Mind at Large

Lately I’ve been reading Michael Grosso’s 1986 book The Final Choice: Playing the Survival Game. It’s an interesting overview of psi phenomena, afterlife evidence, and millenarian predictions. Grosso makes an effort to tie together several different strands of thought and ends up with an intriguing holistic interpretation. 

One section that I found particularly worthwhile was Chapter 3, “Sketch of a Science of Transcendence,” in which Grosso makes the case for what has been called Mind at Large.

He begins by suggesting that psi exists mainly to help us navigate a nonphysical realm, and not to navigate the space-time universe:  

If the function of psi is essentially otherworldly, then we need not be surprised how transient and marginal an effect we find it to be in this world. In this world, we normally rely upon the sensory-motor system for engaging the environment. Despite some evidence that occasionally psi serves the needs of the organism -- sometimes without conscious awareness -- its day-to-day survival value in the terrestrial struggle for existence seems to be slight by comparison with our bodily senses....

Gardner Murphy, the great American psychologist, wondered why, on Darwinian principles, living organisms did not develop increasing psi ability, which would obviously be of great survival value. For instance, an animal could escape a predator. If psi ability were genetically coded, moreover, we would expect natural selection to work toward a growing incidence of psi function, at least among some favored species. But there is no evidence of psi becoming a biologically stronger function....

Murphy suggests that there are two modes in which an organism is capable of functioning: one, the sensory mode, in space and time; another, the psi mode, independently of time of space and time. In the deeper psi mode, the paranormal is the normal, but this could only be a mode in which the sensory mode were suspended or, as in death, superseded. The psi that appears fitfully and elusively in the terrestrial environment would be the essential mediator of the transcendent environment.

In other words, psi comes into its own in the postmortem phase of existence. It is therefore a pre-adaptive function with limited utility during the stage of biological life. A little later, Grosso expands on the idea of pre-adaptation, defined as: 

... the emergence of structures before they are used.... Consider, for instance, the mesosaurs which apparently never left the water, showing that the development of the amniote egg was not an adaptation for living on land but emerged before there was any need for it.... [Other examples are cited.] Indeed, as one of the great experts on the biology of amphibians, G. Kingsley Noble, says: "A detailed analysis of the many 'marvelous adaptations' in the Amphibia will reveal ... that in most cases the modification arose before the function."

If such pre-adaptations are genuine, we could hardly account for them by natural selection. They look rather like expressions of a plan, as if they were produced for the sake of future use. Now our problem has been to account for psi ability in terms of evolution. What I wish to propose is that we think of psi ability as a pre-adaptive "structure" or "organ." Of course, these latter terms cannot be taken literally, since there is no evidence that psi functioning is anatomically based; thus only by analogy may we speak of psychic structures or organs. 

As a side note, I would point out that many biologists argue that these modifications do serve a function when they are introduced, even if it is not the function they later acquire. For instance, the feathers of the archaeopteryx, not used for flying, may have been used to sweep up insects as food. The idea of pre-adaptation is controversial and may be invalid; the jury is still out. 

In any case, pre-adaptation is not the only challenge to the natural selection theory as a comprehensive explanation of biological development. Grosso writes: 

The English biologist, John Randall, has made several bold and comprehensive hypotheses concerning the parapsychology of life. Randall's overall strategy is as follows: first, he reviews problems in biological theory which Darwinian orthodoxy cannot handle. Second, experimental evidence is cited for the influence of psi on living systems. Third, a transcendent side factor -- Randall calls it Mind at Large -- is advanced as a hypothesis to account for aspects of life neglected by the orthodox view.

The possible role of psi in evolution is indicated when we consider that mutations may arise from single microphysical events. In the words of von Bertalanffy: "As can be shown by mathematical analysis of the experiments, one single hit into the sensitive zone of the gene suffices to cause a mutation. Therefore, the induction of mutations is subject to the statistical law of microphysics." This increases the theoretical plausibility of psi-induced mutation; psi might act on the "sensitive zones" in a gene.

Grosso, following Randall, summarizes the intractable problems in biology as the origin of life (abiogenesis) and the origin of species (macroevolution). Abiogenesis is simply not understood; so far, all attempts at formulating a theory have failed. (See Robert Shapiro’s book Origins.) Macroevolution arguably is not explained by neo-Darwinism, which accounts for relatively minor variations (microevolution) but not for wholesale changes requiring a large number of favorable mutations that occur almost simultaneously. 

