Synchronicity and Psi

The "Correspondence Paradigm" is a term coined by John Palmer in his 1979 presidential address before the Parapsychological Association, although, as he pointed out at the time, "this paradigm is more difficult to define because it is less fully developed." Using the term "paradigm" in a broad sense, Palmer also noted that it need not be directly testable; rather, paradigms must be evaluated, in part, "by their capacity to spawn theories which are testable." If we think of the extra-sensorimotor communications model of psi as involving the transmission of energy, or information, from point A to point B, then the correspondence paradigm uses energy being transmitted from a deeper structural level, point C, to both A and B in a meaningful way that might be mistaken for an information transmission directly from A to B.

The difficulty with both of these models, or paradigms, of course, is that in the first instance we have only the rudiments of a theory as to how information may be transmitted from A to B, and an even less clear picture of the nature of C - although a mathematically based synchronicity theory (Gatlin 1977), and a semantically based theory (Honegger 1979) have been proposed.

Theoretical physics has also proposed speculative models to account for psi. Sarfatti's "superluminal communications" model (Mishlove 1975) is compatible with the extrasensorimotor paradigm. Another method of accounting for the paradoxes of quantum physics is the "implicate order" model of David Bohm (1980), which is more compatible with the correspondence paradigm of psi.

Rex Stanford (1977, 1978) has also challenged the extrasensorimotor view of psi, proposing instead his own correspondence model, which he calls the conformance behavior model. For conformance behavior to occur, three criteria are necessary: "(a) a disposed system (a conditioned response such as a conditioned fear or attraction); (b) a random-event generator (REG) ... ; and (c) a contingency such that this REG produces events which control the probability of occurrence of unequally attractive alternative futures relative to the disposed system."

The REG could be either a target-generating device such as the Schmidt machines commonly used in parapsychology research, or "the neural functions of the brain may sometimes act as an REG (Stanford 1978)." Unlike the traditional approach, Stanford's model does not rely upon the existence of "mind." As he said (1978), "When, and only when, all three circumstances are present, the outcome of the operation of the REG will automatically be the alternative future most favorable to (consonant with) the disposition in question." Presumably, this statement was intended in a probabilistic sense.

The conformance behavior model makes none of the distinctions between ESP and PK that Rhine does. Rather, the conformance behavior model is goal oriented and much more akin to Carl Jung's (1955) notion of synchronicity -- acausal but meaningfully related events. While Stanford doesn't see conformance behavior as acausal, he has suggested that it very likely moves through unspecified (and presumably paranormal, in the sense of being unrecognized by current scientific models) mechanisms, which are nevertheless different from the type of mechanisms presumed in the psychobiological model.

Stanford has suggested a variety of experiments to test his paradigm, including testing psi in primitive and even nonliving systems. The measurement of psi phenomena in nonliving systems is one of the experimental predictions of the synchronistic or correspondence paradigm that clearly distinguishes it from the psychobiological one. The correspondence model views psi as a property not necessarily restricted to either psychological or biological systems, but inherent in the physical structure of the universe. Therefore, Stanford also suggests physical boundary conditions for psi based on the characteristics of REGs. Stanford's model of psi promises to expand legitimate parapsychological inquiry to include meaningful coincidences previously relegated to such occult studies as numerology. Although Rhine's model is hard put to explain the original spiritualist and psychical research question of survival after death, the correspondence model does promise to explain both, as well as such non-parapsychological phenomena as creativity and cognitive insights.

It may well be the case that both paradigms can be extended to explain all of the same phenomena, just the way the Ptolemaic view of the earth was sufficient to explain planetary observations even after it had been superseded by the Copernican model. What is important here is that the correspondence paradigm seems to be motivating researchers to reconsider as legitimate areas of parapsychological investigation a range of "occult" phenomena that may very well be related to psi development. Until recently, such areas were not thought worthy of investigation.

The conformance behavior model of psi, although relatively undeveloped, is finding increasing acceptance in the scientific parapsychological community (Edge 1978, Palmer 1979), which is continually in the process of sifting through its empirical data in search of stronger theoretical and methodological foundations.

For the purposes of this book, recognizing the theoretical controversy within parapsychology, I will refer to both models of psi insofar as either of them can be appropriately brought to bear in particular discussions. Indeed, in a way analogous to the wave-particle duality in physics, each model has its strengths and weaknesses with regard to particular kinds of data. The controversy surrounding this clash of models within parapsychology is well ordered and mild (although other controversies within parapsychology, as shall be pointed out, are not). It may be considered "normal science" in Kuhn's (1962) sense. The differences between the two models, although they are indeed significant, are at present relatively unimportant compared to the controversy surrounding the entire field of parapsychology, which bears many characteristics Kuhn associates with scientific "revolution."

Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.

Edge, H. A philosophical justification for the conformance behavior model. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1978, 72(3), 215-231.

Gatlin, L. Meaningful information creation: An alternative interpretation of the psi phenomenon. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, January 1977, 71(1), 1-18.

Jung, C. G. Synchronicity: An acausal connecting principle. New York: Pantheon, 1955.

Honegger, B. Spontaneous waking-state psi as interhemispheric verbal communication. Is there another system? Full symposium papers of the Parapsychological Association 22nd annual convention, John F. Kennedy University, Orinda, California, August 1979.

Kuhn, T. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. (Originally published, 1962.)

Mishlove, J. The roots of consciousness: Psychic liberation through history, science and experience. New York: Random House/Bookworks, 1975.

Palmer, J.A. Parapsychology as a probabilistic science: Facing the implications. Presidential address, 22nd Annual Convention, Parapsychological Associations, John F. Kennedy University, 1979.

Stanford, R.G. Are parapsychologists paradigmIess in psiland? In B. Shapin and L. Coly (Eds.), The philosophv of parapsychology. New York, Parapsychology Foundation, 1977.

Stanford, R.G. Toward reinterpreting psi events. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1978, 72(3), 197-214.