THE PROOF-PROCESS-APPLICATIONS ASPECTS

OF HUMAN SUPERPOWER RESEARCH

P A R T   O N E

THE IMPORTANCE OF PROCESS DISCOVERY

Ingo Swann [25Jan01]

      A number of goals have existed within the fields of psychical and parapsychology research, and they are usually identified and researched as different topics - such as telepathy, clairvoyance, PK and so forth.       

      This division, however, tends to occlude the nature, substance, and goals of all RESEARCH per se. 

      If familiarity with what research is in general becomes vague or absent, then it is difficult to consider how research of the different topics stands up against the overall purpose and functions of research per se.

      Most dictionaries define RESEARCH as:  “Studious inquiry or examination, especially consisting of investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of fact, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories of laws.”

      Intimately connected with this definition are three interconnected states of all research.

      The first, or initial, state has to do with identifying proof, i.e., proof-discovery.

      The subsequent state to proof-discovery is process-discovery, which refers to establishing what goes on within what has been proven as existing in fact.

      The third state, applications-discovery, downloads from process-discovery, in that it is only after discovering the processes within something that practical applications can be innovated.

      Thus, first there is proof, then discovery of process, after which applications become possible.

      For the sake of clarity and consistency, it is worthwhile reiterating the principal definition for PROOF that is given as:  “The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.”

      The term PROCESS has two working definitions:  (1) something going on, and (2) a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result.

      APPLICATION is defined as:  (1) the act of putting to use, and (2) a capacity for practical use.

      The connections between proof-process-applications are understood very well with regard to the physical sciences as developed in the modern era – so much so that if applications of something cannot be perceived, then it might not be submitted to research at all.

      In this sense, researchers must not only plan on establishing proof, but must also be suggestive in advance of applications that could ultimately download from the proof.

      The most obvious reason for suggesting applications is that it is the promise of them that attracts investment of support and requisite funding.

      For completeness here, it is worth brushing up on the definitions of SCIENCE.  There are a number of these, but they are mostly derived in connection with the following:

      SCIENCE:  “The acquisition of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested by scientific methods.”  Although this definition is glamorous and alluring, it is just a tad ambiguous – because it, of course, refers to methods that are held as scientific by whomever at any given time.

      In a realist kind of way, it needs to be accepted that scientific methods can, if only behind the scenes of science proper, be manipulated this way and that according to applications that are highly desired, or highly NOT desired.

      Just beneath the official definition above, there is another one.  This has to do with the proof-process-applications trinity, which, if fulfilled inclusive of the applications part, is most likely to be considered as the best science of all.

Indeed, in the small print of general research, the trinity is the most fundamental and meaningful definition of RESEARCH.

      It can now be pointed up that the scope of this essay focuses on discussing human superpower research with respect to the proof-process-applications trinity, rather than in the contexts of phenomena characterized as PSI. 

The trinity has never been given wide exposure in PSI research overall.  And so those interested in superpower development may not be familiar with how important it is, and what it can reveal.

      In proceding through the following discussions, it will become clear that PSI research is not only top-heavy with proof-oriented research, but is possessed of a vacuum regarding the ultimate scientific clincher – applications.

OVERALL PSI RESEARCH – GLOSS AND FACT

      The published documents and literature of the fields of psychical research and parapsychology can give the overall impression that their mutual work moves along in some ultimate kind of constructive way, with only a few research bumps here and there.

      This impression, however, constitutes little more than superficial gloss – a deceptively attractive appearance or front - behind which exist various configurations of psycho-political warfare, disruptive agendas, and luxuriant overgrowths of pointless rough-and-tumble infighting characteristic of soap opera drama.

      In fairness, it should be said that this kind of interior situation is not unique to psychical and parapsychology research.  It also exists in any professional field involving potentials for achievement and status-making – and (surely not the least of it) acquisition of potential funding.

      The importance of recognizing the existence of what is behind the superficial gloss is that meaningful issues can be downsized, marginalized, and cast into glooms of trenchant obfuscation.