Grosso goes on:

Given the gaps in mechanistic biology and the experimental evidence that psi influences living systems, Randall states: "There is at least a possibility that parapsychology has discovered the missing factor needed to construct a general theory of life." Randall outlines several postulates for a general theory of life. The most fundamental and radical is that of a psi-factor he calls Mind at Large. Mind at Large is the transpersonal aspect of mind; it is distinct from but able to interact with matter. Although our individual minds are constantly interacting with their own bodies, Mind at Large does not normally interact with matter. Normally, matter behaves in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Though living organisms are self-regulating on a routine basis, Mind at Large intervenes a critical junctures: for instance, the origin of life, the development of new and higher species, instances of "paranormal" healing and in other circumstances where we observe psi at work. For Randall, this hypothesis is a kind of neo-vitalism empirically backed by the data of parapsychology ...

Randall ... makes it clear that Mind that Large is not identical with the traditional Western idea of God, which implies perfection. Randall's transcendent mind is more like an experimental artist-God who makes mistakes and scratches them out, discovering what it creates as it goes along. At least we can say that Mind that Large is mind; and minds are the kinds of process said to be conscious and to have purpose and intelligence. While it would no doubt be a mistake to anthropomorphize this Mind Factor and suppose that its mode of consciousness, purpose and intelligence were merely an enlarged replica of our own, we may take some comfort in the thought that being mental, it may be possible to engage Mind at Large in some type of meaningful dialogue.

Coming back to psi’s biological utility (or lack thereof), Grosso asks, 

... if psi is a reality, why is it not exploited in the struggle for existence? If Randall is right, the answer is that organisms, though originally expressive of psi-mediated information, normally work like self-regulating machines. Psi may indeed come into play in the struggle for existence under special circumstances. But its overall function, if I understand Randall, is to direct and oversee the upward thrust of the evolutionary process and to maintain the total balance and ecology of life....

The function of psi may be to mediate the origin, evolution and regulation of life, though the sheer maintenance of life, the conservative mechanisms, would be governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. Since the mass of observable life processes is conservative, mechanists can suppose they hold the key to all of life, as long as they ignore the discontinuities, the puzzles of creativity and the paranormal.

From here, Grosso transitions to the issue of life after death. 

Puzzling survival data complement puzzling data about the origin and evolution of life. Mechanism fails to account for certain features of the terminal phase of biological existence, just as it fails to account for certain features of the originating phases of biological existence. Psi-oriented theories of life concur in referring to an overall plan, template, original impetus and directedness of life. The survival hypothesis calls attention to the farthermost reach of an overall plan and directedness: the struggle of life to become radically independent of the physical environment as such.

This struggle reaches its climax when the organism dies. In the survival hypothesis, death is simply a transition to a new nonphysical environment, and it is this environment in which psi will come into its own. In this sense, psi is a pre-adaptive function, one that comes pre-installed but achieves its full utility only after death. Grosso: 

My guess is that psi ability is oriented toward adaptation of a new ecological environment, an environment that Telhard de Chardin christened the Noosphere.... 

At the ... postmortem layer of the Noosphere, the purely noogenetic component of organisms, now extricated from the machinery of the physical world, would rely wholly on psi, the pre-adaptive "organ" or function now essential for a new mind-dependent ecology. This particular view of the role of psi in nature is compatible with the pre-adaptive nature of psi in our ordinary terrestrial existence, the fact that we don't need it to survive as biological organisms. It would also account for survival data now understood as reflecting interactions with the postmortem "layer" of the Noosphere. The present hypothesis might also explain why certain types of behavior are psi-conducive, that is, the inverse of behaviors oriented toward survival in the biosphere....

Living organisms are normally self-regulating and have efficient sensory-motor equipment for coping with the terrestrial environment. An unusual increase of psi capacity would disrupt routine performance. It is easy to imagine how a sudden influx of psi would disoriented organism. Too much information can be as confusing as too little.

