Is it possible to sense when someone is looking at you without the use of the five senses?
This ability is implied in the 2025 racy spy thriller “Black Bag” with a trailer that shows Cate Blanchett’s character seductively telling co-star Michael Fassbender, “I can feel when you’re watching me.” But films with flashy and sensuous yet seemingly redundant plots aside, is this ability possible in real life, or is it just provocative material to be imagined by a screenwriter? It would seem that many might judge from experience and reply to the first question with a “yes”. Yet this ability is also viewed by some as a slippery slope into the paranormal and the realms of pseudoscience.
In this blog I will address the significance of giving serious consideration to data and research on PSI phenomena (also called the paranormal) from a process-oriented perspective. To do this I will contrast process thought with the mainstream approach of mechanistic materialism, as represented by such famous thinkers as Daniel Dennett. I will also show how research into PSI phenomena can offer guidance and support to people interested in process thought, just as contributions of process thought have been embraced by many researchers of PSI phenomena. In addition to pointing to a natural kinship between process thought and PSI research, I will work to uncover sociopolitical implications found in their rejection or embrace. Lastly, I will address the potential challenge PSI phenomena presents to the traditional process doctrine of time.
Irreducible Mind vs Materialism
Process Thought distinguishes itself in part through the idea that life and reality are best understood as living, dynamic, organic processes of becoming. This process identity has been formed by Whitehead in contrast to the mainstream scientific understanding of reality that sees the world through a materialist, physicalist, and determinist lens; terms which can be lumped together in reference to the view that everything is ultimately “physical”, can be fully defined through physical terms, and is physically predetermined (Stoljar, 2021).
Both significant challenges and value in process thought are seen in this necessary distinction from materialism. Materialism has successfully embedded itself within the culture of the Western (especially Anglo) world to such a degree that many are unaware it is even there. It simply is. Reality is physical, just as the sky is blue. Those who disagree are biased and close minded to the facts. Any limitations in defining the world through strictly physical terms are but challenges that will be resolved as science advances. While this physicalist/materialist outlook may sound simple enough, some of its most striking limitations come into view when one considers how materialists approach questions regarding the nature of the mind and experience and the immovable walls they have met in their attempts to answer them.
The epistemic value of experience is held in high regard in process thought. For mathematician and founder of process philosophy Alfred North Whitehead, subjective experience is placed as “the primary metaphysical situation which is presented to metaphysics for analysis” (Whitehead, 1978, p. 168). Along these lines, process thought does not look outside the bounds of experience to explain the nature of experience (Faber, 2008, pp. 26 – 27). For example, process thought readily acknowledges that the experience of seeing the color red cannot be fully understood simply through the scientific knowledge of the wavelength of red on the color spectrum. Rather, experience is something more, to be defined on its own terms. As Jonathan Edwards of the Great Awakening puts it, there is a crucial difference “between being told that honey is sweet and having the experience of tasting honey” (Gaustad and Schmidt, 2004, p. 59). The inherent value and primacy of experience then also extends into concepts such as ontological novelty and the emergence of mind, which are shown to transcend physically reductive and predetermined definitions. From the perspective of the process emphasis on novelty, the emergence of mind and the experience therein, “suggests a new sort of picture” (Clayton, 2008, p. 80) of mind and reality, not fully predicted nor defined by the sum of its physical/material parts.
The value of experience as something more than the physical has been bolstered by findings and interpretations in quantum mechanics, including the Relativistic Quantum Field Theory interpretation endorsed by renowned physicists such as H. P. Stapp (Stapp, 2017). These interpretations recognize the validity and potency of “free will” whereas the metaphysical materialism from which mainstream science operates generally sees free will as an illusion, or in the more fanciful words of famous philosopher and New Atheist Daniel Dennett, “magnificent fictions” (Dennett, 1991, p. 429), with all behaviors and actions already physically predetermined.
The resonance between these approaches within quantum mechanics and Whiteheadian process thought has been a point of great fruitfulness. While Whitehead himself formed the basis for process thought informed by research and discoveries in the physics of his time, other process-oriented thinkers such as Joseph Bracken have continued along these lines by presenting some integration of quantum theory into their metaphysics either directly or indirectly. In contrast to Newtonian perspectives on matter that view physical interactions as akin to billiard balls, Teilhardian theologian and professor of religion and science Ilia Delio explains that “Quantum physics discloses a startling insight: matter is not what we think it is” (Delio, 2023, p.22). This critical acknowledgement thereby opens up new space to explore questions about self, reality, identity, experience, relationships, interconnection, and evolution.
The PSI Alliance
There have been and continue to be many fruitful investigations into the implications of quantum theory interpretations within process thought, as they mutually support and reinforce each other in stripping down the limitations of physicalism and building back up a worldview more consistent with scientific findings and experiences of reality. Moving from the quantum to the human, it is one of the main purposes of this exploration to point to another natural partner for process thought: the field of parapsychology. Parapsychology has also been making headway in the struggle against the domineering physicalist understandings of mind and reality, yet it has remained marginal in academic discourse.
The very mention of parapsychology can induce a clenching response of this or that muscle among scholars working in fields of religion and science. But through heartful breathing and untangled, objective reasoning it may be eased and relaxed. As has been discussed, it is often a duty of process and process-adjacent thinkers to begin with a short recap of the conflict with the materialist dogma of mainstream science. This duty has also been taken up by a select—though growing—few within fields of psychology, neuroscience, and parapsychology. Much of the empirical research into PSI phenomena—inaugurated by luminaries like Frederic W. H. Myers and William James in the late 19th and early 20th century—has faced an onslaught of repression and neglect in academia over the years due to the academic/political power of the mainstream physicalist approach to mind and reality.
While the history of this influence is somewhat complex and nuanced, the rising influence in philosophy of logical positivists such as Rudolf Carnap and A.J. Ayer and their rejection of metaphysics reinforced the presupposed metaphysics of materialism through a deference to science. Similarly grounded in materialist presuppositions, behavioral psychology was formed by John B. Watson and further developed by B.F. Skinner in the belief that introspective analysis of the mind was “inevitably…absurd” (Watson, 1913, p.1), offering no objective data. Along these lines, behaviorism is shown to be “largely responsible for establishing psychology as a scientific discipline through its objective methods and especially experimentation” (OpenStax College). Thus both philosophy and psychology sought to establish themselves as scientifically relevant through the reinforcement of mechanistic materialism, using strictly “objective”, empirical, methods. In the words of neuroscientist and parapsychologist Edward Kelly, this physicalist paradigm has “accumulated enormous cultural momentum and become essentially self-perpetuating by deliberately and systematically gaining a near-total control of key structures of modern society such as our educational institutions and the media” (Kelly, 2021, p. 484). In fact, the onslaught has been so successful that one may be likely to question one’s own intellectual integrity when even considering whether or not to be open to the evidence available.