      Such issues will therefore NOT achieve very much that could be thought of as clear delineation.  And so the existence of the issues will not be particularly well-established inside the status-making system - and certainly will disappear from view within the superficial gloss that is presented to the public.

      The foibles interior to the fields of psychical and parapsychological research are fascinating enough, simply because of their enduring and endearing human nature soap opera characteristics.

      But beneath the foibles inherent in the fields of PSI research is the three-part issue that is hardly ever distinguished as such.

      Central to the issue is that PSI phenomena are human phenomena, the exact nature of which is unknown, but which psychical and parapsychological research propose to examine and study.  However, like almost all human things, the phenomena are variable and transitory, and are thus far distant from physical phenomena that stand still enough to be examined in depth.

      Nevertheless, as the first aspect of the issue in terms of PSI research, there needs to be proof that the phenomena do exist, even if transitory.

      Beyond the mere existence of the phenomena is the second aspect having to do with discovering the processes via which the phenomena do manifest.

      The third aspect descends out of the second – i.e., IF the processes that permit the manifestation of the phenomena are identified and isolated, there then arises the possibility that the phenomena could be enhanced with regard to potential applications.

      Thus, the issue under discussion here has the three aspects of proof-oriented research, process-discovery research, and applications-discovery research.

      The three aspects above, having now been separated and identified, seem logical and straight-forward as:

PROOF
PROCESS
APPLICATIONS

      One would therefore think that all PSI research is basically conceptualized in ways that pertain to all three.  Well, think again!

      If the combined literature of PSI research is examined, it is possible to discover that the term “applications” is emphatically a no-no. 

And if the term is occasionally utilized, a rather large volume of vigorous diatribe will commence and continue until the concept of applications is safely resubmerged in darkness.

      If the mention of APPLICATIONS is, well, forbidden, then there is almost no incentive or justification for pursuing process-discovery research.

      In the end, this leaves only proof-oriented research, which for the past nine or ten decades has generally been considered the primary and principal goal of PSI research.

      Indeed, the idea of what proof IS carries within it the unquestioned assumptions not only of an impeccable logic, but a self-evident rectitude and an impeccable logic – especially in the modern scientific period, during which the idea that proof should precede all else, has become practically axiomatic. 

      The “proof” being referred to in this impeccable logic is, of course, SCIENTIFIC proof, and none other.

UNRECOGNIZED DIFFICULTIES SURROUND PROOF-ORIENTED RESEARCH OF PSI

      In the context of the heading just above, it must be established that nothing in this essay, or in this Website, is meant to devalue or deny the utterly valuable nature of PROOF.

      However, it is possible, sometimes even advisable, to examine the mechanisms via which proof is sought for and established.

      This refers to the criteria and frames of reference being utilized as guidelines for researching, testing for, and establishing proof and disproof.

In turn, this implies that different criteria and frames of reference COULD be utilized to achieve different kinds of proof/disproof about the same thing.

To reiterate, this implies that the use of certain criteria could establish proof of something, while the use of other critera could establish disproof of the same something.

For perhaps overemphasis, the above observations imply that proof (or truth) is always relative to the criteria being utilized to establish it, and is the end of THAT story.

Now, as already mentioned above, during the onset of middle modern times (at about 1845), the idea had coalesced that scientific proof constituted the only real proof, and this idea had firmly locked in and gained large societal ascendancy by early 1880s. 

The first attempts to organize and professionalize psychical research also developed in the early 1880s.

Since scientific proof was by that time the only acceptable proof-method around, the proof-oriented PSI researchers of the time (and thereafter) had to adapt to the ideas and criteria of scientific proof.

As it was, however, the sciences were exclusively and adamantly materialistic in essence, nature, and signature, and their research and discovery processes were fully committed to the idea of proving that matter, and the “laws” of matter, were the fundamental and only explanation for the universe.

The early materialistic scientists were not complete idiots, of course, and so they could easily conclude, as they did, that psychical phenomena were not consistent with matter, and indeed disobeyed its “laws.”

One of the outcomes of this was that a fundamental scientific definition of psychic and psychical phenomena was issued.  This definition is largely forgotten today, but it is still found in most of the better dictionaries.