The confusion would extend further than the individual. If there is a master plan or cosmic intelligence acting upon the biosphere, it probably wouldn't permit the untrammeled use of psi among living organisms. Untrammeled psi would wreak havoc on the ecological system. For instance, if large numbers of animals could use psi to escape their predators, the great food chain of natural being would be broken.... The suggestion, then, is that restraints upon psi ability are built into the ecological system, which explains the elusive, marginal, unharnessable and doggedly unlearnable character of psi. Yet psi does erupt into terrestrial experience. But under what conditions? If there is anything to our hypothesis, those conditions are apt to be transbiological. Conditions disruptive of normal biological functioning that reduced attention to life might tend to release restraints on side ability. The most dramatic instance of this discerption from biological functioning is being near death.

Hence the reports of near-death experiences, and the efforts of mystical ascetics to overcome the body’s natural demands for food, sex, and pleasure in order to bring on a kind of voluntary near-death state. Grosso oberves that:

... the compulsion to survive as a bodily organism apparently blocks our inlets to transcendent psi. Most researchers agree that excessive striving and egocentric effort tighten the filter and squeeze off access to our psi-potential. We have heard similar things from spiritual teachers: he who struggles to save his life will lose it; he who is willing to give it up for the sake of God or the Higher Cause may save it.

The author sums up: 

The creative psi factor, Mind at Large, the transcendent field we postulate would (1) account for the origin and evolution of life and (2) explain, in a peculiar sense, the data of spiritual experiences.... 

The hypothesis of transcendence will also (3) cover data indicative of postmortem survival. We would now assume that some survival data -- hauntings and apparitions, mediumistic phenomena, reincarnation memories -- express genuine interactions with inhabitants of Minded Large. Finally, psi would (4) make sense as a pre-adaptive function destined to unfold truly in the postmortem Noosphere.

There can be no single argument or crucial experiment to decide if this synoptic view is correct. I recommend it as a way of looking at several sets of problematic phenomena and as an incentive to further survival research.

Comments

[Art]

"Randall ... makes it clear that Mind that Large is not identical with the traditional Western idea of God, which implies perfection. Randall's transcendent mind is more like an experimental artist-God who makes mistakes and scratches them out, discovering what it creates as it goes along."
----------------

Just because we can't "grok" the reason why something happens, or don't understand it doesn't mean there isn't a very deep and profound reason for it happening. There may be reasons that we just haven't figured out yet - or aren't privvy to - or aren't allowed to know.

[Kathleen]

Very interesting discussion! It reminded me of something I'd read in a book about NDEs written by a heart surgeon. I can't recall the author's name, but he noted that it's usual for parents who've lost children to hear and see their deceased children for a few weeks. Perhaps this is one instance where psi is enabled to help the grieving parent overcome the tragedy and survive by receiving assurances of the deceased child's continued (paranormal) existence via psi.

[no one]

"...Hence the reports of near-death experiences, and the efforts of mystical ascetics to overcome the body’s natural demands for food, sex, and pleasure in order to bring on a kind of voluntary near-death state. "

Some time ago, on this blog, a heated debate erupted between Keith Augustine and some of the regulars here. One of Keith's assertions as evidence against the survival hypothesis of NDEs is the reported "fear of death" experience; this would be, for example, mountain climbers who fell and had an NDE even though they did not suffer physical damage that actually caused death. Another example used was of a soldier who had a dud (or dummy) grenade dropped at his feet. he had an NDE like experience even though there was never an explosion.

One argument, contra Keith, was that it is merely an assumption that fear caused the NDE. Rather, it may have been a shift of consciousness away from the physical brought on by the appearance of certain impending death. This would not be so different in concept - in fact related - to "..Conditions disruptive of normal biological functioning that reduced attention to life might tend to release restraints on side ability. The most dramatic instance of this discerption from biological functioning is being near death...."

Just a thought any how.

I have a problem with this whole concept of Darwinian evolution regardless if brought on by mindless natural selection or psi. I don't think it has ever been proven that speciation actually does occur. To illustrate; you have the classic fruitfly experiment. You put them into an environment that has a variable that causes those of certain characteristics to die off over a few generations and for those who have characteristics that fit better with the environmental pressure to survive and reproduce more flies with that characteristic. You haven't caused a new species to emerge. You still have the same old fruitfly, but with a certain genetic predisposition more pronounced. And that is the key point. The flies with a reproductive legacy in the experiment had the gene that leads to survival already in them. A new gene was not created.