In a video interview with Kelly discussing PSI phenomena, near death experiences (NDEs) and the question of an afterlife, famous actor, writer, comedian, and general representative of British high brow culture John Cleese expresses his own insecurity with open interest in the subject saying “If I brought this up at a British dinner party there would be embarrassment”. Yet a natural inclination of interest in the topic may be seen in the numerous pertinent questions of the innocent wonderings of a child. However, materialism’s influence has taught us to see such questions and hopes as wishful and childish thinking without objective truth, even as other supernatural beliefs—such as life after death—remain widespread. This cognitive dissonance often held in the outlook of the everyday passerby is representative of the wider disconnect between religious and scientific perspectives and must be recognized and worked through, as it has contributed to many different social ills.
William James (1842-1910) sitting with Mrs. Walden in Séance. Undated but before 1910. Photographed by “Miss Carter”. Via Wikimedia Commons.
_-_William_James.jpg){kind=link}
A first step in unraveling this cognitive dissonance is recognizing the various domains where parapsychology is already given credence. For example, experiences of PSI phenomena have been perceived as having enough credibility to warrant being taken seriously by law enforcement, as a journal with the Department of Justice recognizes one Dorothy Allison (among others) for having “assisted police in more than 4,000 investigations” (Rachlin, 1993) through the use of PSI abilities. Other government funded research—somewhat popularized by the Hollywood film “Men Who Stare at Goats” based on the nonfiction book of the same name—was undertaken in the 1980s by physicists at the Stanford Research Institute includes covert, intelligence-based research into telepathy, telekinesis, and remote viewing. Historian of science Bob Rosenberg reports, “The ability of these sensitives to locate and describe targets in the past, present, and future, with or without the assistance of an agent actually visiting the location to be described, was extraordinary enough to be occasionally frightening” (Rosenberg, 2021, p. 93). One such example is an experiment where two psychics in California were given geographical coordinates of a location in Virginia through which, “Not only did they describe the physical layout of the facility, but one of them also read names from the file drawers lining one of the rooms, which included a number of secret codes (Targ, 2012, pp. 23-25, 49-50)” (Ibid.). The efficacy of this remote viewing work has been reproduced by a group in Princeton University under the leadership of engineering dean Robert Jahn (Ibid.). Given the value and credibility given to PSI research by both law enforcement and government intelligence agencies, one must necessarily question the disconnect when it comes to mainstream science and its generalized response of simply ignoring the data.
Though repressed by mainstream academia, there is also a lofty history of intellectuals of achievement and renown who felt it necessary to take data for PSI phenomena quite seriously. Not one to shy away from going where the data may lead him, David Ray Griffin—the co-founder of the Center for Process Studies—laid a clear path and lure for the intellectually minded to follow towards the fair and open minded consideration of PSI research and data in his Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality (1997). Keenly aware of the challenges presented as well as the routine accusations of heresy and incompetence, Griffin provides guidance by taking a key step of helping to establish credibility to the value of PSI research. Griffin begins with a towering list of greatly reputable persons of generally intellectual integrity and renown, explaining that “The fact that there is a large number of such intellectuals is important, because the main way of rejecting the evidence for paranormal influence… has been to cast aspersions on the intelligence, competence, or honesty of the intellectuals who have reported this evidence.” (Griffin, 1997, p. 43). A few highlights from Griffin’s list include philosophers Henri Bergson, William James, and Henry Sidgwick; psychologists Freud and Jung, physicists David Bohm and Edison; and many others, including famous Nobel Prize winners, astronomers, biologists, politicians, and literary figures such as Alduous Huxley, Mark Twain, and Arthur Conan Doyle.
Cambridge-trained physicist and editor-in-chief of Physics World Martin Durrani makes a similar point writing, “Most readers of Physics World will probably dismiss paranormal phenomena as either utter nonsense or not worthy of serious study, but over the years the subject has attracted the interest of a number of eminent physicists” (Durrani, 2000). Durrani goes on to list the eminent physicists “Lord Rayleigh, J J Thomson and Oliver Lodge” as “members of the Society for Psychical Research, which was founded in 1882 by fellows of Trinity College to study ‘those faculties of Man, real or supposed, which appear to be inexplicable on any generally recognized hypothesis’.” (Ibid.). If one is to discredit PSI research based on incompetence, Griffin and Durrani show the mighty wall of intellect such claims must knock down.
If key components of American culture, including government and law enforcement consider the evidence at least credible enough to openly consider and invest in, and people of integrity and renown in fields of science and intellect consider it worthy of open minded investigation, why has mainstream science remained so opposed to the consideration? If there is even a slight possibility of truth to the experiences, are not the implications of such truth profound enough that the scientifically minded must be duty bound to carefully and open mindedly consider the relevant data?
Part of the answer, as suggested, is due to the degree to which physicalism has embedded itself within culture. Alongside that is the either-or option that many physicalists perceive to be presented by the data of PSI phenomena. For mainstream physicalists, the mind is equated with the physical person, with a particular emphasis on the brain. The only other option for defining the world for most in the physicalist camp is the Cartesian dualism that sees the world as an extension of the physical, and the mind as something wholly other. That then leads to the problem of interaction between the two distinct and separate substances.
Similarly problematic for materialists has been the inverse theory of idealism, in which mind takes the place of matter in being fundamental to reality. The famous revolt against idealism by philosophers G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell is considered a part of the origin story of what came to be known as analytic philosophy. Similarly, a lineage is traced to the mathematician Gottlob Frege’s development of modern logic through the elimination of “any psychological element…in other words, there should be no appeal to intuition in getting from one step to the next” (Schuringa, 2025, p.185). This staunch opposition to the role of mind and intuition in helping define key components of reality can be seen in Russell’s criticism of Henri Bergson—one of the most popular philosophers in his day, whose focus on experience, creativity, and process had a great influence on Whitehead—dismissively referring to Bergson’s writings as literature rather than philosophy (Chase and Reynolds, 2010, p.24).
Additionally, in the case of both idealism and dualism, a mind of a substance potentially spiritual in nature also hints of problems of the past, when a perceivedly corrupt Church oppressed and persecuted attempts at scientific advances in the name of their own power and authority. The scientific revolution and the Enlightenment values which came to support it, were in part a revolution against the authority of tradition and perceived superstitions of religion. As materialist philosophers of mind, Braddon-Mitchell and Jackson explain “The search for physical causes of the physical has been one of science’s great success stories. Once we explained lightning in terms of Thor’s anger; now we explain it in terms of electrical discharge across a potential difference” (Braddon-Mitchell and Jackson, 1996, p.8). Opposing attempts to impede growth in knowledge through experimentation, and supporting advances in the explanatory power of science are efforts which anyone who believes in truth and knowledge should be in committed agreement with. Yet as the pendulum swings, physicalists have in some ways become what they fear, carrying the mantle of gatekeeper by seeking to intimidate and silence those who ask questions and pose theories that dare challenge their power
Challenges from Religion
Unfortunately these oppressive missteps are not unique to those within the scientific community either. Kelly describes unexpected opponents to PSI research and defenders of physicalism within the American Academy of Religion, writing “The American Academy of Religion, for example, includes a sizable faction who have apparently embraced current physicalist orthodoxy more or less wholesale and who seem intent upon explaining away most or all religious experiences, including any apparently supernormal aspects” (Kelly, 2015, p. xviii). Thus in testimony to the cultural clout of physicalism, rather than join forces with a natural ally against the oppressive powers that be, some within the academic study of religion would rather turn a blind eye to the available data in hopes of gaining scraps in academic respect and prestige.
