The Weiler Psi

Parapsychology Journalism: The People, The Theory, The Science, The Skeptics

First Sight: A Comprehensive Theory of Psi

This is, I think, a truly great theory of psychic ability.  The book was first published in 2012 so it is all quite new.  The intended audience of the book were clearly psychologists and parapsychologists with a psychology background as it is a very difficult read for the average person.  In the book, Carpenter builds the case for his theory literally study by study showing how the existing literature supports his premise.  This isn’t just some interesting idea he thought up, the whole book is a blueprint for further study.  The thing that makes this book so difficult to read is also what makes it important: the theory is built on a very solid experimental foundation.  You can find Dr. Jim Carpenter’s biography here.

I will explain the theory in a moment, but I should mention first that the reaction of the average experiencer will be “Well, Duh!  I didn’t need a fancy theory to tell me that.” because many of the revelations seem obvious.  But therein lies the greatness of the theory.  It does not contradict how we perceive psi experiences, rather it explains what we already know in terms that the rest of the world can understand.  I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that Carpenter shows how this is supported by the research.  In informal conversations I’ve had with parapsychologists this theory is already well respected.

The theory “First Sight” derives its name from the concept that our primary means of perception is outside of time and space, (i.e. non-local) and that psychic ability is a natural outcome of this.  This part of the theory is not new.  The concept of “first sight” was developed by Cleve Backster  who proposed the idea of primary perception based on his research into the telepathic ability of plants, living foods and human cells.  It makes sense.  If this perception is indeed primary, it should show up in all conscious entities, which, according to Backster’s research, it does.

This means that there are layers of consciousness, but we have to be careful with that term.  Consciousness itself is non reducible.  We can turn a coin for example to see either heads or tails, but neither is a thing unto itself.  They are both parts of the same coin. So when we talk about layers of perception we are really talking about different facets of the same consciousness.  They are not separate in any strict sense and they blend seamlessly together.

According to the theory of first sight, we normally use what I’ll refer to as secondary perception, which is using our five senses to experience and interact with the world.  Secondary perception is far and away the most useful way for us to interact with the world.  It is so useful in fact, that we rely on it almost (but not quite) exclusively.  We feel things with our hands, we communicate with our voices, ears and hands, we move with our feet and we see with our eyes.  We don’t try to do these things solely with psychic ability because our ordinary senses are so much better at ordinary interactions.

According to Carpenter, psi is more or less an unconscious process that operates all the time.  It is impossible to tell where our psychic ability ends and our ordinary perception begins.  They blend together seamlessly and beyond our conscious awareness most of the time.  This is because of subliminal perception; we are wired to recognize things at an unconscious level before they reach our conscious awareness.  Many studies have confirmed this.  But there is more to it.  Recent studies have shown that we have subliminal precognition.  We are constantly feeling the future before we sense it.

Overt Psychic ability will typically come into play when our fives senses cannot perform an action that we intend to undertake.  At that point we can suspend our incredibly useful five senses in order to access our primary perception.  Examples include being alerted to danger through precognition, such as avoiding getting on a train that’s going to crash, (Cox, 1956), having to intuit what someone is thinking in order to understand them, reading people’s emotions when they’re not showing any or aren’t around, or a mother being “in tune” with her child.  All these situations have one thing in common: ambiguity.

Our five senses have limitations, of course.  When our need for information exceeds the abilities of our five senses, we have a situation where ambiguity is present.  When there is sufficient ambiguity, (another way of looking at this is when a situation is beyond our control) our primary perception may take over if our five senses have the ability to quiet down enough for us to access our primary perception more fully.

That’s exactly what we experience!  Crack open any how-to book on psychic ability and you’ll find that they all stress the same thing: quiet down the five senses and allow yourself to just “be.”  That is a state of ambiguity.  This is also intimately tied to creativity, which is strongly related to psychic ability.  Here’s a lecture by John Cleese on how he gets his creative ideas.  At one point during is Monty Python days, he noticed that he consistently came up with better ideas than one of his counterparts that he regarded as more talented.  He eventually realized that this was because he was willing to keep trying if an idea was not good enough.  His creativity (analogous to psychic ability) came through because he was willing to tolerate an extended state of ambiguity.

Once I began reading this book I started to pay attention to how skeptics deal with ambiguity.  (This isn’t part of his book.  This is my interpretation.)  The answer is: not very well.  Skeptics, it turns out, are a very different personality type than experiencers.  On the Myer Briggs Type Index skeptics are mostly ST, (Sensing, Thinking) personality types.  This means that they place far more emphasis on their five senses than other personalities and that they prefer thinking through problems rather than going by feel.

By doing that, they are favoring secondary perception to the point that primary perception is dulled to the point of non awareness.  When they are confronted with an ambiguous situation, they will often choose a sensory solution whether it is appropriate or not because they have trouble accessing their primary perception directly.  Belief in materialism is a prime example of this.  This is not to say that there is something psychologically wrong with skeptics, there isn’t.   They are just better at some types of thinking than others.  Dealing with ambiguity happens to be one of their weaknesses and partially explains why they aren’t open to psychic ability; it is the epitome of ambiguity.

There is far more to this and I will cover this in future posts.

16 comments on “First Sight: A Comprehensive Theory of Psi

  1. Pingback: First Sight Theory | Etheric Studies

  2. Anonymous
    September 20, 2014

    Every person and organism is participating with consciousness and is an extended reality expanding the perceptual boundaries.

    ‘ESP, telepathy, clairvoyance and other parapsychological activities are actually happening all the time and help us make sense of everyday experiences. The First Sight Model provides a new way of understanding such experiences and describes a way of thinking about the unconscious mind that makes it clear that these abilities are not rare and anomalous, but instead are used by all of us all the time, unconsciously and efficiently.’

