Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 66.

4: 239-246

CanwedifferentiatebetweenESPandImagination?
PaulStevens
KoestlerParapsychologyUnit
UniversityofEdinburgh
Abstract
One enduring problem in extrasensory perception (ESP) research lies in
determiningwhichaspectsofapercipient'smentationmightrelatetothetarget,and
which are not relevant. Perhaps this is a false dichotomy and ESP is instead
"imaginationthatrelatestothetarget",anextensionofacontinuousprocesswherein
ourinternalstateisperturbedbyamultitudeofexternalforcesbutonewherewehave
beenabletoextractusefulinformationfromthoseperturbations.Theseperturbations
will not be strong else they would be directly perceived, but instead enter into
consciousawarenessassubtlealterations to'normalthoughtprocesses.This may
manifestasasenseofuneaseorawarenessofdifference,or,asoccurswithweakor
indirectsensoryinformation,inasymbolicform.ESPcanthenbeenvisionednotasa
single"sense"butinsteadasasymbolicunificationofastreamofweakandindirect
informationfromavarietyofsources.
imagination:1.thefacultyoractionofproducingideas,especiallymentalimages,of
whatisnotpresentorhasnotbeenexperienced.2.mentalcreativeability.
extrasensoryperception:thesupposedabilityofcertainindividualstoobtain
informationabouttheenvironmentwithouttheuseofnormalsensorychannels.
CollinsDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage,1986edition.

One enduring problem in ESP research is determining which aspects of a

percipient'smentationrelatetothetarget,andwhichareirrelevant.Inshort,howcan
wedifferentiatebetweenESPandimagination?
Considerforamomentthatthismaybeafalsedichotomy,thatESPisactually
apartofimaginationandnotsomethingseparateatall.WhatwereallymeanbyESP
is "imagination that relates to the target". Some might now assume that I have
declaredmyselfinagreementwiththesceptics,sayingthatpeoplewhohavepsychic
experiencesaremerelydeludeddaydreamers.Infact,nothingcouldbefurtherfrom
mymind.WhatIamsuggestingistheantithesisofthis:thatdaydreamersareperhaps
undisciplinedpsychics!
To explain this, we first need to look at what is understood by the term
"imagination".Theconceptoftheimagination,thencalled"phantasia",seemstohave
beenfirstintroducedintophilosophybyAristotle(Thomas,2001).Hethoughtthat
imaginationwastheprocessbywhichwesaythatanimageispresentedtous,having
a role to play in all forms of thinking, not just with inventiveness or creativity.
Furthermore,hesawitasonehalfofasinglefaculty,theotherhalfbeingthesensus
communis (thecommonsense)whichwasresponsibleforbindingtogetherallthe
inputsfromthesensesintoacoherentwhole.Essentially,mentalrepresentationofan
objectdirectlybeforeuswassensuscommunis,whereasphantasiaorimaginationwas
239

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 66.4: 239-246

thementalrepresentationofsomethingnotphysicallypresent.
Inlateryears,Descartesidentifiedboththecommonsenseandtheimagination
withthesurfaceofthepinealgland,theplacewhereimagesofboththesensesand
memory were inscribed. The joint common sense/imagination faculty mediated
betweentheexternalworldandthemind/soul.Possiblybecauseofthis,subsequent
thinkers tended to subsume the idea of 'common sense' and phantasia under the
generalterm"imagination"andfocussedprimarilyonitasbeingthegeneration,from
whateversource,ofmentalimages.
Today,imaginationandimageryingeneralisnotseenasbeingaprimary
facultybutinstead,asthedictionarydefinitionaboveindicates,simplyastheability
tothinkaboutthingsthatarenotpresentorwhichhavenotbeenexperienced.The
formerisanaspectofmemory,thelatteranessentialbutnotyetunderstoodpartof
creativity. When we talk about imagination in common usage, we are usually
referringtothecreativeaspect.
While memory is not completely understood, there is a fair amount of
consensusonthebasicmechanismsthatallowittofunction.Althoughitundoubtedly
hasaroletoplayinESPexperiences(Blackmore,1980),thismayhavenomore
explanatoryvaluethandoesthestatementthatmemoryplaysaroleinmosthuman
activities; it does not have any obvious application in understanding ESP itself.
Creativity, on the other hand, is much less understood but, according to
parapsychologicalresearch(Dalton,1997),mightbeintimatelyinvolvedwithESP.
Thesourceofcreativity
"Randomprocessesareaninexhaustiblesourceofnewinformationinthe
formofoptionsandalternatives."

