A review of First Sight has appeared in the website of Piero Parisetti, a physician and expert in grief counseling, who has come to think that scientific evidence for psi and survival of death can be deeply important for grieving people.
***********

Finally, a theory for PSI

From the beginning of the controversy between proponents and sceptics of parapsychology, one of the major stumbling blocks has been the lack of a scientific theory which would account for the experimental data and would enable researchers to make predictions.

With much less hype and visibility than it would have deserved, such theory has been proposed in 2012 by North Carolina University Professor James C. Carpenter in one of the most remarkable books I’ve ever read.

First Sight is admittedly not an easy read. The professor is obviously incredibly learned and has put some stupendously sophisticated, solid and compelling thinking into it. However, even the scientifically and philosophically minded reader has to put some effort into the more than 400 pages of thick substance. I am just waiting for somebody to bring some of this brilliant thinking into the language and form of popular science.

The basic tenants of the theory are that, whilst often seen as supernatural, unpredictable, usually and possibly dangerous, psychic activities are actually happening all the time and help us make sense of everyday experiences. Hence the title of the book, and the name of the theory itself – First Sight. This indicates that such faculties and activities are not secondary to “normal” psychological and conscious processes but in fact precede them and, largely, shape them.

According to First Sight, PSI is essential to the construction of experience. Extrasensory perception is the leading edge of the mind’s ability to move to the next experience. Psychokinesis is the leading edge of the mind’s ability to move to the next effect to its intention. These PSI processes are continuously active but normally unconscious and implicit. This implies that all experience and the actualisation of all intention begin at the PSI level of functioning. PSI is not “second sight” but “first sight”.

Extrasensory perception is therefore proposed as an on-going, continuous processes which influences not only the way we move from one thought to another, but also how we perceive the world, how we react to stimuli, what we fear and what we don’t, what we remember and what we don’t, and, more in general, our entire personality. Only occasionally PSI functioning becomes conscious. Otherwise it remains below the level of consciousness as a very useful adaptive mechanism that helps us surviving in a challenging environment.

The strength of the theory lies in the fact that it is based on evidence. It is not just some fancy speculation or smart fantasising. Carpenter draws on a vast array of studies in contemporary psychology on problems as diverse as memory, perception, personality, creativity and fear. As I said, the theory brilliantly accounts for the research findings, and provides the basis for a testable hypothesis.

Given the extraordinary importance of this development to the field of parapsychology, I am truly surprised that this is not all that is being talked about in psychical research circles. I am still to read any book review in the specialised press and I only heard a few of the leading thinkers referring to the theory and the book. Hopefully, that will come soon.

Otherwise, I’m not surprised that none of the many vociferous skeptics has as much as made a mention about all this. Now, they will not be able to go on whining about the lack of a testable theory. The theory is there, it’s solid, it’s compelling and it supports and explains the mass of empirical evidence that’s been gathered for PSI phenomena.

I’m sorry, Mr skeptic, you now really seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.