PSYCHIC: “Lying outside of the sphere of physical science or knowledge.”

Furthermore, the early materialists were especially   enthusiastic and warriorlike, and the more dense of them viewed that whatever DID lie outside the sphere of physical science or knowledge should legitimately be conceptualized not only as impossible, but also as a threat to the assumed authenticity of materialism.

A bit further down the ladder of stupidity were certain scientific materialists who did not seem to recognize that something that was impossible could not constitute the feared threat.

The situational sum of the foregoing was easily recognizable as of about 1885, and certainly by the turn of the century, and down until today as well.

Nevertheless, proof-oriented PSI researchers early on proposed to achieve scientific proof, and to strategically insert that proof into the heart and mind of science proper.  This goal has consumed proof-oriented PSI researchers ever since.

The continuing up-shot of this strategy was, and still is, that it has NOT worked – even though PSI scientific researchers have accumulated much proof-like data that would quickly and automatically be accepted as such in other fields.

Science proper continues to resist acknowledging the proof-like data, the principal reason having to do not with the data, but with its implications.

A DEEPER STORY BEHIND THE SCIENCE/PSI CONFLICT

      The foregoing is a brief sketch of the very large conflict drama between science proper and PSI researchers.

However, it serves to illuminate what at first appears to be the general gyst of that conflict, and which can independently be recognized by others having an interest in doing so.

      At first take, the general gyst seems to make sense, and so it is broadly assumed that it does.  It is therefore difficult to think that it is nothing more than just another piece of gloss gotten up so as to direct attention away from a basic issue that has quite profound implications.

      This issue has to do with PSI scientific proof that has been minimally, but certainly sufficiently, achieved within the basic criteria and frames of reference which science proper utilizes to determine proof – and which proof would automatically be accepted as such in any other field of endeavor.

      The question, then, can be simply put:  Why has the sufficient proof not automatically been accepted as such in science proper?

      One part of an answer almost certainly has to do with a situation that has seldom been brought to light.

      SCIENCE was formulated as PHYSICAL science, the primary directive of which was to conduct discovery into matter and all things physical.

The reason for doing this has do with the secondary scientific directive, which was widely enunciated in the past, especially in the so-called Age of Progress that started up in the latter years of the nineteenth century.

The second directive has to do with the idea that fuller and more extensive knowledge of matter would progressively bring the powers, possibilities, and forces of matter and its energies more and more under fuller human control.

This, as it was openly said in the Age of Progress, was to the “the benefit of everyone.”  Not as openly said, however, was that “more fuller under human control” also referred to those who controlled the control, and who thus benefitted more.

It is via the primary directive of science that we can see that science does have a science side, at least as matter and the material go.

But it is via the secondary directive that we can identify that science has a sociological side, and that the sociological side, in all probability, controls the control of the science side.

We can also see that progressive advances in SCIENCE will absolutely depend on the steps of proof-discovery, process-discovery, and applications-discovery. 

With respect to CONTROL, however, it would be obvious that although it can interact with proof and process, it principally refers to control of applications, largely because applications can be marketed and made profitable.

Here, then, is the kernel within the nut of science, and the seed in the kernel is control-discovery – for what use is anything if it cannot benefit and enhance control for human usage?

The point of dragging through the foregoing has been to illuminate the now more obvious fact that science is not JUST science, but is a system of inquiry that very intimately interfaces with the quaternity of proof-process-application-control.

This can be further elaborated upon by considering the following.

If proof is all if you have, then proof is only what you have.  If, however, you have process-discovery, then you have the beginnings of potential applications.  And if the applications come about, then humans (or some of them at least) can obtain control of the applications.

The general gyst of this is that proof-process-applications lead to control – and this has been quite clearly understood ever science “went” materialistic – and long before that as well.

ACHIEVING CONTROL vs THE LOSS OF CONTROL

The direct inverse implication of achieving control is that if something that could lead to proof-process-applications, but thereafter might elude or complicate control, then controllers might think it best NEVER to work toward or admit to proof of it.