RogerBall(1999).

Therehaslongbeenadebateinmainstreampsychologyastothesourceof
creativityandthecreativeimagination.Oneapproachrelatescreativitytothelevelof
randomness within an individual (Treisman and Faulkner, 1987). Essentially, the
creativehigherthoughtprocessesneedaninjectionofsomethingunpredictablebefore
theycangenerateanovelidea.Sometheoriststhinkthatitisallpurelycognitive
(Feldman,1999),thatwelearnhowtobecreative byobservingthingsthatother
peopleconsidertoexhibitcreativity.Theyareproposingtheexistenceof'creativity
algorithms',analogoustothedeterministicprogramsusedbycomputerstoproduce
apparentlyrandomnumbers.Othersthinkthatwithineachofusisabiologicalsource
ofrandomness(Martindale,1999),perhapsagroupofneuronsinthebrainwhichare
accessed by other parts ofthe brain when a given behaviour wouldbenefit from
original input. Cognitive processes would still play a role, but the essential
randomnessexistsapart.
Theproblemwitheitherapproachisapparent.Theformerdeniesanychance
forfreewill,aseverythingwithinuswouldbedeterministic.Italsomeansthatwhat
wecallcreativeisultimatelyunoriginal,arehashingofoldideasinnewpatterns,
whichthenbringsupthequestionofhowthoseideaswerecreatedinthefirstplace!
However,thereisaproblemwiththelatterinthattherearefewpotentialbiological
mechanismsformakinguseofinternalrandomness.Whileweknowthatallphysical
systems,biologicalorotherwise,doexhibittruerandomnoise(forexample,neurons
show a random firing action due tothermal and quantum noise),most biological
systems have evolved so as to reduce the effects of such internal noise (e.g.
240

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 66.4: 239-246

redundancy,neuralnetworks,fuzzylogic).
However,weneedtoconsiderwhatweactuallymeanbyrandominthis
context. I mentioned true randomness above, this being the term applied to
randomnessbasedonsubatomicprocessesthatcurrenttheorytellsusareinherently
random,butisthisactuallyrequiredasthebasisforcreativeprocesses?Bennet(1998)
definesrandomtomean'unpredictabilitybyasmall
set of simple rules'. From a creativity viewpoint, this would require
unpredictabilitybytherulesinherentinthecreativesystemi.e.fromtheviewpointof
thecreativeperson.Thatis,therewouldonlyneedtobesomesourceofinfluence
whichwasnotbasedontheexistentprocesseswithinthatpersonandsowhichwere
unpredictable based on that person's current knowledge. So maybe an alternative
modelwouldbetolookoutsideofthebodyforasourceofunpredictablility:perhaps
external influences perturb internal processes away from their algorithmic paths,
formingnewpatternswhichwecallcreativitywhenitisapplied,orimaginationwhen
itisundirected.The influencesmayinfactcontaininformationfromavarietyof
sourcesallmixedtogetherbut,intheabsenceofknowledgeaboutthesepotential
signals,theappearancewillbeoneofrandomness.
TodemonstratewhatImean,pictureinyourmindapersonsittinginschool,
staringoutofthewindowbutlostinherownthoughts.Therewillbesoundsfromall
aroundthatsheisbarelyawareof:pagesturning,peoplefidgetinginseats,thesounds
of radiators gurgling, of overhead lights humming, traffic in the distance, a fly
buzzingagainstawindow,andsoon.Allofthesesoundsarebeingreceivedbyher
auditory system, activating electrical impulses in specialised neurons and causing
changes in her ongoing brain activity. She might find that these sounds become
incorporatedintoherdaydreamwithoutanyeffortonherpart.Butthisisjustdueto
sounds:thinkaboutthevarietyofpossibleinfluencesthatcouldbeactingonher.
Therewillbechangesinlightlevels,shadowsfromthepeoplearoundherandevents
outside.Therewillbefluctuationsinheatfromdraughtsandsunlight.Thebonesin
herlegsandarmswillpickupvibrationsfromthefloorandthroughherdesk.Sheis
alsoimmersedinelectricalandmagneticfieldsfromthewiring,thefluorescentlights,
herwristwatchandfromthenaturalbackgroundfieldoftheEarth.Shewillevenbe
bathedincosmicradiationfromtheSunandothersources.Allofthesestimuliwillon
somelevelbeinteractingwithdifferentpartsofherbody,andcausinginputtoher
brain.Withoutherbeingawareofthem,thegirlisimmersedinaconstantbarrageof
information about her environment. While most people would agree that she is
unlikely to be able to become directly aware of the majority of this potential
information,itseemsinfeasibletosuggestthatshewillbeunaffectedbyit.Justasthe
soundsbecameincorporatedintothedaydream,perhapstheotherinformationwill
have beentoo.Unlesssomeeffortwasmadetomonitor theseoutsidesourcesof
influence,wewouldprobablyneverknow.
ESP,CreativityandRandomness
"...theeducatedguessorthehunchincludecontrolledrandomness
inotherwiseorderlythinking."

