Here are two articles about morphic fields and the power of intention as demonstrated by Rene Peoc'h's telekinesis experiments. What are your thoughts? ~ Noa
Peoc’h’s Chicks and the Power of Intention
If you’re sitting comfortably, we’ll begin ….
Once upon a time, there was a French scientist called Rene Peoc’h, who had some strange ideas about how consciousness might be able to influence things and events at a distance.
To test this out, he came up with a neat experiment using a small robot (programmed to move about randomly and to provide a trace print-out) and some newly-hatched chicks. On hatching, these chicks had been exposed to the robot, in order for them to become ‘imprinted’ onto the robot .
In the first part of the experiment, the little robot was set to trundle around in a room that was empty except for an empty cage over to one side:
ROBOT’S MOVEMENT in ROOM with CAGE EMPTY
As can be seen from the trace diagram, the robot moved quite randomly round the room, as would be expected.
In the second half of the experiment, Peoc’h placed the chicks he’d imprinted on the robot in the cage and then placed the robot in the room as before – with the following interesting result:
ROBOT’S MOVEMENT in ROOM with CHICKS in CAGE
Yes, look again. This time, the robot stays in the half of the room where the chicks are, with some very dense trace print directly in front of the cage.
What does this suggest? Think about it: first condition, with no chicks, the robot does what you’d expect – trundle all over the place. Second condition, chicks now in cage, and robot stays close to them.
Bearing in mind that the robot doesn’t possess consciousness and the chicks possess at least a rudimentary consciousness, it could be argued that the chicks are somehow able to cause the robot to move towards them and to keep it nearby. Forgive me for labouring the point: the chicks appear to be able to influence the robot’s behaviour.
On the face of it, there seems to be no other explanation for the difference in the robot’s actions in the two conditions. Mainstream science doesn’t accept this, arguing the experiment is flawed (without saying quite how or where) and it has been called a hoax. But Peoc’h has replicated this experiment, with the same results. You can see a YouTube short about it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dEget9UD7A.
Ok, so let’s dare to entertain the idea of infinite possibilities. If the chicks ARE doing this, the next question is how? It’s not unreasonable to argue that it could be through a powerful survival instinct. After all, as far as they’re concerned, the robot is Mummy, and instinctively they’re dependent on it. It’s to their advantage to keep Mummy nearby. However, if what seems to be happening here is real, the mechanisms by which it’s happening have yet to be uncovered. But the repeat results of this experiment provide food for unusual thought, at the very least – enough to warrant continued study.
Interestingly, though, mainstream science keeps on ignoring the results of this experiment, and others like it, deeming them flawed or in pursuit of something that doesn’t exist. However, in the words of the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, “Absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of absence.”
Peoc’h’s results seem to suggest that consciousness can influence things and events at a distance. Note that it doesn’t seem to be just through any old random thought that passes through the mind, however. (Thank goodness. Imagine the chaos that would cause if it were so). It seems to have to be through powerful, deeply-held beliefs and feelings. For those chicks, it was about survival.
Given the above, what if we dared to entertain the idea that what Peoc’h is pointing to just might be real? What might the implications be, for us humans, if this experiment reveals a real truth? If it turns out that chicks can influence objects like this, what might we humans be capable of? Indeed, what might we be actually doing already, every minute of every day, in our businesses and our daily lives?
Move over, Harry Potter. We might all be magicians … us and the chicks …
1. The phenomenon of imprinting was first discovered by scientist Konrad Lorenz, who discovered that chicks ‘imprint’ onto the very first thing they see on hatching – in other words, they regard it as ‘mother’ - and will follow it around – see below:
And if you’re interested in Peoc’h’s actual written thesis, go here:
Rene' Peoc'h telekinesis experiments
Human intentions can bring about effects at a distance in a variety of ways: a dog can pick up its owner's intention to come home from many miles away; a cat can respond to its owner's silent call; and a person can feel the intention of someone to call by telephone. Likewise, animals' intentions can affect people to whom they are bonded, as when cats in distress call their owners to the rescue. And animals' intentions can also affect other animals. All these kinds of intentions can work telepathically through morphic fields. But what if an animal's intentions are directed toward an inanimate object rather than a member of its social group? If its intentions could influence such an object at a distance, without any known forms of physical contact, then this would be an example of psychokinesis, the name given by parapsychologists to the action of mind on matter. In some astonishing experiments with young chicks, the French researcher Rene Peoc'h has demonstrated just such an effect. His experiments involved young chicks bonding to a machine instead of their mother.
Newly hatched chicks, ducklings, and goslings "imprint" on, or form an attachment to, the first moving object they encounter, and they then follow it around. Under normal circumstances, this imprinting instinct causes them to bond with their mother, but if the eggs are hatched in an incubator and young birds first meet a person, they will follow that person around instead. In laboratory experiments they can even be induced to imprint on moving balloons or other inanimate objects. In his experiments, Peoc'h used a small robot that moved around on wheels in a series of random directions. At the end of each movement, it stopped, rotated through a randomly selected angle, and moved in a straight line for a randomly determined period before stopping and rotating again, and so on. These movements were determined by a random-number generator inside the robot. The path it traced out was recorded. In control experiments, its movements were indeed haphazard. Peoc'h exposed newly hatched chicks to this robot, and they imprinted on this machine as if it were their mother. Consequently they wanted to follow it around, but Peoc'h stopped them from doing so by putting them in a cage. From the cage the chicks could see the robot, but they could not move toward it. Instead, they made the robot move toward them (Figure 16.1). Their desire to be near the robot somehow influenced the random-number generator so that the robot stayed close to the cage.' Chicks that were not imprinted on the robot had no such effect on its movement.
In other experiments, Peoc'h kept non-imprinted chicks in the dark. He put a lighted candle on the top of the robot and put the chicks in the cage where they could see it. Chicks prefer being in the light during the daytime, and they "pulled" the robot toward them, so that they received more light.
Peoc'h also carried out experiments in which rabbits were put in a cage where they could see the robot. At first they were frightened of it, and the robot moved away from them; they repelled it. But rabbits exposed to the robot daily for several weeks were no longer afraid of it and tended to pull it toward them. Thus the desire or fear of these animals influenced random events at a distance so as to attract or repel the robot. This would obviously not be possible if animals' desires and fears were confined inside their brains. Instead, their intentions reached out to affect the behavior of this machine.
I interpret this influence in terms of a morphic field that projects out to the focus of their attention, connecting them to it. Just as a field of intention can affect people or animals at a distance, so it can affect a physical system. In one case, intention has effects at a distance on the brain. In the other case, intention has effects on random events in a machine. As far as I know, no one has yet repeated Peoc'h's experiments. It is possible that they involve some technical flaw that no one has yet spotted. But if they are reliable and repeatable, they are very important.