As it happens, if research of certain PSI phenomena, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and PK, were permitted to proceed through the proof, process, and enhanced applications stages, then serious complications regarding control would arise. 

And THIS is quite well understood not only within the materialistic sciences, but within human control modules everywhere.

In the light of this, then, the essence conflict between science and PSI is not actually a scientific one at base, but a psycho-political one having to do with control.

In that sense, something that is usually forgotten must be pointed up.  PSI phenomena are not abstract things in themselves, but are functions within human beings.

Many feel that telepathy, clairvoyance, and PK could constitute human blessings if enchanced beyond their rudimentary configurations.  But others feel that, if enhanced, they would be invasive with regard to the average status quos of many control modules.

It also needs to be pointed up that matter cannot really fight back when brought under control, and so successful control is implicit with regard to material applications.

In the first echelon of their existence, telepathy, clairvoyance, and PK are innate human powers, and thus belong to humans, many of which are obstinate and take delight in fighting back – even sometimes just because there is nothing else to do.

If such would find assistance only via enhanced “invasive” telepathy, for example, then it is quite possible that physical control modules might find themselves disconcerted and stressed – symptoms of loss of control.

This is the same as saying that if PSI, especially enhanced process formats of it, ever got out of the box, then various physical control modules might begin meltdown.

 Here, then, is a rather basic issue, and it is of little wonder that it is surrounded by smoke and mirror tactics, as well as by mystification engineered into existence by clever kinds of spin doctorism.

The usage of the term PSI is, of course, abstract, vague, ambiguous, and therefore neutral, so much so that no one really comprehends what it refers to.

If the term PSI is replaced by the term SUPERPOWERS then what is really at issue becomes at least somewhat more visible, and the essential reason behind the PSI-science conflict also becomes a little more clarified.  And it can also be seen why the term “applications” is seldom used in PSI research.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PROCESS-DISCOVERY

      Mere proof of something does not automatically lead to applications, because, after proof, it is then necessary to figure out what processes are involved with regard to what has been proven. 

      There is thus a large hiatus between proof and applications that can be filled-in only by discovering the nature of whatever processes are involved between proof and applications.

The filling-in will include not only identifying the processes, but also discovering what interferes with or prevents those processes from working, what enhances them, and how various associated processes do or do not mix together. 

OVERALL PSI RESEARCH IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROOF-PROCESS-APPLICATIONS TRINITY

      In the contexts of the heading above, here is a situation that is extensively complicated for a number of reasons.

      As far as this writer knows, one of the major reasons has never been clearly described.  It is associated with the desire of many PSI researchers to produce proof so that the field of PSI can be accepted into the fold of science proper.

      Since proper science, in ITS inception, was held to be the science of the physical and the material, its overall substantive goal was twofold: 

(1)                           To inquire into the physical quaternity of matter, energy, space, and somewhat into the nature of time, and

(2)                           To submit that quaternity to the proof-process-applications trinity so that what was discovered could be converted into applications.

The physical quaternity was held as being OBJECTIVE  – which is to say, existing independent of mind and being observable and verifiable by scientific methods.

The objective is therefore “outside” of the mind, while the objective can be verified by scientific methods that are equally objective, i.e., equally independent and outside of the mind. 

However, PSI phenomena, insofar as they are understood, are of the mind, and not independent of it.  Further, they are human phenomena, as contrasted to matter, energy, space, and time phenomena that are objectively external to the human mind.

This is more or less the same as saying that what is objective and outside the mind does not produce PSI phenomena.

And it is therefore to be wondered WHY it can be thought that objective scientific methods can be used as critera to observe, verify, and prove the existence of mind phenomena.

If the foregoing reasoning is a little dizzy-making, not to worry.  Proper scientists do understand it, and in their understanding, the PSYCHIC, whatever it is composed of, “lies outside the sphere of physical science or knowledge.”

At this point, it is necessary to reiterate the formal and official definition of PARAPSYCHOLOGY, which is provided in the handbook entitled PARAPSYCHOLOGY:  SOURCES OF INFORMATION (1973), compiled by Rhea A. White and Laura A. Dale under the auspices of the American Society for Psychical Research.