McCarthy,Minsky,Rochester,andShannon(1955)

NowthisisreallywhatwearedoingwhenwestudyESP.Wetrytoobserve
anindividual'smentation(theirmentalimagery),eitherbyaskingthemtoselectfrom
asetoffixedsymbolsormoredirectlybyaskingthemtotrytoverballydescribeit.
241

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 66.4: 239-246

Wethenmatchthatobservationtoaknownexternalsource(thetarget,thesender,
etc.).
Butthesamementation,ifproducedinanonESPsetting,wouldnormallybe
called'imagination'.AnecdotalreportsofESPoftenshowthatsomeexperienceswere
notthoughttobesignificantatthetimebutwerelatercategorisedasESPwhenthey
werefoundtocloselymatchexternalevents,withtheprovisothatthepercipientcould
nothavebeenawareoftheeventsthroughnormal,sensorymeans(butthenagain,
whatisperceptionbutimaginationthatcorrespondstolocaleventsinrealtime?).It
appearsthatimaginationandESPareprimarilydifferentiatedbytheircorrespondence
to external events. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say their known
correspondence.
Ifthisistrue,thenwebegintoseetheplaceofESPinthecontinuumof
experience.Itbecomesanextensionofacontinuousprocesswhereinourinternalstate
isperturbedbyamultitudeofexternalforces,butonewherewehavebeenableto
extract useful information from those perturbations. This approach has some
similaritiestoRexStanford's(1990)psimediatedconformationalbehaviourmodel,
whichsuggestedthatanorganismmakesuseofpsitoproduceadaptiveresponsesto
circumstancesinitsenvironment,thestrengthoftheseresponsesbeingrelatedtothe
needsoftheorganism.Byintroducinganeedsbasedorgoalorientedview(i.e.psi
acts unconsciously in accordance with conscious goals), Stanford avoided the
problem of the organism drowing in psimediated information, a factor in his
earlierPsiMediatedInstrumentalResponse(PMIR)modelthathadworriedhim.The
conceptofESPthatIampromotinginthispaperisinmanywaysmoresimilartothe
PMIRmodelinthattheorganismisindeedfloodedwithinformation.However,Iam
notsuggestingthatthisinformationismediatedbyasinglepsichannelbutinsteadis
amoreglobalprocesswhereinarangeofinfluencesaffectarangeofprocesseswithin
theorganism.Theonly'centralinformationprocessing'onthepartoftheorganismis
thefinalsynthesisofmeaningfromtheoverallpatternofperturbedinternalprocesses.
Thereisnoelementwhereintheorganismcanbesaidtobescanningitsenvironment,
nordoneedsorgoalsnecessarilyplayapartinwhatinformationmaybegained.The
informationissimplythereastheorganismispassivelyperturbedbyitsenvironment.
Sohowmightthishavecomeabout?Ithasbecomeapparentthatevolutionary
processesareverygoodatselectingforchangesinorganismsthatallowthemtomake
useofinformationfromtheirenvironment,especiallywhenthatinformationrelatesto
thatorganism'ssurvival.Wemightimaginethatanorganismwhichhadpriorwarning
of severe weather, perhaps by being sensitive to changes in atmospheric electric
fields, could stockpile supplies and take shelter, thus surviving the storm and
engenderingdescendantswiththesameorbettersensitivity.Itseemsunlikelythatthe
organismwouldbedirectlyawareofthesubtlechangesintheelectricalfields(thatis,
itwouldnothaveadedicatedsenseorganforthispurpose)butmightonsomelevel
learntorecognisethetypeofchangesinitsbodythatresultedanideasupportedby
bioelectromagneticsresearch(e.g.Bell,MarinoandChesson,1992).Ithasevenbeen
suggested(SmithandBest,1990)thattherhythmsofelectricalactivitywhichare
foundinthebrainofallanimalshavethefrequenciestheydoduetomillionsofyears
ofevolutionwithinthepulsationsoftheEarth'selectricalenvironment.
Howwouldweexperiencethis?
IfESPisindeedaformof"externallycorrelatedimagination",thenwemight
242