Nonetheless, it is understandable that some within the academic study of religion would also be committed to physicalism and opposed to data that challenges that view given the ubiquitous presence of physicalism and the great heat the study of religion inherently takes attempting to stand and be taken seriously in its presence. As will be shown in the subsequent paragraph, it is perhaps not uncommon for someone within academia, particularly those in closer dialogue with the biological sciences, to make the assumption that people who hold particular religious beliefs or interests do so, not because of valid data and reasoning, but due to bias and a lack of sacred objectivity, or perhaps even delusions or mental instability. Indeed, such perceptions are often chalked up to be character defects that may be understandable but remain inexcusable nonetheless. One holds on to such beliefs because they lack the courage to walk without crutches, which inherently impairs their judgment in nearly all matters of objective relevance.
To give an example of the dogmatic judgment often held by physicalist leaders, Philip Clayton, a brilliant philosopher of religion and science who has helped make great strides in building bridges between science and religion, participated in an informal discussion with one of the so-called Four Horsemen of the New Atheist movement and general representative of physicalism, philosopher Daniel Dennett, which I was able to attend while in graduate school in Claremont. When given the floor, rather than jump to clear points of likely irreconcilable disagreement, Clayton began by pointing to common ground in naturalist approaches to reality with the goal of uncovering more subtle, yet significant points of disagreement. While beginning with common ground is important in its own right, it also may have been a strategic effort on Clayton’s part to overcome the religious profiling that is created by the attention grabbing black hole of religious fundamentalism which has played a dominant role in defining American Christian identity. While there was some success in reaching audience members, his efforts would be shown from Dennett’s perspective to be unsuccessful, as rather than convince him that a rational and naturalist theism can exist, at the end of the discussion Dennett proclaimed Clayton to be a thoroughly secular individual despite Clayton’s obvious claims to the contrary.
For Dennett it is simply impossible for someone to be rational and simultaneously hold religious beliefs. Being a consistent naturalist therefore is equated with being a secularist. Indeed his shared definition of a theologian described someone who, maintaining a sense of loyalty towards their faith background, works as “spin doctor” to adjust their religious approach in such a way as to be more compatible with the secular worldview, yet contorts this worldview just enough to allow room for a corner altar so to speak. Thus while a distancing from such anti-scientific fundamentalist thinking is necessary for religious thinkers, it is often percieved to be a Sisyphean task for those already in the physicalist camp. The judgment has already been made. Indeed physicalist atheists like Dennett often show no awareness of the fact that robust intellectual, naturalist approaches to reality, mind, and God even exist, and if they do, it is merely the manipulations of spin doctors (Dennett vs Clayton, 2012).
Indeed, with all the routine “accusations of heresy and/or incompetence” aimed at research on PSI phenomena, it is worth noting that those within the fields of religion and theology who take religious experiences seriously often face even more impediments and prejudice than do PSI researchers. Kelly explains that topics such as states of higher consciousness and religious or mystical experiences are “even more contentious, because [they] draws us into the far larger and more superheated cultural arena occupied by the ongoing public hostilities… between science and religion” (Kelly, 2015, p. xvi). Within the backdrop of routine attempts to discredit PSI research, it perhaps becomes more understandable why some within the study of religion have poised themselves against PSI phenomena and in favor of physicalism.
The point then is that the militant influence of physicalism has put intellectually and scientifically minded theologians and scholars of religion between a rock and a hard place. While some have admirably worked to establish a foothold of respect within academia even as physicalists fight them every step of the way, PSI research has also persisted through the judgments and attacks. Let us turn now to this body of research and its findings.
The Sense of Being Stared At
Cambridge trained biochemist and parapsychology researcher Rupert Sheldrake has initiated tests and experiments seeking to answer the question posed at the beginning of this paper regarding the ability to sense another’s stare, or scopaesthesia as it is called. Sheldrake writes, “In extensive surveys in Europe and North America, between 70 and 97 per cent of adults and children reported experiences of these kinds” (Sheldrake, 2020, p. 243). Additionally, Sheldrake relays how detectives watching a suspect are trained not to stare as it might blow their cover, snipers have reported their target looking them in the eye from a mile away just as they’re about to shoot, and paparazzi report similar experiences from up to half a mile away (Ibid, p. 244). While Sheldrake’s tests have supported the theory that it is indeed possible for people to be aware of another’s stare with an average 55% success rate (Ibid, p. 246), the Scientific American journal has challenged his conclusions. Historian of science and executive director of the Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer predictably chalks up Sheldrake’s research to confirmation bias “where we look for and find confirmatory evidence for what we already believe” (Shermer, 2005). Similarly Shermer raises the objection of experimenter bias, pointing out that when PSI skeptic Wiseman sought to replicate the data, the experimenter “Wiseman found chance results” whereas “believers” were able to replicate them (Ibid.).
While Sheldrake’s response that “Perhaps his [Wiseman’s] negative expectations consciously or unconsciously influenced the way he looked at his subjects” is likely to turn off skeptics as proof of confirmation bias and reminiscent of perceived anti-scientific blind faith slogans such as “believing is seeing”, there is more to be considered in regard to Sheldrakes’s response. When dealing with questions of the nature of the mind and experience, the state of mind one is in has to be taken seriously as pertinent data despite the ensuing challenges to measuring such data. Surely, one with eyes to see believes that the sense of sight is real. The same must be true to some degree for extrasensory perception. However, Shermer responds to Sheldrake and concludes by asking “wouldn’t that mean that this claim is ultimately nonfalsifiable? If both positive and negative results are interpreted as supporting a theory, how can we test its validity?”. To a degree Shermer is of course right that “the burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic”. Yet, better than being a believer or a skeptic, the surest route to uncover the truth of the nature of experience is an open mind.
In consideration of data in the quest for truth, philosopher David Ray Griffin distinguishes between “three basic types of people: paradigmatic thinkers, data-led thinkers, and wishful thinkers” (Griffin, 1997, p. 26). In the previous case, Shermer may be shown to fall in part in the paradigmatic type “for whom the primary consideration is what they consider, on the basis of their general paradigm or worldview, possible and impossible” (Ibid.). For most committed materialists the idea that the mind may in some way reach beyond the physical person is impossible. While Shermer does not use language as strong as “impossible,” he does not seem to recognize the self-evident truth in American psychologist and philosopher “William James’s famous statement to the effect that it only takes one white crow to prove that all crows are not black” (Ibid, p. 41). Thus, while Shermer notes problems for a skeptic in attempting to replicate Sheldrake’s data, if the variables of influence are isolated carefully enough, the mere possibility of scopaesthesia is verifiable by only one highly accurate test subject, be it a believer or not.