Even the Galapogos finch and tortoise must have come from finches and tortoises that had the Galapogos gene dormant within their biology. True, they have expressed genes dorminant in their ancestors to the point where by some lemarkian arrangement they can be deemed a new species, but I think that is more a matter of semantics than an explanation of anything.

The real question is how do we get totally different genes in totally different species. There is only a percent or two of genetic material that differentiates humans from monkeys or even frogs. I know of no scientific theory that adequately explains where that small but powerful difference comes from. Evolution does not get us there.

[Andrea]

Well, it blew *my* mind! I've added Grosso's book to my wishlist.

[Ben]

Randall's transcendent mind is more like an experimental artist-God who makes mistakes and scratches them out, discovering what it creates as it goes along.

Yes, and I think this fits in with the way Jung’s trickster pops up all over the place, as mentioned by Matt Rouge in the Problem with Pain thread.

Perhaps Truth may not be the ultimate virtue Plato believed. Maybe Truth, based on reason, is simply what has already been created by the Mind at Large; that is, what has been found useful to date. Fantasy, lies and art, based on irrational emotions and intuitions, creatively explore other possibilities which the evolving Mind hopes will prove useful to its further evolution.

[Art]

Maybe those things we call mistakes are actually important lessons for the soul - teaching the soul about time and space, duality and separation, and what it means and how it feels to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.

Just because we don't understand why something occurs the way it does doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason for it happening. Perhaps the Creator of the Universe is smarter than we give Him or Her for being?

[Michael Prescott]

"Maybe those things we call mistakes are actually important lessons for the soul"

I think Grosso is talking more about evolutionary dead ends - "mistakes" (or failed experiments) in the overall progress of life on earth.

[Art]

"I think Grosso is talking more about evolutionary dead ends - "mistakes" (or failed experiments) in the overall progress of life on earth." - Michael Prescott
-------------

Grosso couldn't come up with a reason why they were here so he assumes they had no purpose?

What if their purpose was exactly the same reason why we are all here? To experience time and space, duality and separation, and make memories of what it was like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time Universe?

What if their purpose was simply to encode memories of the physical universe? To make memories of being inside their bodies?

I reiterate, just because we don't understand why something happens doesn't mean it didn't have a reason for happening.

We don't live for just ourselves. All the information we are learning while here is being imprinted or encoded on the "Akashic records" and will be accessible to the soul on the other side. Due to the holographic nature of our universe - on the other side - the holographic film - and those feelings of oneness and connectedness we will all know what it was like to be bird, a dog, a fish, a baby, a man, or a woman, etc.

excerpt from Randy Gehling's (age 10) NDE:
"That was really cool! I kind of felt as though my body exploded - in a nice way - and became a million different atoms - and each single atom could think its own thoughts and have its own feelings. All at once I seemed to feel like I was a boy, a girl, a dog, a cat, a fish. Then I felt like I was an old man, an old woman - and then a little tiny baby." http://near-death.com/experiences/animals04.html

[Roger Knights]

"Mind at large" was a phrase A. Huxley often used.

[Art]

The internet is a metaphor for the Akashic records. It's like a very primitive version of it. Wait another million years or so and maybe we will all be connected to each other and have access to each other's knowledge with just the barest fleeting thought. Everyone will have PhD's in everything. I will know what you know.

[Matt Rouge]

Have you heard about those experiments in which people are shown slides of pictures, most pleasant but a few unpleasant, and they measure their vitals and how they react to the various pics? They have shown that people are able to anticipate the "bad pictures" before they actually see them. Their vitals react.

Any links to info about these experiments would be welcome, but they're pretty well-known.

In any case, that's how I've long thought of psi working in the natural world: it gives animals a microsecond glimpse into the future so that they can, basically, avoid accidents.

Isn't it amazing, when you think about it, how little we fall on our faces or crash our cars? I think psi of this type is the reason. The thing is, it is so thoroughly built into our mental processing that we don't notice it. I also think accident-prone people could be seen as people with a deficit of this sense.

When I introspect into my own experience of being in the physical world, this seems true. There seems to be this tiny little pool of time that's in the mental "buffer" with which to anticipate the immediate outcome of my actions. Often I will get a flash, for example, of a glass breaking, etc., if I continue my current motions, and I immediately adjust. If you try to start looking for it, you will begin to see it.