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 66.4: 239-246

gain insight by looking at a mental state that we know has a high imaginative
component:dreaming.Althoughinsuchastatetheconventionalsensorychannelsare
supposedlyshutdown,externalstimulidostillimpingeuponthedreamingindividual
albeitinalessdirectmanner.Forexample,Nielsen(1993)showedthatstimulationof
partsofthesleeper'sbodywasfrequentlyincorporatedintodreamcontent,butthat
thismanifestedindirectlyasanincreaseinthebizarrenessofthemesrelatingtothe
body.
Hubbard(1994)describestheoriesfromdreamresearchthatsuggestthatthe
brainissomehowabletomakesenseoutofrandompatternsofactivation,creatively
constructingascoherentandplausibleadreamnarrativeasispossible.If,asIam
suggesting,ESPultimatelyarisesfromexternalstimulicausingseeminglyrandom
changestoongoingmentalprocesses,thenthedreamtheorieswouldsuggestasimilar
ESPnarrativeshouldarise.Sowhatarethequalitiesofthisnarrative?
States (2000) suggests that the process is one of association, which is
expressedprimarilyinvisualimagery,andthatthenormalwakingconsiderationsof
efficiency and logic are only thematically relevant. That is, external stimuli are
interpreted symbolically. Research showing that dream content exhibited indirect
associations with applied stimuli has backed this up. Sometimes this is simple
researchbyBerger(1963)foundthatverbalstimuliproducedreamsymbolsthathave
a rhyming association and sometimes more complicated, relating to personal
symbology.Ingeneral,symbolismseemsthewayinwhichourbrains/mindsinterpret
indirectorweaksensoryimpressions.So,perhapswecouldsaythatimaginationin
partevolvedasasymboliclanguagelinkingtheindividualtoitsenvironment.ESPis
asubsetofthis,wherethelinkisverifiable.Ifso,thenwemayhavetostartlookingat
ESPnotasasinglesensebutinsteadasasymbolicunificationofastreamofweakor
indirectinformationfromavarietyofsources.
SowemightexpectthatESPwouldbeinterpretedsymbolically,withindirect
associationsbetweenthetargetandtheESPexperience.Sometimesthesesymbols
wouldbesimple,suchasarhymingassociation,andsometimesmorecomplicated,
relatingtopersonalsymbology.WemightalsofindthatESPwouldbeopportunistic,
withthepercipientgettinginformationfromasmanysourcesasexistedatagiven
time. Thepercipient themselves mightnotevenbeabletocompletely distinguish
between normal and paranormal sources of information. If so, we would have to
reconsider the strategy of trying to determine whether a psychic is really
paranormalorwhethertheymakeuseoftechniquessuchascoldreading.Instead,
ESPwouldbethenamewegivetothewayparanormalandconventionaltechniques
blendtogethertogiveacoherentstreamofinformation.
TheEvidence
Inmymind,themostconvincingevidenceistheintimaterelationshipbetween
imaginationandESP.ESPisdistinguishablefromimaginationonlybythefactof
verification.ESPisalsocommonlyreportedduringdreaming(Ullman&Krippner,
1973),oneofthemostimaginativestatesofwhichweknow.Therearealsohints
about the idea that ESP would be interpreted symbolically. For example, Louisa
Rhine (1953) reports on the highly subjective nature of psi experiences in
spontaneouscases.
Secondly,thereissomesuggestiveevidencefromexperimentalwork.Apilot
studyIconducted(Stevens,2001b)suggestedthatextremelyweakmagneticfields
243