“Parapsychology (the modern and more restrictive term for psychical research) is the field which uses the scientific method to investigate phenomena for which there appear to be no normal (that is, sensory) explanations.”

The phenomena being referred to in this definition are listed as PK, telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition.  These are NOT products of those objective realities which the scientific method DOES measure and can be verified by objective experiment and testing.

It can therefore be wondered that if the PSI phenomena, as products of the mind, are submitted to the constraints and criteria of the physical-objective scientific method, what then can be observed, verified, and proven about the PSI phenomena. 

In order to answer this, at least in some major part, it is worthwhile pointing up the formal definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD:  “Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

This definition seems logical and, overall, inclusive enough, and would therefore seem to be applicable to everything.  However, if the word “impartial” were integrated into it, the definition would then be inclusive of everything.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD:  “Principles and procedures for the impartial and systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formation of a problem, the impartial collection of data through observation, and the impartial formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

However, SCIENCE and the SCIENCES are defined only in the context of objective physicality, and they are therefore partial to THOSE contexts only.  The major criterion utilized within the sciences has to do with physicality, and only physicality - and so the major scientific criterion is not impartial with regard to kinds of phenomena that do not have a basis in objective physicality.

And indeed, as we have seen, the only scientific definition of PSYCHIC is given as “lying outside the sphere of the physical science and knowledge,” and so the physical sciences do not actually have a definition for PSYCHIC, or for parapsychology, either.

Having been dragged so far through the foregoing, the reader by now might be wondering where these discussions are headed. 

At one level, the discussions are headed toward examining, in proof-oriented contexts, whether human superpower phenomena of the mind, and not of physicality, can be submitted to systemic criteria utilized to prove physical phenomena but cannot be utilized to prove mind-phenomena.

In order to pursue THIS a bit farther, it is necessary to briefly point up one aspect of the definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD:  i.e., that part given as:  “Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge.”

This at first simply suggests that researchers organize THEIR pursuit in systematic ways.  But more in fact, researchers have to end up organizing their pursuit in ways that are more or less identical to and reflective of the systems they are researching.  This needs a little clarifying.

SYSTEM is defined as: 

(1)                           A regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole;

(2)                           An assemblage of substances that is or tends to equilibrium;

(3)                           A group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces.

With regard to the proof-process-applications trinity, something can be proved to exist, but without also discovering why and how it works (i.e., discovering its process-systems), then one only has proof of existence, not proof of function, process, and systems.  And until function-process-systems are discovered, there is usually no hint of applications. 

Applications, therefore, become possible not because of proof of existence, but by knowledge of systems that can be organized into applications.

Furthermore, proof of existence alone doesn’t actually contribute very much to knowledge, even with respect to objective physicality.  For example, “laws” that govern the existence of anything cannot be identified simply because of proof of existence.  The identification of laws descends out of identifying the systems within and between things. 

Function, processes, and systems of any given thing are what they are, and so organized research has to end up building an intellectual “map” of those systems.  This is to say that researchers cannot systematically impose their own ideas upon systems that are what they are.

“Systematic pursuit of knowledge” turns out to be not a matter of proof alone, but also a matter of process-systems discovery, which is far more important.  It also must be mentioned that the MEANING of something cannot be identified merely by proof of its existence. 

For example, proof-existence of telepathy tells us almost nothing about the meaning of telepathy, of and in itself, and certainly nothing about the meaning of telepathy with regard to its process-functions that certainly DO exist.

In some sort of final analysis here, proof of existence alone does not automatically lead to applications, either in the light of the objective-physical, or in the light of the mind-mental.

Discovery of process-functions, however, can easily lead to applications – and discovery of applications is often the clincher with regard to proof of existence.

But there is yet ANOTHER factor that demarcates between physical and mind systems.

It is understood almost everywhere that the PSI-mind- superpowers transcend the known laws of physicality.  That is, they transcend the known laws of matter, energy, space, and time, the laws that constitute the fundamental basement-realities of the physical sciences.