That's why I was a bit mystified by the explanation of psi in Michael's very interesting post. I think, for the reasons above, the writer gets things almost exactly opposite the reality.

As for the question of why animals have not evolved even more advanced psi and started a "psi war" in nature, I have two points to make. One, there probably is such a psi war taking place on the level of the sense that I described above. But both predators and prey have physical limitations that allow them to take advantage of this sense only so much.

Two, as to why animals don't develop precognition with a longer range... For example, why would a wolf not evolve the ability to anticipate the actions of its prey minutes, hours, or even days away?

My guess is that using precognition becomes exponentially more difficult the larger the time scale is, since the feedback loop gets so big, as it were. For example, if an animal is looking only microseconds into the future to adjust its motions so that it doesn't run into a rock, it can adjust its motions, see another microsecond into the future, adjust its motions, see another microsecond--and so on.

If a wolf is looking, say, a minute into the future, that already covers an immense amount of possibilities. I can't even imagine would that would look like, because the slightest motion the wolf made would change the picture completely. It would be like Paul Atreides in Dune where he sees the future as a blur of possibilities.

The farther out we look, the harder it is to make what I call "resonant predictions." That is the act of predicting cannot change what is predicted.

In any case, I do think psi has evolved greatly in people and continues to evolve at a rapid pace. Far from thinking that the floodgates of psi are only rarely opened by Mind at Large, I have lots of psychic friends and consider myself psychic too, and we use our abilities as if they are absolutely the most ordinary thing.

So the writer's words, although greatly interesting, did not resonate with me in this particular area (I'm sure Mind at Large has many other interesting aspects).

[Matt Rouge]

Oh, and I meant to say that the wolf and other animals have not (it would seem) evolved the ability to see a minute or more into the future because they simply just don't have the brainpower. We might as well ask why they have not evolved language, a very useful ability that only one species on the planet has evolved thus far. I think the ability to see into the future a minute or more all the time and be able to use that information effectively would be an ability more sophisticated than language and other unique human abilities.

[Sandy]

Don't dolphins have language too?

http://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1103&Itemid=285

[Bruce Siegel]

"the wolf and other animals have not (it would seem) evolved the ability to see a minute or more into the future because they simply just don't have the brainpower."

I wonder if the ability to see into the future has anything at all to do with brainpower. Based on what we know about our own species, it seems to me you could make the opposite argument—that when the brain is incapacitated and no longer able do its job of restricting input to the "normal" channels, organisms are BETTER able to receive information psychically.

This is certainly borne out by the ultimate brain failure: the NDE. NDErs, of course, make a wide variety of claims about being able to see remotely and also into the future. And while I'm not at all impressed by the accuracy of their visions on a global scale, they do seem to be able to see into their personal futures.

Even after their NDE, experiencers often seem to retain greater powers of precognition and other types of psi.

As to why animals don't develop a level of precognition that might save them from predators, it's an interesting question. Maybe it's because the body/brain serves to filter out the sort of information that would dampen the enjoyment of a specific kind of Earth adventure, one that features heavy doses of danger and bodily death.

[Rick49]

Does the (almost extinct)Siberian Tiger "know" when it is being tracked for the kill? Conversely, does the man who hunts this "miraculously invisible" tiger "know" that he too is being watched by the tiger who will also kill?

"There are more things in heaven and earth,Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Hamlet Act One Scene 5

Sometimes I have a difficult time with normal and paranormal boundaries.

[Ben]

“There seems to be this tiny little pool of time that's in the mental "buffer" with which to anticipate the immediate outcome of my actions. Often I will get a flash, for example, of a glass breaking, etc., if I continue my current motions, and I immediately adjust. If you try to start looking for it, you will begin to see it.” -Matt

I usually think like this too, Matt. The other day, though, I had cause to doubt. As I was walking home, I was hit from behind by a passing truck’s wing mirror, which extended out over the pavement.

My immediate thought was that I’d been thumped from behind. I turned round to see nothing, then nearly blacked out and went down, but the fog cleared quickly and I stayed upright and saw the truck zooming off ahead of me. I then found myself feeling grateful that I’d been hit on the fleshy part of the arm rather than the elbow or shoulder. Nevertheless, no precognition at all. Note to self: Must do better! (But I won’t get much practice, because I now walk home on the inside of the pavement…)

[nbtruthman]

I think Grosso's (and Randall's) ideas are brilliant insights into the possible ultimate nature of psi and evolution.