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 66.4: 239-246

altertheinherentrandomnessinpeoplesbrainsbyanaverageof5%.Thisisnow
beingexpandedintoalargerstudythatwilllookatindividualsbaselinerandomness
and how responsive this is to outside influence, and then compare this to their
performance on an ESP task. Another study (Stevens, 2001a) found that similar
magneticfieldscouldsubtlyalterthewaypeopleexperiencedemotionsassociated
withvisualimages.Thereisalsosomeresearchshowinglinksbetweenimaginative
experiencesandexternalphysicalfactors,suchasonebyRandallandRandall(1991)
showingacorrelationbetweenspontaneoushallucinations1 andsolarwindactivity,
andanotherbyErtel(1997)whichfoundcorrelationsbetweensolaractivitycycles
andepisodesofgeneralcreativityinavarietyofhumancultures.
IndirectevidenceincludestheapparentrelationshipbetweenESPsuccessand
theactivityoftheEarthsmagneticfield(e.g.DaltonandStevens,1996),whichmay
go some wayto explaining the inconsistency inthe accuracy ofESP results.Its
possible that too much magnetic activity acts as a form of noise, changing an
individualsbaselinerandomnesssodrasticallythatitishardforthemtoseeanyof
the specific patterns that we would call ESP. There is also the fact that no ESP
sensingorreceivingorganhaseverbeenidentified,whichsuggeststhatitisduetoa
moregeneral,globalfaculty involvingawholerangeofbrainorotherprocesses.
Furthermore,notypeofsignalhasbeendetectedthatcouldaccountforESP.Iwould
suggestthatthismaybeduetotherebeingnospecificESPsignalbutinsteadahuge
range of signals that a talented individual (i.e. a psychic) can synthesise into a
meaningfulexperience.Differentpeoplemightalsoberesponsivetodifferentranges
ofsignals,furtherconfusingtheissuebutpossiblyexplainingsomeoftheindividual
differencesfoundinESPresearch.
Conclusion
"Iamenoughofanartisttodrawfreelyuponmyimagination.Imaginationismore
importantthanknowledge.Knowledgeislimited.Imaginationencirclestheworld."

AlbertEinstein(1929)

ItissuggestedthatESPmaybefirmlyseatedwithinthecontinuumofhuman
perceptual experience, being an extension of a continuous process wherein our
internalstateisperturbedbyamultitudeofexternalforces.Specificallyitisastate
wherewehavebeenabletoextractusefulinformationfromthoseperturbations.ESP
isnotasinglesensebutinsteadactsasasymbolicunificationofastreamofweakor
indirectinformationfromavarietyofsources.
In"TheActofCreation",ArthurKoestler(1989)saidthatanactofintuition
"...maybelikenedtoanimmersedchain,ofwhichonlythebeginningandtheendare
visibleabovethesurfaceofconsciousness.Thedivervanishesatoneendofthechain
and comes up at the other end, guided by invisible links." Koestler's links of
immersedchainreferredtounconsciousprocesses,andundoubtedlythisispartofthe
process ofcreative imagination. But Iwould extend this metaphor toinclude the
influenceofthewindsofchance,thoseexternalinfluencesthatacttomovetheseaof
consciousness in random ways. Is it inconceivable to suggest that occasionally
Koestler'sinvisiblelinksmaybestirredandbroughttogetherinmeaningfulwaysby
thosewindinducedcurrents?
Inthiscasehallucinationsreferstoanyunexplainedvisualexperience,whetheritis
interpretedasparanormalornot
1