If something is known to transcend the physical laws, it is to be wondered why researchers of that something would attempt to establish proof of its existence within the criteria of the physical sciences.

Indeed, such researchers would fare better by attempting to discover proof of process-function and of the ultimate clincher, applications.

PROCESS-FUNCTION DISCOVERY IN PSYCHICAL AND PARAPSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH

      As mentioned earlier, PSI research is top-heavy with proof-oriented research.

But it must be added here that through the twelve decades, since the formatting of organized PSI research, the goal of such efforts was to have PSI phenomena accepted as proven within the criteria of the physical sciences in general.

For clarity, this can be restated as:  The goal of such efforts was to have PSI phenomena accepted as proven within the criteria of the physical sciences – NOT WITHIN THE CRITERIA of the PSI phenomena themselves.

One of the results of this is that the criteria that would be applicable to PSI in its own terms largely remain undiscovered.

This means that all we know about those phenomena are the names and terms assigned to them:  telepathy, clairvoyance, PK, precognition, and the rather late entry called remote-viewing.

The top-heavy, proof-oriented aspect of PSI has received a good deal of limelight attention.

But the attention has come about because of rather silly sensationalizing of the conflict between the physical sciences and PSI research – and not because anything was proven to general acceptance within the larger panorama of all things scientific.

And it is because of this that the existence in PSI research of process-function-discvery has been forced to the sidelines and minimalized.

In order to achieve a better picture of this, it is possible to divide the whole of PSI research since 1882 until the present into four general categories:

(1)         Proof-oriented research.

(2)         Process-discovery research.

(3)         Applications-discovery research.

(4)         Control discovery research.

If the entire history of PSI research is reviewed in some depth and detail since 1882, we are obliged to take note of the contextual separation of psychical research and parapsychology that principally came about circa 1935 to the present.

If we do this, then we can assign a very general and approximate percentile to each of the 1-4 research activities designated above.

(1)         Proof-oriented research:

1882 – 20 percent.

1935 – 80 percent.

(2)         Process-discovery research:

1882 – 90 percent.

1935 – 10 percent.

(3)         Applications-discovery research:

1882 – perhaps 10 percent.

1935 – perhaps 1 percent.

(4)         Control-discovery research.

1882 – 15 percent give or take.

1935 – virtually none until circa 1976.

      From the admittedly general percentile estimates given above, it is possible to see that many psychical researchers did interest themselves in process-discovery research.

It is indeed on record that they accepted, without feeling obliged to prove it, the existence of, say, clairvoyance and telepathy, and then set about attempting to discover whatever they might about the inner processes, functions, and systems.

However, their work and reports of it, were generally retired into historical dustbins, one important reason being the advent in 1914 of World War I - which lasted five years until late 1918 and was of such a cultural magnitude as to stultify the continuance of more organized psychical research through the 1920s.

The advent of parapsychology occurred circa 1935 in the United States.  Whereas the early process-discovery researchers in England, Europe, Russia, and the United States attempted to discover the nature of PSI within its own criteria, American parapsychology exclusively shifted over to proof-oriented research in terms of acceptance within science itself.

Somewhere within the whole of this history, the term APPLICATIONS became anathema – and certainly so within the later parapsychology format of PSI research.

*

      One of the purposes central to this essay has been to bring to light that the superpowers of the human biomind can be additionally conceptualized in ways other than the mere nomenclature terms of telepathy, clairvoyance, PK, and etc.

      Indeed, they can be conceptualized as powers of mind involving process-oriented and applications-oriented research – any successful outcome of which would automatically be accepted as proof positive.

TO BE CONTINUED AS PART 2

PROCESS-ORIENTED RESEARCH FOR POWERS OF MIND

Ingo Database | Real Story | Contributed Papers | Contributed RV Papers |
Superpowers/ET Intelligence Probabilities | RV Honor Roll | Superpowers Art

Miscellaneous | Reviews | Species Guild | Welcome | Home


Copyright © 2013, Ingo Swann. All rights reserved.