There is a huge body of evidence for evolution and for Darwinism (random genetic variation + selection) as the main mechanism of evolution. But materialist theories of mind are inevitably entailed by Darwinism - presumably a Darwinist cannot believe that mind =/= brain. A process of random genetic variation culled by selection is assumed to have solely and entirely built up the entire living world including human beings. Inherent in this is the assumption that human consciousness is an epiphenomenon or an emergent property of the physical brain, since variation and selection can affect only genes which in turn code for proteins and physical biological developmental patterns.

To try to deal with this I have considered some sort of dualistic Darwinism that relates to Randall's ideas. This would presume that what brains have evolved to do (at least in part) is access independently existing consciousness, rather than generate it. Human bodies and brains would have evolved, via differential reproductive success, for increasing access to, and increasing fluency of control by, a fundamentally nonmaterial consciousness.

It can be conjectured that Mind has influenced evolution in the desired direction by perhaps altering individual genes at just the right times in evolution even though random mutation plus natural selection is the primary process. The desired direction would be an intentionality to manifest in physical bodies. To go along with this, it has been shown in parapsychology research that (human) minds can directly affect other life forms in particular individual cells and cell cultures. This is research on psychokinetic effects on plant growth, bacterial growth, fungus cultures, red blood cells, wound healing, and other related phenomena. Also, apparent discarnate human minds seem to be able to physically influence the developing fetus to produce birthmarks (Stevenson's research).

It is interesting that research in parapsychology is showing results in demonstrating psi in animals. The latest issue of the Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration contains a paper on a very successful presentiment study with animals. The title is Anticipitory Alarm Behavior in Bengalese Finches. The investigators demonstrated that the finches reacted with alarm behavior to a snake video clip displayed to them, at least 9 seconds before actual presentation. This indicates that human unconscious precognition could be an old evolutionary mechanism which obviously confers a survival advantage. Presumably the snakes would have a survival advantage in anticipating the finch behavior, and ad infinitum. The development of these abilities obviously has severe limits, due perhaps to their being "pre-adaptations" not very compatible with the natural world as theorized by Grosso and Randall, for instance.

[Bruce Siegel]

"[Psi] is therefore a pre-adaptive function with limited utility during the stage of biological life."

Perhaps, but psi has played quite a big role in my own life. And that's because way back in the '90's, when I was still sitting on the fence as to the reality of the spiritual world, my own precognitive dreams gave me the final, personal, evidence I needed. And I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that that shift in worldview saved my life.

Earlier in the week, I finished reading an excellent book by Andy Paquette called Dreamer. I heard him interviewed on Skeptiko and was intrigued. Dreamer is the result of 20 years of meticulous documentation of his own dream life, and for anyone who tends to trust his honesty (as I do), the book leaves no doubt whatsoever as to the reality of precognition and other psychic abilities. (You can read my review on Amazon.)

Anyway, reading his book got me looking through my own dream journals of almost 20 years ago, and I'm pleased to see that I'm as impressed by my data now, as I was back then. So I decided to do some more dream journaling this week to see if I've still GOT it. :o)

Thursday, I woke up from a dream and then recorded it. I saw myself standing in the rear of my neighbor's apartment, as one person playfully pointed a hose—with water squirting out of it—at another. I watched, smiling.

Thursday night I was enjoying a movie, and in a key scene, a woman stood in the rear of a house, playfully squirting a girl with a hose, as the girl's mother watched, smiling. I thought of the dream immediately.

This may not seem like compelling evidence, but I give it extra weight because the movie was, by far, the best part of my day. The scene was touching, as the woman was finally opening her heart to this little girl, after being close-hearted and angry.

I teared up when I watched it. And I had been thinking, for the last few difficult weeks, that I NEEDED a good cry.

My old dream journal presents many dreams, each with numerous, quirky, correlations to later waking events. In that respect, as pure evidence, many of them put this one to shame. But this is a nice one because it involved a sneak preview of a gift the universe would give me later in the day.

[no one]

I find myself agreeing with Matt Rouge again re; seeing the glass breaking.

