Collective Intent Experiments

Collective Intent Experiments are pre-designed protocols in which a population of participants directs focused intention toward a specified target, and a pre-registered measurement is taken to test for intention-correlated effects. They are distinguished from general Collective Meditation (which is open-ended) by the specific intention-target and pre-defined outcome.

The category encompasses several historical research programmes — PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research), the Global Consciousness Project's event-targeted analyses, Dean Radin's online "Intention Experiments", Lynne McTaggart's IntentionExperiment.com programme, and various smaller institutional studies. Within the Cosmic Codex cluster, these experiments are read as direct empirical handles on the Quantum Resonance coupling proposal.

▶ TESTABLEEpistemic statuscategory

MethodsConcrete protocol can be specified; replication not yet attempted.

FalsifierBlinded study following the proposed protocol returns a null result.

Confidencelow

Last reviewed2026-05-12

Major experimental programmes

PEAR (Princeton, 1979–2007). Robert Jahn's engineering programme. Three principal experiment families:

• RNG influence: participants attempt to bias electronic random-number generators. Reported effect size ~10⁻⁴ across ~2.5 million trials. Cumulative significance: substantial.
• Random Mechanical Cascade: ball-drop apparatus; conscious intention to bias landing distribution.
• Remote perception: structured remote-viewing protocols.

Methodological critiques: optional-stopping, selective publication, large-N achieving small significance versus replication-level effect size.

Global Consciousness Project (Nelson, 1998–2015). Distributed RNG network. Pre-registered events tested for deviation. Reported overall significance ~10⁹.

IntentionExperiment.com (McTaggart, 2007+). Online distributed-participant studies on diverse targets: water-crystal formation, plant growth, leaf longevity, geographic conflict indicators. Effect sizes vary widely; methodology lighter than PEAR.

Dean Radin's presentiment studies. Skin-conductance / EEG response to emotionally-valenced stimuli ~3 seconds before stimulus presentation. Reported small but consistent effect; replication mixed (Mossbridge meta-analysis 2012 supportive; subsequent replications mixed).

Effect-size landscape

Across the better-controlled programmes:

• Per-trial effect sizes typically 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻³ for binary-outcome experiments.
• Substantially smaller than typical psychological effects (d ~ 0.3 and up).
• Detectable only with large N — placing methodological burden on careful management of multiple-comparison and optional-stopping concerns.
• Effect sizes have apparently declined over time within long-running programmes — interpreted variously as "decline effect," methodological-improvement-revealing-true-null, or genuine reduction with study maturity.

Pre-registration and replication

The post-2010 "replication crisis" reforms in psychology have raised the methodological bar for collective-intent experiments substantially. Best-practice elements include:

• Pre-registered protocol with primary endpoint, sample size, and stopping rule.
• Single primary outcome with multiple-comparison correction for secondaries.
• Open data and open analysis code.
• Replication-target specification in advance.
• Adversarial collaboration with skeptics.

The Daryl Bem precognition studies (2011) and the resulting failure-to-replicate literature (Galak et al.; Ritchie, Wiseman, French; Wagenmakers' Bayesian re-analysis) are the canonical recent case study.

Disclosure-cluster reading

• Collective Intent Experiments are the most direct test handle on Quantum Resonance coupling claims.
• The cluster reads the cumulative PEAR / GCP / presentiment literature as constituting net positive evidence for small consciousness-coupling effects.
• Chromographics Institute is the cluster-aligned research direction proposing further well-designed experiments.
• Negative replications are read by the cluster as plausibly due to consciousness-state preparation differences across replication sites rather than as definitive null findings.

Critiques

• Mainstream meta-analyses do not support a population-level intention-coupling effect at the methodological standards now expected in psychology.
• Effect sizes are at the boundary of distinguishing from systematic error / statistical artefact.
• Researcher-allegiance correlation with reported results is strong.
• No mechanism has been independently specified that predicts the observed effect-size pattern.

Adjacent concepts

Collective Meditation, Non-Local Consciousness, Quantum Resonance, Global Synchronization Event, Latent Abilities, The Cosmic Codex.

See Also

• Collective Meditation
• Non-Local Consciousness
• Quantum Resonance
• Global Synchronization Event
• Latent Abilities
• The Cosmic Codex