests between psychological and physical variables, which also can be interpreted as a multiple-analysis technique. The results of the study are p-values of p = 0.438, p = 0.703, and p = 0.0949 for the three analysis’ results to have occurred by chance under a null hypothesis. The combined p-value for these results is p = 0.315. While none of the pre-defined analysis results is found significant, a post-hoc variant of analysis 3 that includes the control data is significant with p = 0.012 to have occurred by chance, under a null hypothesis. (shrink)

Ontology, the ideas we have about the nature of reality, and epistemology, our concepts about how to gain knowledge about the world, are interdependent. Currently, the dominant ontology in science is a materialist model, and associated with it an empiricist epistemology. Historically speaking, there was a more comprehensive notion at the cradle of modern science in the middle ages. Then “experience” meant both inner, or first person, and outer, or third person, experience. With the historical development, experience has come to (...) mean only sense experience of outer reality. This has become associated with the ontology that matter is the most important substance in the universe, everything else—consciousness, mind, values, etc., —being derived thereof or reducible to it. This ontology is insufficient to explain the phenomena we are living with—consciousness, as a precondition of this idea, or anomalous cognitions. These have a robust empirical grounding, although we do not understand them sufficiently. The phenomenology, though, demands some sort of non-local model of the world and one in which consciousness is not derivative of, but coprimary with matter. I propose such a complementarist dual aspect model of consciousness and brain, or mind and matter. This then also entails a different epistemology. For if consciousness is coprimary with matter, then we can also use a deeper exploration of consciousness as happens in contemplative practice to reach an understanding of the deep structure of the world, for instance in mathematical or theoretical intuition, and perhaps also in other areas such as in ethics. This would entail a kind of contemplative science that would also complement our current experiential mode that is exclusively directed to the outside aspect of our world. Such an epistemology might help us with various issues, such as good theoretical and other intuitions. (shrink)

No abstract since it is a Reply to a Comment.

This paper reports on a correlation study between human intention and the output of a binary random number generator. The study comprises a total of 288 million bits from 40 equal sessions, each on a different human participant. Each participant spent 2 hours of time attempting to “influence” the outcome of the random number generator according to a pre-selected intention. During this time the participant was provided feedback on his/her performance by an analog mechanical display, with the needle of a (...) galvanometric instrument moving to the left- or right-hand side of its current position, according to the instantaneous output of the random number generator. The data analysis procedure was defined before looking at the data. Out of four pre-defined analyses, one was found to be significant with a probability p = 0.0366 that this result occurred by chance under a null hypothesis. The combined analysis of the four individual analyses is found to be not significant, with p = 0.2655 to have occurred by chance under a null hypothesis. (shrink)