I think that those humans and animals with more refined psi abilities are the ones that tend to survive dangerous situations. For example, A friend of mine had done two intense combat tours in Vietnam. He lived in my neighborhood and sometimes I would see him from a couple blocks away and, just for kicks and practice, stalk him a little. I noticed that as soon as I fixed my eyes on him (from maybe a hundred yards away), he would abrubtly turn and look in my direction even though he could not have known I was there. His body language would indicate that he remained hyper vigalent for a minute or so afterwards. One day over a couple of beers I told him about what I'd been up to and his reaction to it. He just shrugged. He didn't know what I'd been doing, but said that he had always, his whole life, felt hunches and had reacted instinctively and without even being sure why or to what he was reacting. He felt that this predisposition had gotten him through VN. Even the US Marine Corps teaches to not sneak up on a sentry directly from behind because humans can sense this approach. How? They don't tell you; only that it's real and don't do it. Come in from an angle instead. In my own experience the one time I was shot at I lived because I moved my head a split second before - probably as - the shooter squeezed the trigger. Don't know why. Being focussed on a map, I didn't see that two hundred yards ahead of me there were armed men aiming at me as I prepared to emerge from the brush. I just unconsciously moved my head and a bullet snapped past my ear right where my head would have been. A couple of months ago for some inexplicable reason I decided to take the back roads to work instead of the freeway I take every day, year after year. That same day, at the same time I would have been on the freeway, there was an eight car accident with fatalities and the freeway was closed down for hours. I would have at least been late for work! It is easy to write these events off as mere coincidents, but for the times when I have - as Matt describes - actually been consciously aware of a premonition of some negative outcome about to occur if the course of my action is not altered immediately.

Some humans seem to not have these sensitivities or, if they do, they block them out or ignore them. I see these these people as the ones that have lives full of "bad luck", accidents and other misfortunes. That said, when it's your time, it's your time and it is well know that men in combat will often know that a certain day is their day to die. This has been observed over and over again. An otherwise psychologically sturdy experienced veteran becomes sullen and withdrawn. Sometimes he may even comment that he isn't going to make through the day and, within a few hours, he has been killed.

Having worked closely with animals - specifically thoroughbred race horses - for most of my life, my sense is that they also have the same faculties as the humans described above. People are always dismissing animals' intelligence and abilities. It's always from a human centric perspective; particularly a city slicker university human perspective. Horses are excellent communicators. They have very well developed language, both vocal and body. Horses are always telling me what's going on, how they are feeling, etc. You just have to spend the time to learn their language; that's all.

[Bruce Siegel]

No one, do you know Rupert Sheldrake's work? He's written a book called The Sense of Being Stared At, and another called Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home (it has a lot about the psychic abilities of horses and other animals as well.) GREAT research.

[no one]

Bruce, I have read about RS' workas it is mentioned here and there or referenced by supporters and critics/skeptics alike, but never read the work itself. I didn't know he included horses! I will definitely have to look into it. It will be fun to compare his observations to mine and I just might learn something new. I'm always ready to gain new insights into my equine campanions. Thanks!

[Bruce Siegel]

"I didn't know he included horses! "

I just looked at the index of both those books I mentioned, and I see multiple references to horses in each. Sheldrake spent time interviewing horse trainers, handlers, as well as experts and owners of animals of all kinds. If you haven't read any of his stuff, you're in for a treat. RS is definitely one of my heroes.

[Andrew Paquette]

Bruce,

Thanks for the review on Amazon, it is appreciated. I enjoyed your garden hose dream and indeed, it is very much like many of my own records. It amazes me to know that so many people probably have this faculty yet have such a hard time accepting it. My impression is that our physical needs surround us too closely, making it difficult to focus on these subtler things. If only time hadn't been invented!

best regards,

AP

[Bruce Siegel]

"Thanks for the review on Amazon"

My pleasure! Thanks for the great book.

[Kathleen]

Very intriguing post, no one. It reminds me of reports of animals fleeing for higher ground before the tsunami hit in 2004. Could they "feel it" physically before it occurred, or was it something else? And just how does a horse know who he can take push around, and who he can't? My horse always knew right away.

[Matt Rouge]

Thanks, no one.

