As is the custom among scholarly journals, the Rose+Croix Journal invites academically substantive commentary on any paper that has been published in the current issue or in any archival issue. Accepted commentary is posted on this Webpage and is hyperlinked to the respective paper.
Commentary of a less formal nature will be considered for publication on the Rose+Croix Journal companion Facebook page.
All commentary should be submitted to email@example.com.
Amygdala activation can be a factor in measurement of PSI. Very little is known about how the brain processes PSI information; however, this may be happening at a quantum level via microtubule Fibonacci firing patterns that are interpreted by the pre-frontal cortex into information that researchers are evaluating. The slightest amygdala activation is going to disrupt this vibrational circuit causing frequency distortion / signal interference (however one wants to label it). It is possible that that as more people accept PSI there will be a decrease in subtle amygdala activation, which in turn will lead to better results. In other words, the skepticism of the many may have a direct influence on the few.
This sort of activation may be beyond our ability to measure at this time. A minute frequency distortion can cause a change in PSI perception. For example a radio dial can be turned just a little and one receives a whole new station. Or it may throw the station being received just out of tune creating static in the primary signal.
It has been postulated that the uncertainty principle plays a part in amygdala activation. Ideally the researcher is not in any way trying to influence the experiment. Researchers are objective, not invested in the results, and separate from the data being collected. This is simply “not true” and an impossible state to achieve given what we know about quantum reality and particularly quantum entanglement. Abraham Maslow said, “If I love my rats enough they will prove anything for me.” If a researcher, or anyone on the research team has an agenda, even though he/she may not outwardly express it, a PSI subject will perceive it at a vibrational level.
A possible mechanism for PSI perception is quantum entanglement, which requires entrainment with what is being observed at a distance. It may be that the term “at a distance” has little to no meaning when one is in a state of quantum consciousness. In order to communicate directly from this state, reductionist language is not adequate, and an attempt to use reductionist language could bring one back into a consciousness of reductionist perception.
I envision that as more and more people meditate and live their lives with more and more consciousness the field will naturally change, as evidenced by this Rose+Croix Journal paper. Such a paper might not have been published ten years ago.
So my only criticism of the article is the complexity with which one has to deal in a PSI study when it comes to variables within a reductionist model. This is because the reductionist model, by its very name, is disassociated from the whole. At best it can only suggest the behaviors of the whole.
It may be that systems science models with reductionist feedback systems may be more applicable. However ever these types of models still come down to suggestions that must be accepted at a certain level of consciousness.
John Beaulieu, N.D., Ph.D.
 Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, “Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The ‘Orch OR’ Model for Consciousness,” in Toward a Science of Consciousness – The First Tucson Discussions and Debates, eds. Hameroff, S.R., Kaszniak, A.W. and Scott, A.C. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996), 507-540.
 Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Henry P. Stapp, and Mario Beauregard, “Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and Psychology: a Neurophysical Model of Mind–Brain Interaction,” Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 360(1458) (June 29, 2005): 1309–1327.