In addition, Shermer’s default paradigmatic position as skeptic prevents him from acknowledging that if such abilities are possible, surely those experienced in such abilities must also have a belief that the abilities actually exist as surely as someone with sight believes they can see. The common accusation from the skeptic camp would likely be that “believers” fall into Griffin’s wishful thinkers category, adopting “a philosophical worldview guided primarily by their hopes and fears” (Ibid, p. 28). Yet to do so here could be begging the question. If the experience is real, then belief in it would be belief in experienced evidence as opposed to wishful thinking. While wishful thinking is of course something to be on guard against in the quest for truth and in defense from the preying con-men, the sure and true path is the path of data-led thinkers.
Ghost Hunting. Photo by Benjamin Keeler on Unsplash
Griffin explains that “Data-led thinkers, or empiricists, by contrast, wear their paradigms lightly, being ready to change them as soon as the data suggest their inadequacy. For such thinkers, what is possible is settled by what is actual, not vice versa; and as with the paradigmatic thinker, wishful thinking plays little determination of belief” (Ibid, p. 27). To wear paradigms lightly then allows one’s paradigm to guide their thinking and when challenges such as recurring claims of extrasensory experiences come to the fore, the true empiricist openly investigates the data without leaning unnecessarily towards either skeptic or believer. When a white crow is discovered through thorough investigation, the paradigm must then be modified to accommodate the new evidence.
This approach is unfortunately in strong contrast to the limitations of normal science poignantly exposed by historian of science Thomas Kuhn’s landmark study The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn explains that within the tasks of normal science, “A paradigm can… insulate the community from those socially important problems that are not reducible to the puzzle form, because they cannot be stated in terms of the conceptual and instrumental tools the paradigm supplies” (Kuhn, 1970, p. 37). Thus most people committed to the paradigm of materialism have remained insulated from and thereby incapable of thinking outside of the box to be open minded enough to simply study the ample data available for PSI phenomena. It is easier, more comfortable, or even hip to sit back and label oneself a skeptic without ever openly endeavoring into the depths of paradigm shattering research available. After all, such efforts would give credence to hogwash and even risk becoming a recipient of the most unfashionable label of “pseudoscientist,” crashing years of study, work, and respect into a dark and bottomless abyss.
Yet courageous pioneers of data-led thinking have jumped into the abyss and learned to fly—or at least float. Indeed, when one turns to the data with an open mind, there is likely no turning back. While part of the intention of this paper is to encourage people to look at the evidence themselves, Griffin speaks of his own inability to turn back, explaining that “we have overwhelming evidence that influence at a distance to and from minds does occur” (Griffin, 1997, p. 33). Indeed, white crows abound. Acknowledging the golden significance of replication in testing data and theories, Griffin responds to corresponding objections explaining:
(1) Since the beginning of the scientific study of ostensible paranormal phenomena in the late nineteenth century, there have repeatedly been persons of otherwise undoubted intelligence, honesty, and competence who have accepted the occurrence of paranormal events, often on the basis of firsthand experience. (2) There have repeatedly been individuals who could repeatedly demonstrate ESP abilities, PK (psychokinesis) abilities, or both in tightly controlled situations, many of whom were never detected in any kind of fraudulent activity. (3) There are types of spontaneous paranormal phenomena that occur repeatedly in various times and places. (4) There have been a wide range of controlled experiments, both with and without exceptional people, that have produced positive results significantly above chance on a repeatable basis. (Ibid, p. 42, “(psychokinesis)” added)
Independent researcher Paul Marshall concurs, explaining that “There is evidence painstakingly collected and evaluated, that points to the genuineness of at least some of the challenging phenomena, including psi and postmortem survival (Cardena, 2018; Cardena, Palmer, & Marcusson-Clavertz, 2015; Kelly, 2015a; Kelly et al., 2007)” (Paul Marshall, 2021, p. 407). Pointing to the valuable compilation of research found in author and editor Edward Kelly’s Beyond Physicalism (and its predecessor Irreducible Mind), and referencing the range of studies, Marshall adds “In BP, evidence for postmortem survival was summarized–trance mediumship, cases of the reincarnation type, and crisis apparitions–again it was emphasized that the evidence is abundant and can be of high quality, as anyone who takes the time to examine it in detail and with an open mind will discover (Kelly, 2015b, pp. 6-13)” (Paul Marshall, 2021, p. 460).
It is always necessary to take information with a grain of salt, but there also comes a point where one can either trust this or that reputable account or else take it upon oneself to do independent research. Suffice to say, the research and accounts do not dissipate despite the monumental effort to dismiss them as wishful thinking and pseudoscience. Rather, as the doors slowly open, with headway being made, more are entering into the studies with open minds and, like a snowball effect, research and data are accumulating.
In a 2022 interview sponsored by the Cobb Institute, process thinker Matt Segall spoke with physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín regarding research in potential extrasensory phenomena. In the interview, Gómez-Marín, who has worked with Rupert Sheldrake on scopaesthesia research, speaks of a school in Spain he discovered in his research in which students were scoring a higher than average success rate in tests of extraocular vision—upwards of 60-65%. In additional research on the topic, Gómez-Marín speaks of an educational program in Spain in which kids are trained to be able to see without the use of their eyes. After prefacing his own prior disbelief in which he considered such abilities to generally be impossible, he went to observe the experiments. Upon observance he said he saw students blindfolded and able to “see” colors, complete puzzles, draw, and even read (18:14, 29:20). Due to the results of both his initial and subsequent experiments with the students, Gómez-Marín says he now believes the abilities to be more than mere coincidence and is initiating ongoing research to gain more data on the topic (Segall and Gómez-Marín, 2022).
Scientific investigation into the telepathic ability of non-vocal autistic youth done by Dr. Diane Hennacy Powell has also recently been released in a 2024 podcast called “The Telepathy Tapes” along with a video library found on their website of the same name. The video library includes clips of people such as the physician Deepak Chopra performing tests with the parents, as generally non verbal autistic children and youth are shown to point to, type or otherwise communicate numbers and words that only the parent and other test administrators are able to see. As the website’s overview of the podcast says, “These silent communicators possess gifts that defy conventional understanding, from telepathy to otherworldly perceptions, challenging the limits of what we believe to be real” (The Telepathy Tapes, 2024). Interestingly, one of parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake’s first described encounters with research into telepathic abilities—thereby influencing his departure from the formerly adopted materialist worldview—was an experience as a student at Cambridge in which experiments with the case of a boy considered to be mentally disabled were recognized by the lead researcher as a genuine “case of telepathy” (Sheldrake, 2020, p. 257). While the ideological skeptic is likely to question the methods in the Telepathy Tapes as too uncontrolled to present replicable data and dismiss the relational challenges involved in working with autistic youth as an element that is too subjective, the test methods and results are clear and simple enough to see for most anyone with an open mind. As the website’s Tests Library points out, “Their results underscore the need for deeper exploration and rigorous scientific study with tighter controls” (The Telepathy Tapes, 2024).