  3. Pingback: Sacrifice And Its Discontents: An Extradimensional Exchange Mechanism

  4. Tom ButlerTom Butler
    November 2, 2013

    Thanks for the book review. It sounds like one I need to read.

    One of the hardest things for me to do is to wrap my mind around the idea that everything I do is informed by my psychic sensing–not overtly, but in numerous subtle ways I take as simply part of my thought process.

    I have a slightly different take on how to understand “ambiguity.” Kai Muegge, the German physical medium, recently helped me understand why he thinks physical mediums develop and demonstrate in darkness. See: Walter von Lucadou & Frauke Zahradnik: “Predictions of The Model of Pragmatic Information About RSPK” (

    The idea is that the sitters in a séances or witnesses to a paranormal event are part of the circuit. That means they are “channeling” some of the energy. If they are focused on the process, their physical senses are in full control and their psychic “channel” is pretty much closed. By taking at least vision out of the equation, the sitters or witnesses are more able to sense what is happening psychically. They actuallty help the process.

    For ectoplasm, the rest of the story is not that the ectoplasm is sensitive to light so much as it is that the medium needs to maintain deep trance and sitters need to be psychically helping. Also, sudden changes such as introduction of light or grabbing an ideoplastic structure can very suddenly throw the medium out of trance, sometimes causing great harm to the medium. Those ideoplastic structures become more substantial as the séances progresses and can contract with much force.

    An important concept in spiritual teaching is detachment. Everything we experience is compared to what we know (our worldview), and if we do not recognize the information we tend to reject it. The same process is involved in our creative process–we intend an imagined outcome to be real. If the outcome does not match what we wanted, again, we reject it. An ambiguous outcome is like the fuzzy images Walter von Lucadou talks about.

    I create something, it is not exactly what I intended but maybe it will work; I move on.

    By the way, this is an application of Sheldrake’s Hypothesis of Formative Causation. Our worldview is the equivalent of “Nature’s habit” and an ambiguous outcome to a creative cycle leaves room for positive feedback to slightly modify worldview–thus evolving the morphic or organizing field representing who we are.

  5. HEY !
    totally great post Craig !

    i think we’re on our way….your last paragraph is also the way to go re: the extreme ‘skeptic’ mindset > compassion via understanding different skill sets.

    it’s up to the compassionate to show compassion and understanding to those unconsciously afflicted with a limitation in that dept.

    the unconsciously afflicted (in this case, those with extreme debunking disorder) are incapable of much more than outright pity for us poor deluded people. oh well ! when it becomes common knowledge that different strokes for different folks is hard science, they may ease up a little. if not…who cares what the neighbours think, we can write our own wiki 😉

    this theory as you’ve presented it make so much sense indeed. i didn’t ‘duh’ it but nodded along the whole time. ambiguity rocks ! i love doubt and have always been comfy with in-between places. this ties in nicely with George Hansen’s liminality of the paranormal.

    ok ! i’m enthused!

  6. it should should up in all conscious entities, which, according to Backster’s research, it does.

    TYPO !!
    (sorry, can’t help myself 😉

    • craigweiler
      November 1, 2013

      Fixed. Thank you!

    • eek ! another one

      ‘We don’t try to do this things solely with psychic …’

      • craigweiler
        November 1, 2013

        Aaaand fixed. I appreciate this a great deal. I accidentally hit the wrong button and posted this article before I was completely ready and missed some stuff.

  7. Mark
    October 31, 2013

    Hmmm…I’d like to hear more of the specifics about this one. One thing that is coming to mind is people who are good at dulling the 5 senses and still get nothing. Another is the pseudoskeptics who seem to show that they have some psychic abilities that are better than normal, but they ignore them. I’ll be looking forward to your future posts on this one, and I might get the book, at some point. Thanks for making us aware of this one.

    • craigweiler
      October 31, 2013

      I have to confess, I accidentally hit the publish button before I was really ready. Carpenter does not talk about the skeptics at all. That was a connection that I saw myself.

      He does address the issue of psychic aversion, where you do more poorly at a psychic task than you would have by chance alone.

      • Mark
        October 31, 2013

        Don’t they usually call that “psi missing?” It’s interesting, but I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about when people dull their senses and get no significant psi response – positive or negative. I was also thinking about pseudoskeptics getting positive psi results, but I guess that there are a lot of these sorts of questions that we can ask. I might end up getting the book in the future, but I’ll probably wait until after your future posts. It’s encouraging to see someone trying to explain all of this rather that just trying to get more anomalous data. Not that there’s anything wrong with trying to get anomalous data, but explanations are cool, too.

        • i can easily imagine a whole spectrum of perceptive nuances. not everyone has 20/20. folks dulling their senses can include an array of techniques that may or may not work for certain individuals. and i like your point about explaining VS more data. it is encouraging.

  8. moniquestevenson
    October 31, 2013

    I’m not sure about this–I’d say we should look for explanations of psi in the physical. That’s usually where human abilities stem from. I agree that ‘skeptics’ seem to be a different personality type, but some skills we psychics have could be very easily extensions of normal abilities. For example, psychic empathy would be an extension of normal mirror-neuron empathy, with the mind collecting more data than normal, or visions would work well as a quick REM cycle or hallucination with the mind basically having a dream. That said, it’s still a very neat theory, and nice to see a professional addressing this! 🙂

    • craigweiler
      October 31, 2013

      Hi Monique,
      I only scratched the surface of this theory. There is so much more to it. Don’t judge it yet! Trust me, he’s on to something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on October 31, 2013 by in Uncategorized.
%d bloggers like this: