Abstract
Speculations about the role of consciousness in physical systems are frequently observed in the literature concerned with the interpretation of quantum mechanics. While only three experimental investigations can be found on this topic in physics journals, more than 800 relevant experiments have been reported in the literature of parapsychology. A well-defined body of empirical evidence from this domain was reviewed using meta-analytic techniques to assess methodological quality and overall effect size. Results showed effects conforming to chance expectation in control conditions and unequivocal non-chance effects in experimental conditions. This quantitative literature review agrees with the findings of two earlier reviews, suggesting the existence of some form of consciousness-related anomaly in random physical systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
R. G. Jahn and B. J. Dunne,Margins of Reality (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Orlando, Florida, 1987).
B. d'Espagnat, “The quantum theory and reality,”Sci. Am., pp. 158–181 (November, 1979).
O. Costa de Beauregard, “S-matrix, Feynman zigag and Einstein correlation,”Phys. Lett. 67A, 171–173 (1978).
N. D. Mermin, “Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory,”Phys. Today, pp. 38–47 (April, 1985).
A. Shimony, “Role of the observer in quantum theory,”Am. J. Phys. 31, 755 (1963).
E. P. Wigner, “The problem of measurement,”Am. J. Phys. 31, 6 (1963).
U. Ziemelis, “Quantum-mechanical reality, consciousness and creativity,”Can. Res. 19, 62–68 (September, 1986).
E. J. Squires, “Many views of one world—an interpretation of quantum theory,”Eur. J. Phys. 8, 173 (1987).
J. Hall, C. Kim, B. McElroy, and A. Shimony, “Wave-packet reduction as a medium of communication,”Found. Phys. 7, 759–767 (1977); p. 761.
R. Smith, unpublished manuscript, MIT, 1968. (Cited in Ref. 9, p. 767.)
R. G. Jahn and B. J. Dunne, “On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena,”Found. Phys. 16, 721–772 (1986).
J. E. Alcock,Parapsychology: Science or Magic? (Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York, 1981), pp. 124–125.
M. Gardner,Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1981).
R. Hyman, “Parapsychological research: A tutorial review and critical appraisal,”Proc. IEEE 74, 823–849 (1986).
P. Kurtz, “Is parapsychology a science?” inParanormal Borderlands of Science, K. Frazier, ed. (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1981).
D. F. Marks, “Investigating the paranormal,”Nature (London) 320, 119–124 (1986).
C. Honorton, “Replicability, experimenter influence, and parapsychology: An empirical context for the study of mind,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the AAAS, Washington, D.C., 1978.
E. C. May, B. S. Humphrey, and G. S. Hubbard, “Electronic system perturbation techniques.” SRI International Final Report, September 30, 1980.
H. Schmidt, “Precognition of a quantum process,”J. Parapsychol. 33, 99–108 (1969); “A PK test with electronic equipment,”J. Parapsychol. 34, 175–181 (1970); “Mental influence on random events,”New Sci. Sci. J. 50, 757–758 (1971); “PK tests with pre-recorded and pre-inspected seed numbers,”J. Parapsychol. 45, 87–98 (1981).
R. G. Jahn, “The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering perspective,”Proc. IEEE 70, 136–170 (1982); R. D. Nelson, B. J. Dunne, and R. G. Jahn, “An REG experiment with large data-base capability, III: Operator-related anomalies,” Technical Note PEAR 84003, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory, Princeton University, School of Engineering/Applied Science, September 1984; H. Schmidt, R. Morris, and L. Rudolph, “Channeling evidence for a PK effect to independent observers,”J. Parapsychol. 50, 1–16 (1986).
R. Rosenthal,Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, 1984); K. Wachter, “Disturbed by meta-analysis?”Science 241, 1407–1408 (1988). We may note that Cohen'sh, the difference between control and experimental proportions, is a common effect size measure that might have been used in the present study. This was rejected in favor ofe, as defined, because some of the reviewed studies reported only finalp values or only overallZ scores;e was thus deemed more useful in the present meta-analysis.
R. L. Bangert-Drowns, “Review of developments in meta-analytic method,”Psychol. Bull. 99, 388–399 (1986).
A. H. Rosenfeld, “The particle data group: Growth and operations.”Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 25, 555–599 (1975).
C. G. Wohlet al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 56, Part II, p. S5 (1984).
G. V. Glass, “In defense of generalization,”Behav. Brain Sci. 3, 394–395 (1978).
H. M. Cooper, “Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative reviews,”Rev. Educ. Res. 52, 291–302 (1982).
R. M. Dawes, “You can't systematize human judgment: Dyslexia.” InNew Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science: Fallible Judgment in Behavioral Research, R. A. Shweder, ed. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1980), pp. 67–78.
S. D. Gottfredson, “Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments,”Am. Psychol. 33, 920–934 (1978).
C. Akers, “Methodological criticisms of parapsychology.” InAdvances in Parapsychological Research, Vol. 4, S. Krippner, ed. (McFarland, Jefferson, North Carolina, 1984); “Can meta-analysis resolve the ESP controversy?” InA Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology, P. Kurtz, ed. (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1985).
J. E. Alcock, “Parapsychology: Science of the anomalous or search for the soul,”Behav. Brain Sci. 10, 553–565 (1987).
P. Diaconis, “Statistical problems in ESP research,”Science 201, 131–136 (1978).
C. E. M. Hansel,ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Reevaluation (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1980).
R. Hyman, “The ganzfeld psi experiment: A critical apprasial,”J. Parapsychol. 49, 3–50 (1985).
T. X. Barber,Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points (Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York, 1976).
J. B. Rhine, “Comments: ‘A new case of experimenter unreliability,’”J. Parapsychol. 38, 215–255 (1974).
R. M. Dawes, “The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making,”Am. Psychol. 34, 571–582 (1979).
L. V. Hedges, “How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science?”Am. Psychol. 42, 443–455 (1987).
C. E. M. Hansel,ESP: A Scientific Evaluation (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1966), p. 234.
R. Rosenthal and D. B. Rubin, “Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies,”Behav. Brain Sci. 3, 377–415 (1978).
G. V. Glass, B. McGaw, and M. L. Smith,Meta-analysis in Social Research (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, 1981).
Q. McNemar, “At random: Sense and nonsense,”Am. Psychol. 15, 295–300 (1960).
S. Iyengar and J. B. Greenhouse, “Selection models and the file-drawer problem,” Technical Report 394, Department of Statistics, Carnegie-Mellon University (July, 1987).
L. V. Hedges, “Estimation of effect size under nonrandom sampling: The effects of censoring studies yielding statistically insignificant mean differences,”J. Educ. Stat. 9, 61–86 (1984).
H. H. Collins,Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, 1985).
S. Epstein, “The stability of behavior, II: Implications for psychological research,”Am. Psychol. 35, 790–806 (1980).
D. Druckman and J. A. Swets, eds.Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1988), p. 207.
A. Neher,The Psychology of Transcendence (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1980), p. 147.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Radin, D.I., Nelson, R.D. Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Found Phys 19, 1499–1514 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00732509
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00732509