It is exciting to see more and more research and data build up in support of the value and validity of PSI phenomena, as the stranglehold of materialism has been loosened. The most clear benefit of such an opening of intellectual space can be seen in the value of the quest to understand the nature of life and reality more clearly. While near death and reincarnation experiences have only received very minimal coverage here, those interested may note that they often receive more attention given the great significance of their potential veracity. Much more remains to be said regarding the pervading influence of materialism as it interconnects within multiple sociopolitical divisions, including divisions between religion and science, the political right and left, and the religious right and left than fits the more humble purposes of a blog post. I will briefly hint at these divisions in the conclusion, but first, having shown the natural camaraderie between process thought and PSI phenomena, I will point to one challenge of particular importance which PSI research offers to process thought.
Precognition, Process Thought, and Time
Those who begin investigating PSI research from a philosophical and/or scientific background often approach it from a state of questioning disbelief, yet the willingness to at least consider the available evidence leads them to a point of no return. One of the challenges of PSI phenomena may be seen in how, more than helping explain the nature of the mind and reality, PSI phenomena forces us to acknowledge just how much we don’t know. Perhaps one of the more humbling experiences of PSI phenomena in terms of possible implications regarding the nature of reality is the experience of precognition, closely connected to mystical and near death experiences of timelessness.
In process thought, time plays a key role in defining the fundamental nature of reality. Rather than units of nature being defined by matter, what Whitehead terms “actual occasions of experience” are posited as fundamental (Whitehead, 1978, p. 22). This critical step allows change—present in every moment and experience—to be incorporated into one’s definition of reality. The experienced forward arrow of time also connects to the process principles of novelty and creativity (Cobb and Griffin, 1976, pp. 24-28), as the fundamental newness of life found in the forward arrow of time provides a profound sense of freedom, purpose, and adventure. Yet this freedom and purpose faces potential challenges through the data and research on experiences of precognition.
Evidence
In addressing the somewhat contentious topic of precognition, historian of science Bob Rosenberg claims that “The evidence for its existence is overwhelming” (Rosenberg, 2021, p. 89). Many of the cases recorded are shown to be dreams or other visionary experiences which seem to warn the recipient of an often unshakable sense of impending danger. An example as recorded by botanist and parapsychologist Louisa Rhine relays the experience of a friend of a policeman, and upon meeting his friend who “looked like he had seen a ghost”, was asked to trade guns with him. Thereafter the policeman was involved in a lethal gunfight in which he was also wounded. He returned to the friend, asking him to fire the gun he had traded him. Taking it to a firing range, the friend recalls that “It fired two shots. On the third the main spring let go, rendering the gun useless.” When relaying the experience to the policeman, the policeman replied “I dreamed I was in a gun fight and the gun failed on the third shot. That dream was so real that I just knew that I had to have a good gun before I went on duty” (Ibid, pp.91-92). Rhine’s own interpretation of the experience is to categorize it as a form of clairvoyance rather than precognition, reasoning that the policeman’s intimate relationship with his gun allowed him to intuit its mechanical error, yet he would also have had to foresee the upcoming gun battle, perhaps through some sort of telepathic reading of the intentions of those involved in the holdup which would lead them into his jurisdiction.
British diplomat, parapsychologist, and Society for Psychical Research president from 1933-1934 Edith Lyttleton presented a four-fold categorization of these experiences:
those that might be coincidence; those that might be telepathy but cannot be coincidence; those that might be telepathy if that capacity were somehow able to ‘collect, combine and present the content of other minds for the definite purpose of prediction’; and, finally, those that ‘can only be classed as precognitive, for these display knowledge of the future event which is not in the content, or in any combinations of contents, of the human mind.’ (Rosenberg, PSI Encyclopedia, “Precognition”)
The case of the policeman may well be a case of telepathy, reading the intentions of the armed burglars as crossing paths with himself and his gun. Yet there are other cases which are shown to clearly appear to fall into the fourth category, implying knowledge of information that is nonexistent in the present.
One such case involves a subject who experienced a seemingly trivial vision of people and a fireplace. The subject recalls:
Years after I went back to the station in Central India where I had lived as a child. The evening after I arrived I went to the Club. As I went in, the same two dark men were standing at the same fireplace just in the same positions – then the fair man walked across. I started forward to see him and knocked into a man who laughingly asked why I was so eager! I found out afterwards that the two men had been boys at Eton at the time of my vision and the Club house not built. It was all absolutely unimportant which makes it all the more strange that it should have occurred. I wrote home at once and told my family. (Ibid)
In seemingly contradictory statements, Lyttleton refrains from claiming precognition as “established fact”, yet at the same time Lyttleton reflects, “‘That some predictions are cases of definite precognition I personally have no doubt at all’” (Ibid).
Griffin’s Objections
While many accumulating cases appear to support Rosenberg’s claim of overwhelming evidence supporting the existence of precognition, philosopher David Ray Griffin disagrees. For Griffin, what he terms “true precognition” is logically impossible. Griffin explains, “Literal precognition would mean that a person knew, in the full sense of that term, an event prior to its occurrence, in the same way in which one can know a past event”, meaning “that the person had perceived the event prior to its occurrence” (Griffin, 1997, p. 90). Along the lines of this definition, many cases would necessarily be considered non-literal precognition because they often involve an anticipation of danger which is then averted, as shown in the example of the policeman. Griffin then continues in support of philosopher Antony Flew’s reasoning that precognition is in fact self-contradictory, and therefore logically impossible. In the words of Flew, “Because causes necessarily and always bring about their effects, it must be irredeemably self-contradictory to suggest that the (later) fulfillments might cause the (earlier) anticipations” (Ibid, p.91). Thus by definition of the terms, an effect cannot cause itself. Yet that is exactly what appears to happen in some cases.
One such case is recorded by philologist, Trinity College Fellow, and Society for Psychical Research co-founder Frederic Myers: “The next case which I shall quote is, I think, almost unique in our collection in this respect, – that the premonition seems to work to its own fulfillment, by suggesting the one course of action which, as it happened, would bring about the dreaded experience”. Within the case, one Mrs. C recalls an “intense horror of monkeys” alongside a dream she had in which a monkey was following her. In the hope of easing her distress from the dream, she shared it with her family, whereupon her husband encouraged her to take a walk. She then proceeded to take her children on a walk in a manner she describes as “quite contrary to my custom”, and after reaching a planned destination, saw “the very monkey of my dreams! In my surprise and terror, I clasped my hands and exclaimed, much to the amazement of a coachman waiting outside, ‘My dream! My dream!’”. She continues, “This I suppose attracted the attention of the monkey and he began to come after us, he on the top of the wall, we beneath, every minute I expecting he would jump upon me, and having precisely the same terror I experienced in my dream” (Rosenberg, PSI Encyclopedia, “Precognition”).