244

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 66.4: 239-246

Acknowledgements
ThanksareduetotheKoestlerChair,theINOVAFoundation(USA)andtheBial
Foundation(Portugal),whoprovidedsupportandequipmentfortheresearchthatled
totheideaspresentedinthispaper.Iwouldalsoliketoexpressmygratitudetothe
anonymousreviewerswhoprovidedsomehelpfulsuggestionswhichimprovedthis
paper.
References
Ball,R.E.(1999).ALiteraryclubforanewmillennium:speechdeliveredtothe
125thAnniversaryDinneroftheChicagoLiteraryClub.
http://www.enteract.com/~litclub/BALL4.HTM(16thOctober2001)
Bell,G.B.,Marino,A.A.andChesson,A.L.(1992).Alterationsinbrainelectrical
activitycausedbymagneticfields:detectingthedetectionprocess.
ElectroencephalographyandClinicalNeurophysiology,83,389397.
Berger,R.J.(1963).Experimentalmodificationofdreamcontentbymeaningful
verbalstimuli.BritishJournalofPsychiatry,109,722740.
Blackmore,S.J.(1980).CorrelationsbetweenESPandMemory.EuropeanJournalof
Parapsychology,3,127147.
Dalton,K.(1997).ExploringtheLinks:
CreativityandPsiintheGanzfeld.ProceedingsoftheParapsychologicalAssociation
40thAnnualConvention,119134.
Dalton,K.andStevens,P.(1996).GeomagnetismandtheEdinburghautomated
Ganzfeld.EuropeanJournalofParapsychology,12,2334.
Einstein,A.(1929)in'WhatLifeMeanstoEinstein:AnInterviewbyGeorge
SylvesterViereck',TheSaturdayEveningPost,October26.
Ertel,S.(1997).Burstsofcreativityandaberrantsunspotcycles:hypothetical
covariations.InNyborg,Helmuth(Ed),Thescientificstudyofhumannature:
TributetoHansJ.Eysenckateighty.Amsterdam,Netherlands:
Pergamon/ElsevierScienceInc:491510
Feldman,D.H.(1999).Thedevelopmentofcreativity.InTheHandbookofCreativity
(Ed.R.J.Sternberg),CambridgeUniversityPress,169186.
Hubbard,T.L.(1994).Randomcognitiveactivationindreamingdoesnotrequirea
CartesianTheater.Dreaming:JournaloftheAssociationfortheStudyof
Dreams,4:255266.
Koestler,A.(1989).TheActofCreation,Arkana:London.
McCarthy,J.,Minsky,M.L.,Rochester,N.andShannon,C.(1955).Aproposalfor
theDartmouthsummerresearchprojectonartificialintelligence.http://www
formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html(26thOctober2001)
Martindale,C.(1999).Biologicalbasesofcreativity.InTheHandbookofCreativity
(Ed.R.J.Sternberg),CambridgeUniversityPress,137152.
Nielsen,T.A.(1993).Changesinthekinaestheticcontentofdreamsfollowing
somatosensorystimulationoflegmusclesduringREMsleep.Dreaming:Journal
oftheAssociationfortheStudyofDreams,3,99113.
RandallW.andRandallS.(1991).Thesolarwindandhallucinationsapossible
relationduetomagneticdisturbances.Bioelectromagnetics,12,6770.
Rhine,L.E.(1953).Subjectiveformsofspontaneouspsiexperiences.Journalof
245

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 66.4: 239-246

parapsychology,17,7714.
Smith,C.W.andBest,S.(1990).ElectromagneticMan.J.M.DentandSons:London
UK.
Stanford,R.G.(1990).AnExperimentallyTestableModelforSpontaneousPsi
Events.InAdvancesinParapsychologicalResearch6(Ed.S.Krippner),
McFarlandandCo:54167.
States,B.O.(2000).DreamBizarrenessandInnerThought.Dreaming:Journalofthe
AssociationfortheStudyofDreams,10,110
Stevens,P.(2001a).Effectof5sexposurestoa50microTesla,20Hzmagneticfield
onskinconductanceandratingsofaffectandarousal.Bioelectromagnetics,22,
219223.
Stevens,P.(2001b).Weakmagneticfieldsalterverbalmeasureofinternal
randomness.Unpublishedpilotstudy.
Thomas,N.J.T.(2001)Imagination,mentalimagery,consciousnessandcognition,
DictionaryofPhilosophyofMind,
http://www.members.leeds.ac.uk/n.j.thomas70/(16thOctober2001).
Treisman,M.andFaulkner,A.(1987).Generationofrandomsequencesbyhuman
subjects:cognitiveoperationsorpsychophysicalprocess?Journalof
ExperimentalPsychology:General,116,227255.
Ullman,M.andKrippner,S.(1973).DreamTelepathy.NewYork:Macmillan.

246