BTW, I did not mean to imply that animals were stupid. Just that, in the course of evolution, to expect a psi war to escalate to the point where animals (including humans) could _easily_ and _consciously_ see more than a few microseconds or seconds into the future might be expecting too much.

Animals, like humans, may get glimpses further into the future, but, owing to their limitations (they can't really ponder the glimpses, can they?), they can't take as good advantage of them.

[Bruce Siegel]

"Could they "feel it" physically before it occurred, or was it something else?"

I doubt it's a physical sensing, Kathleen. My impression is that seismic instruments are pretty sensitive, and if there were tell-tale vibrations to detect, I think scientists would have learned to do so. So much is at stake, that I'm certain lots of time and energy goes into trying to detect the slightest physical indications of earthquakes in the making.

One thing I get from Sheldrake is that earthquake prediction is just one of the many uncanny abilities animals have that conventional science tries to explain in material terms, but which may have psychic roots: the homing abilities of birds and other animals, the way huge flocks of birds in flight all turn virtually simultaneously (and the same for schools of fish in water), the abilities of certain dogs to warn their masters of impending epileptic seizures, cats that respond to ringing phones only when specific people are calling, parrots that read people's minds—stuff like that.

[no one]

Matt, sometimes I think the "pondering" that humans do actually decreases the evolutionary advantage of psi. The VN vet I put out as an example didn't ponder; he simply reacted and that is what I think animals do most of the time.

Pondering allows us to become confused as to meaning, the entrance of doubt, coloration from our own belief structures, ect

[Kathleen]

I also want to mention that Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home is an excellent read. I experienced this not with a dog, but with a cat. Family members told me for years she'd go sit in front of the door ten minutes before I arrived, no matter the differing times, whether I arrived in my own car at 7 p.m. or in a taxi at 5 a.m., she knew.

[Michael Prescott]

"sometimes I think the 'pondering' that humans do actually decreases the evolutionary advantage of psi."

Psi seems to be associated with the right cerebral hemisphere. In literate societies, the left hemisphere is typically dominant. This probably reduces access to psi abilities. In preliterate societies psi seems to be more active, at least according to anthropologists who have studied the subject. One of Sheldrake's books - either "Dogs That Know ..." or "The Sense of Being Stared At," I can't recall which - contains a chapter on this anthropological research.

[Bruce Siegel]

"I also want to mention that Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home is an excellent read"

What's also kind of fun is the fight that the book engendered between Sheldrake and Richard Wiseman, a well-known skeptic. Wiseman made a fool of himself, in the eyes of many, by his clumsy attempts to refute the "psychic dog" experiment featured in the book.

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/wiseman.html

That's cool about your cat, Kathleen! You should send that info to Sheldrake himself—he and his assistants are always eager to get anecdotes like that.

[Matt Rouge]

no one, Micheal,

I inadequately described what I meant about "brain power." Let me try again.

I think all animals use psi on the "gut" level, and most of the time people do, too. The kind of psi I talked about above (seeing a microsecond into the future) is so fully integrated with the senses that it's very hard even to notice it.

Humans, however, think based on symbol manipulation in the brain. We ponder and cogitate. I will not say that no other species on the planet can do this at all, but surely their abilities are limited.

Humans can therefore receive fairly detailed psi impressions and think about their meaning. For instance, if I get a picture, suddenly, of someone I haven't met that somehow seems important, I can think about that bit of data. In my own psi experience, often such impressions are "marked": it can feel like someone a friend might know, someone I am going to meet in the future, etc. It can feel like a good thing or a bad thing, etc. And I can try to see if the data is useful for me or just a fleeting impression that I can't utilize.

It may be that dogs and dolphins and other animals get similar impressions, but without the ability to think about them and talk about them, I suspect that they would be of limited use.

This gets back to the point about why a "psi war" has not happened due to evolution. Indeed, I think such a psi war has happened in terms of gut-level psi, but it has not, it seems, happened on the level of what we might term "conscious psi." Because animals have not had the cognitive abilities to make use of those impressions.

The point about left/right brain is quite interesting, and I suspect it's correct. It may be the case that we have suppressed our psi abilities for the past 500 years or so (as people became more and more literate with the advent of widespread printed books, and especially in the 18th century onward) and we are now beginning to integrate literacy with psi.

In any case, my strong impression is that people are becoming more and more psychic at a rapid pace.