Griffin’s second objection similarly deals with the nature of causation by referencing philosopher and parapsychologist Stephen Braude’s claim that causation is necessarily linear. Just as normal causes have effects moving forward into an indefinite future, so in the case of retrocausation or backwards causation should the cause move backwards into an indefinite past. Yet that is not the case, as “The presumed effects of the imagined retrocausation, however, are not themselves portrayed as having effects extending into the indefinite past” therefore, “it would not be just like ordinary causation except for going backwards” (Griffin, 1997, p. 91). It is unclear to me how this debate is anything other than a mere trifle over semantics. The argument at hand is not whether or not the influence of precognition has the same causal power as ordinary causes, but whether or not it is possible to see into the future on some level. It appears as though Griffin may be valuing quantity over quality in this case, as also appears to be the case when he imagines thirteen alternative explanations for “true” precognition, some of which he admits to be “quite fanciful” (Ibid, p. 95).
A more important argument however follows as Griffin addresses the central question of freedom. As mentioned, freedom plays a pivotal role in process thought, working alongside such values as novelty, creativity, and adventure. Griffin portrays literal precognition as an indubitable and immovable knowledge of the future. Such foresight must come to pass, thereby negating the possibility of freedom in “real time” to change it. “For such a perception to be possible, the ‘future’ event would necessarily already exist now. If what seem to be future events already exist in the present, then both time and freedom are illusory” (Ibid, p. 92). Griffin then argues that freedom is what he calls a “hard-core commonsense notion” in that it is inevitably presupposed in practice. Thus the only way to be consistent in one’s thought and practice is to reject the theory of literal precognition as it goes against the hard-core commonsense notion of freedom.
While the question of genuine freedom is an important one rightly challenged by the potential legitimacy of literal or true precognition, it is also possible that Griffin is setting up something of a false dilemma or dichotomy, limiting the available options. If a future event has indeed been seen to undoubtedly exist, is it necessary that all freedom is thereby negated or only the freedom to go against said event? Is it not possible for one particular future event to be determined or fixed, yet other events remain undetermined? Griffin displays an impressive imagination with such fanciful explanations as a type of other dimensional being, perceiving someone’s dream and thereby ensuring it comes to pass. Is the possibility of one future event being set and fixed, while other events remain open and undetermined any more fanciful?
Counter Arguments
One of the main counter arguments raised against Griffin’s opposition to literal or true precognition is that his opposition, rather than being data driven, is in fact rooted in his own paradigm. Rosenberg claims that “Griffin denies the possibility of precognition because in the Whiteheadian world the future is entirely potential and therefore cannot be apprehended” (Rosenberg, 2021, p. 117). After lauding Griffin’s research and open minded philosophical prowess in taking “psi phenomena including postmortem survival and rebirth very seriously”, parapsychologist Edward Kelly describes Griffin’s approach to “true precognition” as “one glaring exception” (Kelly, 2015, p. 527). Noting Griffin’s efforts in outlining alternative explanations and acknowledging that “much of the ostensible evidence for true precognition is potentially subject to alternative explanations of these sorts” (Ibid.), Kelly argues that Griffin’s alternative explanations do not take the range and scope of data seriously enough, claiming that “much remains, in our opinion, that cannot be dismissed in this way” (Ibid.). Thus rather than being data-driven, Kelly also sees Griffin as engaging in “somewhat desperate theory-driven efforts to deny” (Ibid.) the data in support of true precognition.
Another paradigm-related objection can be seen in Griffin’s implied understanding of time and causation. As shown, Griffin has argued that literal precognition is in fact impossible based on the definition of causation. However, this is the same argument made by materialists unwilling to even consider the available evidence for such things as telepathy and psychokinesis. They know such things are impossible because they know that is not how causation works. Similarly, the once-accepted Aristotelian notion of a final cause, which connects to individual agency, free will, and purpose has been negated as illusory by materialists (Sheldrake, 2020, p. 135). Yet the evidence does not go away; rather, it builds. Could it not be a similar case for precognition? Is it possible that there is more to the nature of the freedom of self and its relationship with time and causation than we currently understand?
Photo by Jossuha Théophile on Unsplash
Logic and Beyond
One thing that should be clear is that when it comes to trying to understand such topics as causation and time, our abilities of logic appear to fall short. This is not to argue against the use of logic, rather it is an employment of it. Logic aims for consistency. Yet these abilities have limitations. To accurately employ logic, we must seek to consistently recognize when we are in fact approaching topics in which perhaps it is wisest to humbly bow before that which transcends our understanding.
The simplest example is the beginning or cause of time. There is simply no way to get around the fact that logically, all we can see is paradox. Either there is a first cause, which does not make sense alongside our use of logic, or there is an infinite regression of causes. These are the main options logic presents us with, and both are ultimately illogical in terms of our understanding of causation. Adding weight to this commonsense wisdom often displayed in the wonderings of children, super science duo Lanza and Berman write, “Even saying the cosmos had a beginning leads immediately to illogic, because then where did that begin, whatever-it-was?” (Lanza and Berman, 2017, p. 165). Yet we exist. Accordingly, “That the universe (taken as a whole) does lie beyond our logic should be obvious” (Ibid.).
For some this is reason to believe in some higher power or GOD that also lies beyond our logic. Whether an infinite regress of causes or a first cause, it is perceived to in some way be connected to the infinite and eternal. This belief in and experience of something holy beyond time and space is counted among some of the characteristic features of mystical experiences (Marshall, 2015, p. 51). Medieval mystic and preacher Meister Eckhart describes this holy beyond in connection to an inner light which “is so potent that it is not merely in itself free of time and space, but… this light takes away time and space” (Kripal, 2017, p. 49).
Theologically speaking, moved by such experiences of timelessness, one might combine an adaptation of Anselm’s ontological argument with evolutionary cosmology. If the infinite can give rise to the consciousness we see in our own experiences in just a matter of some 10 to 15 billion years—which is nothing in comparison to infinity—then how much more must have been created before we ever came into existence, or will be created after, or perhaps exists in a sense that is beyond our very understanding of before and after? Within current big bang cosmology, time has a finite past beginning with the big bang and a potentially infinite future, which according to Lanza and Berman “is probably true, if recent ‘infinite universe’ evidence is any guide” (Lanza and Berman, 2017, p. 165). If an infinite future could lead to the emergence of something which “exists” for lack of a better word, beyond space and time, then this something beyond would “exist” in the present (yet beyond it). This is of course paradoxical, but so is our very existence. When surrounded by paradox, experience must light the way. Additionally, the emergence of such an existence via an infinite future could lead to an adaptation of Whitehead’s dipolar primordial and consequent natures of GOD into something of a circular feedback loop.
