• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

After 150 Years of Psychical Research

What Do We Know About Psi?

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

The human fascination with phenomena beyond the ordinary has deep roots, from oracles and seers in antiquity to the spiritualist craze of the 19th century. Psychical research—an organized, quasi-scientific attempt to investigate paranormal phenomena—emerged in the late 19th century, spearheaded by organizations like the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in London (1882) and the American Society for Psychical Research (1885). Over nearly 150 years, psychical researchers have pursued evidence for telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, and survival after death. Yet, despite the longevity of these efforts, the question remains: after all this time, do we know anything definitive about psi?

The Origins of Psi Research

The emergence of psychical research was intimately linked with a scientific zeitgeist. Figures such as William James, a psychologist open to the possibility of mind beyond matter, and Frederic W. H. Myers, a founder of the SPR, sought to bring rigor to claims of “supernormal” phenomena. Early research focused on mediums, séances, and spontaneous reports of telepathy or apparitions. Investigators were often meticulous in documentation, noting detailed accounts, conditions, and controls. Yet the inherent elusiveness of psi—its inconsistency, variability, and apparent sensitivity to human expectation—posed immediate challenges to replicable results.

Evidence and Patterns

Across decades, patterns began to emerge. Laboratory experiments in the mid-20th century—most famously J. B. Rhine's work at Duke University—tried to test extrasensory perception (ESP) with cards and dice. Meta-analyses, particularly those by researchers like Daryl Bem, Charles Honorton, and Dean Radin, have reported statistically significant effects in studies of telepathy, precognition, and micro-PK.

However, critics argue these effects are often small, context-dependent, and sensitive to methodological choices. Publication bias, experimenter expectancy, and statistical anomalies complicate interpretation. Replication failures are frequent, and mainstream science has largely dismissed psi as unproven. Yet the persistence of subtle effects—rare, unpredictable, and sometimes resistant to conventional explanation—keeps the debate alive.

Psi as an Anomalous Human Capacity

One emerging perspective is that psi, if real, may represent an anomalous human capacity that is not yet understood within known physics or neuroscience. Some theorists, such as Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake, propose that consciousness may not be strictly confined to the brain, allowing information to be exchanged non-locally, in ways akin to quantum correlations. While these ideas are speculative, they suggest a framework in which psi phenomena could be natural rather than supernatural, but still extraordinarily subtle and context-sensitive.

Survival and Consciousness

Psychical research has also intersected with questions of consciousness and survival after death. Investigations of near-death experiences, apparitions, and mediumship aim to test whether consciousness can persist independently of the body. These domains are particularly controversial, as evidence is often anecdotal or vulnerable to psychological explanations. Yet some well-documented cases—like those of cross-correspondences and veridical mediumistic information—pose challenges for conventional interpretations, at least for those willing to engage critically.

The Scientific Dilemma

After nearly 150 years, psychical research confronts a paradox. On one hand, there is a persistent, if small, body of experimental data suggesting that psi-like phenomena exist. On the other hand, these effects resist replication, cannot yet be fully explained by current science, and remain statistically fragile. In practical terms, we cannot claim that psi has been proven, nor can we categorically dismiss all reports as fraud, error, or illusion. The phenomena occupy a liminal space: tantalizing, controversial, and persistently ambiguous.

The Idea of Non-Local Consciousness

The notion of “non-locality” in consciousness is often borrowed metaphorically from physics, particularly quantum mechanics, where particles can exhibit correlations over large distances (quantum entanglement). In the context of psi or psychical research, some theorists—like Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, or Ervin Laszlo—suggest that consciousness might not be strictly confined to the brain. According to this idea, information could, in principle, be exchanged or accessed beyond the immediate spatial and temporal boundaries of the individual mind.

This concept is seductive because it offers a potential explanation for telepathy, precognition, and other psi phenomena that seem impossible under standard neurobiology. If the mind is “non-local,” then seeing the future or reading another mind becomes theoretically feasible. It also aligns with philosophical positions such as panpsychism or certain forms of idealism, which posit that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality rather than an emergent property of matter.

Why This Opens the Door to Pseudoscience

Despite its allure, non-local consciousness has several vulnerabilities when it comes to scientific rigor:

Metaphorical Stretching of Physics: Quantum non-locality is a rigorously tested phenomenon within well-defined physical systems. Extending it to consciousness is purely speculative; there is no empirical evidence that mental states behave like quantum particles. Using “quantum” as a shorthand for “mysterious” can give pseudoscientific claims a veneer of legitimacy.

Lack of Falsifiability: Non-local consciousness often cannot be tested in a way that could convincingly falsify the hypothesis. Psi experiments are notoriously inconsistent, and proponents can argue that effects are subtle, context-dependent, or suppressed by skeptical observers. If a claim cannot be refuted even in principle, it slips outside the domain of empirical science.

Post-Hoc Rationalizations: Ambiguous events—dreams, coincidences, intuition—can be retroactively explained as evidence of non-local mind. This encourages confirmation bias: any anomalous experience “proves” the theory, while failures are explained away as interference, lack of focus, or insufficient sensitivity.

Philosophical Overreach: By suggesting that consciousness is fundamental or omnipresent, the hypothesis begins to merge science with metaphysics or spirituality. Without operational definitions and measurable effects, it becomes difficult to distinguish genuine investigation from wishful thinking or mystical speculation.

Pseudo-Scientific Branding: The language of physics, neuroscience, and mathematics is often co-opted to lend authority to claims that lack empirical grounding. Terms like “non-locality,” “energy fields,” or “resonance” are used loosely, which makes it easy for untested, extraordinary claims to sound scientific.

The Fine Line

It is worth noting that non-local consciousness is not inherently pseudoscientific. If someone could rigorously define it, formulate precise predictions, and demonstrate replicable effects, it would become a legitimate scientific hypothesis. The problem is that, historically, the concept has been used in a way that prioritizes narrative and plausibility over testability and rigor.

The allure is psychological: it promises mystery, power, and the possibility of mind transcending matter. The danger is methodological: it allows claims to persist without being critically tested, which is the hallmark of pseudoscience.

Conclusion: What Do We Know?

After a century and a half, the answer is nuanced. Psychical research has established that reports of psi are consistent, culturally widespread, and occasionally measurable under controlled conditions. Yet psi remains elusive, inconsistent, and scientifically contentious. Perhaps the most honest statement is this: we know that humans sometimes experience and report phenomena that do not fit neatly into current scientific models. Whether these reflect a genuine, subtle capacity of the mind—or simply the limits of human perception and interpretation—remains one of the most intriguing questions in the study of consciousness.

In the end, psychical research has taught us less about the mechanics of psi than about the human mind itself: its hope, its curiosity, and its relentless desire to explore the unseen.