This something beyond before and after, beyond space and time seems to be at play in the analysis of mind and PSI phenomena. To revert to the claim that true precognition is impossible because of the nature of causation cannot hold any more than claiming that our existence here and now is impossible because the cause of existence is not in accord with our understanding of logic. Again, we exist, as is implied in Griffin’s hard-core commonsense notion of free will. To reiterate, this is not to overlook or override the value of logic, rather it is an employment of logic by seeking to consistently recognize and chart the nature of logic’s natural boundaries, and thereby walk with caution when approaching the edge of the cliff, knowing to gaze at the wondrous view, restraining ourselves from any sneaking impulse to jump off it. The wondrous, humbling view in this particular case is the existence of overwhelming evidence for precognition, with many cases which resist being reduced to mere telepathy or other alternative explanations.
Edward Kelly seeks to maintain some reservations in drawing conclusions regarding the existence of free will in face of evidence for precognition, as “More and better cases are certainly needed” (Kelly, 2015, p. 529), yet he does speculate on ways in which both can exist. Kelly writes “we consider it possible that the future can be determinate – existing, and hence potentially accessible to precognition – and yet not determined, in the sense that it is not an inevitable, causal consequence of what preceded it, with no place for free will” (Ibid, p. 529). While this is different from Griffin’s definition of literal precognition and one might see this as conceding to Griffin against the existence of true precognition, the difference is that for Kelly the future is to a degree accessible in its determinate form. Furthermore, the ability to access this determinate form of the future reflects an ability which cannot be reduced to telepathic abilities.
Historian of science Bob Rosenberg is in general agreement with Kelly, writing that “Determinationism – as opposed to determinism – leaves the question open. If we combine a hard-core commonsense view of free will with a determinate picture of time, we can construct a reasonable world with agents who can act freely and a future that can be foreseen” (Rosenberg, 2021, p. 118). Similarly, Rosenberg concludes that “Our understanding of time is woefully inadequate to cope with precognition. We must reframe it if we are to have a chance. We have signposts left for us from NDEs, mystical experiences, and other altered states” (Ibid, p. 118).
Thus while David Ray Griffin has played a powerful role in opening the doors to PSI research and evidence for process thought and other intellectual approaches, when it comes to the topics of time, cause, and precognition, the evidence suggests that there is more to it than we are currently able to understand. Indeed, more research and cases are needed, and must be embraced with open, data-led minds which value the truth of reality in and of itself.
Conclusion
A thread within this investigation then has been the value and importance of taking experience and empirical investigation seriously, even as it goes up against deeply entrenched paradigms and dogmas of oppression. The value of such work becomes all the more critical in consideration of the many sociopolitical divisions within politics and religion and the role that close minded and hard heartedness plays in widening the chasms.
Through an open minded awareness and analysis of the roots of such divisions we may be able to face what sociologist Harmut Rosa describes as the “crisis of invocability”, which is “just as present in the crisis of faith as it is in the crisis of democracy” (Rosa, 2022, p. 43). Thus the close minded and militant division of materialism against PSI phenomena and religious experience bears this crisis, as does the exclusivist and dogmatic division of the religious right against the self-righteous and often tepid left, as well as the left’s elitist snubbing of the experienced based religious values of the right. The solution then, much easier said than done, is to be invocable, to open mindedly let go of assumptions and heartfully listen to the other side, and to listen with patience and self-efficacy capable of genuine response guided by principles of justice, equality, empathy, and love. The power of religion offers this transformative guide in its promise of resonance seen in the teaching that “our existence is not defined by the cold mechanism of an indifferent universe or by pure chance or even by an inimical adversary; instead, the heart of our existence consists of a reciprocal relationship” (Ibid, p. 59) with both God and the other.
Griffin draws a map towards a democratic and idealized view of religious and scientific coexistence writing:
The theistic religious traditions could overcome their negative and destructive tendencies and become vehicles for promoting life as a spiritual adventure, I suggest, by changing their foundation from a supernaturalistic to a naturalistic theism. Given naturalistic premises, there would be no basis for believing that God could have, by overriding anyone’s power of self-determination, infallibly inspired any book, council, or office. The scriptures of all religious traditions, accordingly, could be assumed to be mixtures of divine inspiration and human ignorance and perversity. There would be no basis for an externalistic view of salvation, according to which it is something done to one, if one has believed and done the right things. Salvation would be seen as a process of becoming whole, a process in which divine inspiration and human response cooperate. Those in other religious traditions would be seen as fellow travelers, from whom one can learn and with whom once can share. Because divine power is not the power to prevent and to destroy, the calamities of life would not be viewed as punishments or trials inflicted by God, not even as events God ‘permitted’ while having the power to prevent. The Holy Power of the universe could be viewed as wholly good, wholly supportive of everything fine. The idea of divine vengeance would become self-contradictory. The religious life would be based entirely on attraction toward the true, the good, and the beautiful, not partly on fear of punishment. And so on. (1997, p. 271)
To briefly summarize, materialism has staunchly set itself against both religion and PSI phenomena, yet despite the use of all tools available, it has failed to explain key mysteries addressed by religion and PSI phenomena. To that effect, materialism is in fact an outdated paradigm causing more harm than good. To overcome the blinding and disruptive influence of materialism, process thought, religion, and PSI phenomena work best by recognizing their natural kinship. Yet the crises created by divisions between religion and science, materialism and experience, the right and the left, and the rich and the poor are crises and divisions which are deeply rooted and interconnected. To overcome these divisions and crises, open minded regard for the truth of experience and the other is of the utmost importance.
To conclude, for the past century materialism has been implanted within the Western mind like a parasitic AI chip, mechanically working to override the natural wonder, value, choice, and vitality of life. Both process thought and PSI research have held to the value of mind and experience’s inherent resistance to such militant attempts to reduce free will to illusion. The combined evidence in support of an irreducible mind and in opposition to materialism is overwhelming, and the grip of materialism continues to be gradually loosened. Yet many crises remain. By embracing their natural kinship more deeply, process thought and PSI research will make ever greater strides building bridges and integrating data for a more holistic, genuine, open, democratic, just and balanced society and biosphere. As challenges to the traditional process oriented view of time such as precognition are openly embraced as data-led explorations to seek and find, old skins will be shed, and new growth will blossom forth.
Works Cited
Badham, R.A. (1998). “The Landscape of Twentieth-Century Theology”. Introduction to Christian Theology: Contemporary North American Perspectives. Ed. R.A. Badham. Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox Press.
Bellah, R.N. et al. (1996). Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Braddon-Mitchell and Jackson. (1996). Philosophy of Mind and Cognition. Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishing.
Chase and Reynolds. (2010). Analytic Versus Continental: Arguments on the Methods and Value of Philosophy. Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Clayton, P. (2008). Adventures in the Spirit: God, World, Divine Action. Ed. Zachary Simpson. Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
Clayton, P., & Dennett, D. (2012, March 7). Daniel Dennett vs. Philip Clayton- philosophy, science, and religion. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-I_9e5qxnc
Cleese, J. and E. Kelly. (2019, May 10). John Cleese & Ed Kelly discuss survival of consciousness beyond death. Youtube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zSXsQsJRf0
Cobb, J.B. Jr and D.R. Griffin. (1976). Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition. Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press.
Crist, E. (2019). Abundant Earth: Toward and Ecological Civilization. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Delio, I. (2023). The Not-Yet God: Carl Jung, Teilhard de Chardin, and the Relational Whole. Marknoll, NY, Orbis Books.
Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness Explained. New York, Back Bay Books.
Durrani, Matin. (2000, May 1). Physicists Probe the Paranormal. Physics World. Retrieved from https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-probe-the-paranormal/
Faber, R. (2008). God As Poet of the World: Exploring Process Theologies. Trans. D. W. Stott. Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox Press.
Fox 13 News Staff. (2022, December 5). What does ‘woke’ mean? Gov. DeSantis officials answer during Andrew Warren trial. Fox 13 News Tampa Bay. Retrieved from https://www.fox13news.com/news/what-does-woke-mean-gov-desantis-officials-answer-during-andrew-warren-trial
Gaustad, E. and L. Schmidt. (2004). The Religious History of America. New York, Harper Collins.
Gómez-Marín À. and M. Segall. (2022, October 26). Extended Sight and Process Philosophy. Youtube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLtHDmJtPgo
Griffin, D. R. (1997). Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration. State University of New York Press.
James, W. (1985). The Varieties of Religious Experience. Ed. M.E. Marty. New York, Penguin Group.
Jones, R.P. (2023). The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy: and the Path to a Shared American Future. New York, NY, Simon & Schuster.
Kelly, E. (2021). “Epilogue: Our Emerging Vision and Why It Matters”. Consciousness Unbound. Eds. E. Kelly and P. Marshall. London, Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 483-487
Kelly, E. (2015). “Introduction: Science and Spirituality at a Crossroads”. Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Eds. E. Kelly, A. Crabtree, and P. Marshall. London, Rowman & Littlefield. pp. xi-xxix
Kelly, E. (2015). “Toward a Worldview Grounded in Science and Spirituality”. Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Eds. E. Kelly, A. Crabtree, and P. Marshall. London, Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 493-551
King, M. L. Jr. (1967). “Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?”. Boston, Beacon Press.
Kinzer, S. (2013). The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War. New York, Henry Holt and Company.
Kripal, J. (2017). “Making the Cut”. The Super Natural: Why the Unexplained Is Real. J. Kripal and W. Streiber. New York, NY, TarcherPerigee. pp. 39-56
Kripal, J. (2021). “The Future of the Human(ities)”. Consciousness Unbound. Eds. E. Kelly and P. Marshall. London, Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 359-405
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd Ed. Chicago, University of Chicago Press
Lanza, R. and B. Berman. (2017). Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death. Dallas, TX, Benbella Books.
Lavietes, M. (2025, May 8). UnitedHealthcare Sued By Shareholders Over Reaction to CEO’s Killing. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/unitedhealthcare-sued-shareholders-reaction-ceos-killing-rcna205550
Marshall, P. (2015). “Mystical Experiences as Windows on Reality”. Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Eds. E. Kelly, A. Crabtree, and P. Marshall. London, Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 39-76
Marshall, P. (2021). “Mind Beyond Brain”. Consciousness Unbound. Eds. E. Kelly and P. Marshall. London, Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 407-482
Martin, L.A. (2023). The Gospel of J. Edgar Hoover: How the FBI Aided and Abetted the Rise of White Christian Nationalism. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Mayflower Compact. (1670, November 11). Retrieved from https://www.consource.org/document/mayflower-compact-1620-11-11/
McCammon, Sarah. (2025, March 22). How empathy came to be seen as a weakness in conservative circles. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2025/03/22/nx-s1-5321299/how-empathy-came-to-be-seen-as-a-weakness-in-conservative-circles
Moyers, Bill D. (1988, November 12). What a Real President Was Like. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/11/13/what-a-real-president-was-like/d483c1be-d0da-43b7-bde6-04e10106ff6c/
Olmstead, M. (2023, July 24). Will Anyone Buy Ron DeSantis’ Religious Muddle? Slate. Retrieved from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/desantis-religion-catholic-evangelical-vote.html
OpenStax College. (2025). History of Psychology. Retrieved from https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-2-history-of-psychology
Rachlin, H. (1993). Psychics and Police Work. Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/psychics-and-police-work
Rosa, H. (2024). Democracy Needs Religion. Trans. V.A. Pakis. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press.
Rosenberg, R. (2015). Precognition. Precognition | Psi Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/precognition#Conclusions
Rosenberg, R. (2021). “Precognition”. Consciousness Unbound. Eds. E. Kelly and P. Marshall. London, Rowman & Littlefield.
Schuringa, C. (2025). A Social History of Analytic Philosophy. London, Verso.
Sheldrake, Rupert. (2020). The Science Delusion. London, Coronet.
Sheldrake, Rupert. (2004). The Sense of Being Stared At. Rochester, Vermont, Park Street Press.
Shermer, Michael. (2005, November 1). Rupert’s Resonance. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ruperts-resonance/
Stapp, H.P. (2017). Quantum Theory and Free Will: How Mental Intentions Translate into Bodily Actions. Switzerland, Springer.
Stoljar, Daniel. (2021, May 25) Physicalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University. Retrieved from plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#ReduNonReduPhys
Tawney, R.H. (1922/2023). Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. Victoria, BC, Must Have Books.
The Telepathy Tapes. (2024). Retrieved from https://thetelepathytapes.com/podcast
The Telepathy Tapes. (2024). Retrieved from https://thetelepathytapes.com/telepathy-tests-library
Watson, John B. (1913). “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It”. Retrieved from https://www.ufrgs.br/psicoeduc/chasqueweb/edu01011/behaviorist-watson.pdf
Whitehead, A.N. (1967). The Aims of Education and Other Essays. New York, The Free Press.
Whitehead, A.N. (1978). Process and Reality. Eds D.R. Griffin and D. Sherburne. New York, Free Press.
Patrick Ioakimedes double majored in religious studies and philosophy (honors) at California State University, Northridge and completed his MDiv and MA in theology at Claremont School of Theology. His thesis focused on the mind-body problem and the principle of unity by analyzing the history of the relationship between religion and science and pointing to Whitehead and others as a means to overcome the division of the 20th century. He currently teaches US and world history as well as world religions at a title 1 public school within the Los Angeles Unified School District. Patrick is also a musician and activist who has been involved with groups such as the Poor People’s Campaign, Reform LA Jails, Justice LA, and LA Voice.